Delhi High Court Criticises Habit of Routine Adjournments, Says Delays Are Hurting Justice

The Delhi High Court has strongly criticised the growing “culture of adjournments” in court proceedings, noting that cases are getting delayed because adjournments are often sought—and granted—without real justification. The Court urged lawyers to act responsibly to help reduce the rising pendency of cases.

Justice Neena Bansal Krishna made these remarks while hearing a plea filed by a litigant who sought the removal of a ₹20,000 cost imposed for repeatedly seeking adjournments in a case pending since 2021.

The Court observed that lawyers frequently request to postpone hearings without proper notice or valid grounds. Justice Krishna remarked that a practice has developed where adjournments are assumed to be granted almost automatically, regardless of the nature of the matter. She warned that such delays seriously affect the smooth functioning of courts.

In this case, the petitioner’s lawyer argued that her previous absence was due to personal difficulties. However, the Court found the explanation unconvincing, noting that the record showed she had been engaged in another professional matter on at least one of the dates. Justice Krishna held that professional commitments cannot be disguised as personal problems to justify repeated non-appearance.

The counsel also mentioned that she was a single parent, but the Court clarified that such personal circumstances cannot excuse continuous delays in a case already pending for several years.

The High Court stressed that unnecessary adjournments slow down the justice delivery system and add to existing backlogs. Justice Krishna added that misrepresenting facts to seek adjournments is unacceptable and must stop.

While the Court criticised the conduct, it still agreed to waive the ₹20,000 cost in this particular instance, considering the circumstances presented. However, Justice Krishna made it clear that this generosity should not be taken as encouragement for similar behaviour in future.

The judge firmly concluded,

“Do not repeat this again, and have the decency to pay the cost.”