It Breaks The Back Of Litigants And Kills Justice: SC Urges Courts To Get Out Of Adjournment Culture
Supreme Court’s Concern: “Adjournment Culture”
The Supreme Court has repeatedly criticized the practice of granting frequent or unnecessary adjournments in litigation. It has described this as a disease in the judicial system because:
It breaks the back of litigants (causing financial and emotional burden).
It kills justice (as “justice delayed is justice denied”).
It erodes public confidence in the justice delivery system.
The Court has emphasized that judges must avoid granting adjournments mechanically and instead ensure time-bound disposal of cases.
Key Legal Principles
Article 21 – Right to Speedy Trial
A fundamental right under Article 21 includes not just protection of life and liberty, but also a speedy justice process.
Delay caused by adjournments infringes this right.
Judicial Duty
Courts are duty-bound to manage proceedings efficiently.
Repeated adjournments benefit only those who want to delay justice, not the genuine litigants.
Balance of Justice
While reasonable adjournments may sometimes be necessary, routine or frivolous adjournments tilt justice against the weaker party, especially in civil and family disputes.
Important Case Laws
Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979)
The SC held that speedy trial is a fundamental right under Article 21.
Delay due to adjournments or inefficiency is unconstitutional.
Krishnan v. Krishnaveni (1997)
The SC observed that unjustified adjournments defeat the ends of justice and courts should exercise control over proceedings.
Salem Advocate Bar Association v. Union of India (2005)
The SC upheld amendments in the CPC restricting adjournments and directed courts to minimize delays in civil cases.
State of U.P. v. Shambhu Nath Singh (2001)
The SC criticized the practice of adjournments, holding that justice delayed amounts to justice denied.
Noor Mohammed v. Jethanand (2013)
The SC reiterated that courts must curb the adjournment culture and ensure adherence to procedural timelines.
Court’s Direction
Judges must exercise discretion strictly and avoid routine adjournments.
Adjournments should be granted only for exceptional and unavoidable reasons.
Imposition of costs on the party seeking adjournment may be considered.
Courts must move toward a time-bound justice delivery system.
Summary Table
| Aspect | Supreme Court’s View | Case Law Reference |
|---|---|---|
| Right to speedy justice | Speedy trial is a fundamental right | Hussainara Khatoon (1979) |
| Effect of adjournments | Delays cause injustice and erode faith | Krishnan v. Krishnaveni (1997) |
| Control over adjournments | Courts must minimize them, impose limits | Salem Advocate Bar Association (2005) |
| Adjournments = denial of justice | Justice delayed = justice denied | Shambhu Nath Singh (2001) |
| Need for judicial discipline | Adjournments only in exceptional cases | Noor Mohammed (2013) |
✅ In essence: The Supreme Court has urged courts to come out of the “adjournment culture,” since unnecessary delays cripple litigants financially, emotionally, and legally and ultimately kill the spirit of justice.
RELATED Blog
0 comments