New Delhi: Reinforcing its stand against avoidable delays in court proceedings, the Supreme Court has made it clear that advocates cannot presume a case will be postponed simply because an adjournment request has been submitted. The court stressed that only the Bench has the authority to decide whether a matter should be deferred, and lawyers are expected to attend fully prepared to argue their cases unless an adjournment is expressly granted.
The observation came from a Bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice R. Mahadevan during the hearing of a matter where counsel argued that the proceedings should not continue because the respondents had sought an adjournment.
Rejecting the assumption that filing an adjournment application automatically halts proceedings, Justice Amanullah underscored that the final decision rests solely with the court.
“Please, counsel. It is up to us whether or not we allow adjournment. You have to come prepared and argue. If we allow, only then is it adjourned. This is a message to the Bar,” Justice Amanullah remarked.
During the hearing, the petitioner’s counsel later requested that the matter be taken up on another date. The Bench initially suggested hearing the case later the same day, but the lawyer insisted on a fresh date.
Justice Amanullah responded with a brief but pointed observation:
“Today also is a day.” The Bench ultimately agreed to postpone the matter and directed that it be listed in the following week.
The court’s remarks are consistent with its broader efforts to curb the culture of routine adjournments, which it has repeatedly identified as a significant factor contributing to delays in the justice delivery system. The apex court has, on several occasions, observed that unnecessary postponements increase the backlog of pending cases and prolong litigation without adequate justification.
The observations also align with the Supreme Court’s revised adjournment framework introduced through a circular issued on March 18, 2026. The updated guidelines significantly tightened the procedure for seeking adjournments, replacing the earlier norms.
Under the revised rules, adjournment letters are generally not accepted in regularly listed matters. Even in fresh cases, only one such request is ordinarily permitted. Lawyers seeking additional time must clearly state the reasons for the request, disclose any previous adjournment applications, and provide prior notice to the opposing party.
The circular further states that adjournments should be granted only in exceptional situations, including serious medical emergencies or bereavement, with the objective of ensuring faster disposal of cases and reducing avoidable judicial delays.
