Adjournment culture in Indian courts has become a serious structural threat to the right to speedy justice. That unforgettable Sunny Deol outburst in Damini—”Tareekh pe tareekh!”—hits way too close to home for anyone who’s tangled with the Indian justice system. It’s basically the soundtrack of our courts, especially in the lower judiciary, where hearings get pushed back, day after day, for every imaginable reason under the sun. We’re talking about adjournments in roughly 50% of the cases that even make it to the docket each day. This isn’t just frustrating—it’s a full-blown crisis, eroding the constitutional promise of speedy justice and leaving millions in limbo.
In a courtroom crackdown that echoed the frustrations of millions of litigants, the Supreme Court of India unleashed a scathing indictment on the “adjournment culture” plaguing its corridors. With over 90,000 cases languishing in pendency – a number poised to breach the ominous 1 lakh mark – Justices B.V. Nagarathna and R. Mahadevan didn’t mince words. “Pendency of this court is 90,000. Who is responsible for it? It will cross a lakh,” Justice Nagarathna thundered, her voice a clarion call against the endless cycle of delays that has become the bane of India’s judicial system.
The trigger? A seemingly routine request for time to “obtain instructions” from a client in a decade-old criminal case involving three sisters accused of trespassing into a coffee estate and pilfering harvested beans. What unfolded was a stark reminder that adjournments, often dismissed as procedural niceties, are in fact the silent saboteurs of justice – eroding public faith, prolonging suffering, and turning the right to a speedy trial into a hollow promise under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The Coffee Bean Caper: A Microcosm of Judicial Woes
At the heart of the November 26 hearing was a plea for discharge filed by three siblings from Karnataka, ensnared in a 2014 FIR under Sections 447 (criminal trespass) and 379 (theft) of the Indian Penal Code. The allegations painted a dramatic scene: on December 23, 2014, the sisters allegedly stormed a coffee plantation, intimidated estate workers with threats, harvested beans, and spirited away an estimated 10,000 kg in a lorry. Eyewitness accounts and a recovery memo formed the prosecution’s backbone, but the sisters’ counsel painted a picture of exaggeration – claiming only 10 leaves were actually seized, with no transporters apprehended and scant evidence of the massive haul.
The Karnataka High Court had rebuffed their discharge plea, insisting eyewitness testimonies warranted a full trial and that any alibi defense must be tested there. Before the apex court, the petitioners’ advocate floated mediation as a salve, prompting Justice Nagarathna to probe the quantum of the alleged theft: “What happened to the coffee seeds? How were they transported?” The response? A revelation of evidentiary voids – no seeds recovered, no lorry impounded.
Enter the state’s counsel, who, when pressed on the recovery memo’s details, sought an adjournment to “look into the record and obtain instructions.” It was the proverbial last straw. Justice Nagarathna’s rebuke was swift and surgical: “Whenever we ask a question, learned counsel will say I have to seek instructions. That’s how matters are getting adjourned.” She lambasted the practice as self-serving for advocates but disastrous for litigants, urging counsel to preemptively gather briefs the moment the cause list drops.
“Electronic communication and video conferencing are available now,” she added, underscoring how technology should expedite, not excuse, delays. Justice Mahadevan joined the chorus, decrying the “kind of assistance” from state counsels as woefully inadequate. “We asked a simple question – what is the stand of your party?” The bench’s exasperation wasn’t just rhetorical; it reflected a systemic failure where basic preparedness is sacrificed at the altar of convenience.
In a nod to pragmatism amid the polemics, the court ultimately referred the matter to mediation – a procedural olive branch in a case ripe for out-of-court resolution. Yet, the episode laid bare a deeper malaise: adjournments aren’t mere pauses; they’re the accelerant fueling a pendency inferno that scorches the judiciary’s credibility.
The Pendency Plague: A Decade of Warnings Unheeded:
This isn’t the Supreme Court’s first rodeo with the adjournment epidemic. The judiciary’s backlog – ballooning to 90,000 cases in the apex court alone, with over 5 crore pending across all levels – has been a recurring nightmare. In 2021, the court decried the “adjournment culture” as a back-breaker for ordinary citizens, vowing to stamp it out. By 2023, it issued directives to high courts for swift disposal of aging matters, bemoaning how delays breed “disillusionment” among litigants.
The litany continued into 2025. In May, the bench flagged high courts’ habit of letting personal liberty cases fester after absurdly high adjournment tallies – one case had racked up 27! September brought a clarion call for expeditious bail and anticipatory bail hearings, with the court thundering that such pleas can’t marinate for years.
These admonitions draw from a rich jurisprudential vein, where speedy justice has been etched as a cornerstone of Article 21’s right to life and personal liberty. The foundational stones were laid in the 1970s and ’90s, evolving into a bulwark against procedural procrastination.
Landmark Rulings: From Crisis to Cure
The Supreme Court’s arsenal against pendency is fortified by precedents that blend outrage with reform. Consider Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar 1980 (1) SCC 98 and Abdul Rehman Antulay v. R.S. Naik 1992 (1) SCC 225. – twin pillars that weaponized Article 21 against dilatory tactics. Hussainara Khatoon, born from Bihar’s undertrial horror show, ordered the release of prisoners languishing without trial, exposing how delays morph into de facto punishments. Antulay amplified this, declaring excessive procrastination at any stage – from probe to appeal – a constitutional violation. It armed courts with a six-prong test: nature of the accusation, state negligence, prejudice to the accused, and more. Echoes resound in Anil Rai v. State of Bihar 2001 (7) SCC 318
mandating judgments within six months to forestall “judicial lethargy.”
Fast-forward to the cheque-bounce deluge: In Re: Expeditious Trial of Cases Under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (2021) 16 SCC 116. A Constitution Bench, aghast at millions of stalled cases, empaneled a committee under Justice R.C. Chandy to overhaul procedures. It decreed summary trials under Section 143 NI Act, slashed adjournments, and greenlit magistrates to halt baseless proceedings via Section 258 CrPC. High courts were tasked with evening sittings and jurisdictional pruning, slashing multi-year timelines.
Civil suits fared no better, as Yashpal Jain v. Sushila Devi 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1377 illuminated. Justices S. Ravindra Bhat and Aravind Kumar dissected a 41-year-old property tussle, pinning blame on lax summons, tardy written statements, and rampant adjournments. Their 12-point manifesto? Time-bound summons under Order V CPC (no more than 150 days), 30-day deadlines for pleadings per Order VIII Rule 1, and bi-monthly high court committees to triage ancient cases. Principal District Judges must now audit five-year pendencies monthly, enforcing “continuous hearings” post-evidence to neuter frivolous delays.
The freshest salvo arrived in Ravindra Pratap Shahi Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
[Criminal Appeal No(s). 3700-3701 of 2025 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No(s). 4509-4510 of 2025] where Justices Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra recoiled at a high court judgment delayed nearly a year post-hearing. Slashing the prior six-month benchmark, they imposed a ironclad three-month pronouncement deadline. E-monitoring, bench reassignments for overruns, and safeguards against “judicial inaction” eroding Article 21 were mandated – a direct riposte to the very pendency the court now battles.
A Call to Reckoning: Reimagining Justice in the Digital Age:
As the Supreme Court grapples with its 90,000-case albatross, the November 26 dressing-down serves as both indictment and impetus. Justices Nagarathna and Mahadevan’s words – “Adjournments may benefit advocates but do not assist litigants” – crystallize a truth long acknowledged but sluggishly addressed. In an era of virtual hearings and AI-driven case management, the excuse of “seeking instructions” rings hollower than ever.
Yet, hope flickers in the court’s proactive pivots: mediation referrals, procedural overhauls, and unyielding precedents. For the three sisters in the coffee conundrum, and the lakhs ensnared in similar webs, the path to justice remains fraught. But as the apex court vows to breach the 1 lakh pendency wall, one thing is clear: the era of unbridled adjournments is on borrowed time. The gavel of reform, long poised, is finally descending – demanding accountability from bar and bench alike to restore the pulse of speedy, fair justice to India’s democratic heart.
Inder Chand Jain
M: 8279945021
Email: [email protected]
