SC Questions ‘Adjournment Habit’; Says Pendency at 90,000 and Rising
The Supreme Court on Tuesday criticised the growing habit of lawyers asking for adjournments to obtain instructions from their clients, observing that such delays significantly add to the Court’s already heavy backlog.
A Bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice R Mahadevan expressed strong displeasure when the lawyer representing the State of Karnataka sought additional time to verify the record in a criminal matter involving allegations of trespass and theft of coffee beans.
“Whenever a question is put, counsel immediately says instructions need to be taken. This is how cases keep getting pushed. The pendency of this Court is 90,000. Who is responsible for that? It will soon cross one lakh,” Justice Nagarathna remarked.
The comments came while hearing a petition filed by three sisters who had sought to be discharged from a criminal case alleging that they had entered a coffee estate on 23 December 2014, threatened plantation workers, harvested coffee beans and transported them in a lorry. They face offences under Sections 447 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code. The Karnataka High Court had earlier refused their request for discharge, noting the presence of eyewitnesses and holding that the plea of alibi would have to be proven during trial.
During Tuesday’s hearing, the State’s counsel asked for more time to respond to basic questions about the recovery memo, triggering the Court’s concern over repeated adjournments. Justice Nagarathna said that delays may serve advocates but ultimately harm litigants who expect their matters to move forward. She observed that counsel ought to obtain clear instructions as soon as the cause list becomes available, particularly when digital communication and video conferencing make coordination easier.
Expressing dissatisfaction with the assistance provided by the State, Justice Nagarathna said, “This is not the level of assistance expected from State counsel or standing counsel. We asked a straightforward question—what is the position of your party?”
The petitioners argued that the dispute could be resolved through mediation, and the Bench referred the matter accordingly. Justice Nagarathna also questioned the prosecution’s allegation that 10,000 kg of coffee beans had been removed, noting the petitioners’ contention that only ten leaves were shown as seized. When the Bench asked what had become of the coffee or how it had supposedly been transported, the petitioners stated that no beans were recovered and no transporter had been apprehended. The State reiterated that eyewitnesses existed but again sought time to check the recovery memo.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly highlighted the impact of unnecessary adjournments on the justice system. In 2021, it commented that the culture of routine adjournments severely burdens litigants. In 2023, it underscored that prolonged pendency contributes to widespread frustration among those waiting for their matters to be heard. Earlier this year, the Court criticised delays in matters affecting personal liberty—one case had received 27 adjournments—and directed High Courts and trial courts to dispose of bail and anticipatory bail applications promptly, without allowing them to linger for years.
