Multiple Adjournments and plight of Indian Judiciary

1. Introduction

“Justice Delayed is Justice Denied”[i]

- William E. Gladstone.

India’s judiciary has been referred to as a “beacon of hope” in situations of distress and grief. From Hon’ble Justice H.J. Kania to Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, the judiciary, through 74 years and 50 Chief Justices, has achieved significant milestones and addressed spine-tingling issues of society. But, in India, it takes more than a decade on average to settle any dispute. Approximately 4.6 crore cases are pending before Indian Courts, which contributes to significant delays in case disposal and hence increases the burden on the judiciary.[ii]

1.2 Research Problem

Despite provisions allowing for a maximum of three adjournments, the courts frequently grant the parties multiple adjournments beyond the prescribed limit, which slows down the process of administering justice and puts a strain on both the courts and litigants.

1.3 Research Objective

• To scrutinise the reforms brought about to date in the Indian Judicial Mechanism by amendments and judicial pronouncements to curb the misuse of this provision.

• To compare the adjournment provision in India, Philippines, China and Singapore in the paper and suggest specific measures to improve the system and mechanism in India.

  
  

1.4 Research Questions

v What was the status quo regarding the provisions of the amendment?

v What are the subsequent amendments brought to address the menace of adjournments?

v What are the mechanisms, if any, amongst the provisions about adjournment in nations like China, Singapore, and the Philippines?

v What reforms can be introduced to increase the efficiency of Indian Civil Courts and curb the menace of adjournments?

2. Critical Analysis

Socio-Ethical Consideration:

“Expedited justice is irrefutably just as crucial as the delivery of justice itself” [iv]

Adjournments lead to delays in judicial proceedings, which have striding socio-ethical results on the judiciary as well as litigants. The legal mechanism in our nation is neither pocket-friendly nor easily affordable, and hence requires investment of money, time and effort. The majority of the population seeking such access belong to the middle class, who save for their children and their old age. In such a circumstance, delays impose substantial financial strain on citizens and erode public confidence in the judiciary. This further creates an apprehension in their mind, for which they deny accessing the judiciary due to the long processes and unduly benefits the oppressors.

Prolonged judicial processes create an image in society where people fear making relations with people having long-standing cases in courts. Such images hinder applying for and seeking for job, starting a new venture. At times, even buying a property, as background verification comes into play in every scenario.

Further, people find their money and resources depleted in the process, and after a tarnished image, face difficulty in getting their children married off as well. Such a delayed judicial process also raises eyebrows on the ethical standards of the legal profession as lawyers, to keep extracting money, seek more and more dates. Another issue highlighted lately is witness fatigue, which leads to justice not being delivered to the suffering party and deterioration in the quality of witnesses presented.

Impact on Judicial Productivity.

Courts may, in the cases of sufficient cause at any stage of the suit, grant an extension of time to either party or both or might adjourn the case to a next date for which the reasons have to be recorded in writing by the judges. This power, however, is completely discretionary and not dependent on any set of rules and regulations. However, with time, the need to regulate such powers was realised and the Supreme Court laid down certain circumstances under which adjournments can be granted in the case of.[v]:

These provisions, however, are often misused, undermining their intended purpose of facilitating justice. The average number of adjournments granted in the India Subordinate and Civil Courts is in the range of 12-32 in the civil cases.[vi] An Indian Civil Judge has 30 listings of cases every day, and as per a survey conducted, he is only capable of handling 10-15 cases each day efficiently, and adjournments hence are granted liberally.[vii]

People abuse these provisions rather than as a remedy, which concerns the Supreme Court.[viii] The court here ordered the lower courts to punish the complainants who wilfully misuse the privileges afforded to them by this clause. Reiterating the preamble of the constitution, Dr. K. M. Munshi asserted the goal of securing socio-political-economic justice to all citizens.[ix] With the backdrop of pending cases the judiciary is crippled and hence cannot function to its best. This not only burdens the court but also slows down the overall judicial process.[x]

Abuse Of The Process:

Parties at a higher economic pedestal use various tactics to get further dates and delay the process to frustrate the other party to the extent that he is forced to withdraw their suit. advocates may present fabricated medical certificates or other excuses so that parties don’t attend the proceedings on the due date, all these lead to multiple adjournments, which leads to significant undermining of the process and hence is a huge issue for perusal.

Judicial Discretion:

The discretionary power granted for the benefit of the party, however, results in a tool for the easement of judges for their lackadaisical behaviour. In some cases, the judges over-grant the adjournments owing to pressures or simply to manage their overloaded dockets. This leniency becomes a tool for the well-resourced party who might seek adjournment to exhaust the opposite party financially or emotionally. This might also result in the compromise of the quality of evidence owing to witness fatigue, and hence, justice might not be delivered. Hence, the Judicial efficacy of judges must also be ensured. Furthermore, to reduce the frequency of case revisitation by judges, technological tools should be developed that will ultimately reduce their sluggish approach. Due to a lack of clear guidelines, judges might also fail to grant adjournments in genuine cases and hence exercise their discretion in a lopsided manner.

3. Legal Framework

Status quo before amendments:

Under Order XVII, there was no strict limit on the number of adjournments a party could seek, allowing litigants to repeatedly delay proceedings under the vague justification of “sufficient cause”. Courts had unchecked discretion in granting adjournments, often leading to unnecessary postponements due to procedural lapse, witness unavailability or advocate requests. This misuse resulted in decades-long delays in civil disputes, instilling the image of a judiciary painted with an institution that provides “tareek pe tareek”.

Amendments to order XVII:

While addressing the problem of overburdening of the judiciary, the 163rd Law Commission came up with an extensive draft of the Code of 1908.[xi] However, the recommendations crystallised only in 2002, when the amendments came into force under the 46th Amendment Act.[xii]

The order now states that the party seeking adjournment must abide by the norms and reasonably prove a sufficient reason for seeking an adjournment before the court, and such an adjournment can only be granted once such reason is recorded and the court has verified such reason.[xiii] The courts also impose certain penalties on the parties appealing for adjournments, whose range depends on the court’s discretion.[xiv] Courts also possess the onus of fixing the next date at the very moment of granting adjournment.[xv] The amendment also fixed the number of adjournments that can be granted to several three in a particular case.[xvi]

When challenged on the ground of constitutional validity, these amendments went through a close perusal by the judiciary itself.[xvii] As a result of this case, a committee under Justice M. Jagannath Rao proposed its report stating that the ceiling limit is not unconstitutional; rather, it aids the judicial health of the courts.[xviii] It read that in the Order XVII Rule 1(1)[xix] along with rule 1(2) [xx] of the same order and held that clauses from (a) to (e) that were already there in the statute in 1976 by the 104th Act were to remain intact and, therefore the power of the court to grant adjournments in situations beyond reasonable control of the party continued to be a valid provision under clause (b).[xxi]

Implementational Challenges:

Although the new amendment imposed certain restrictions on the granting of adjournments, it still kept the door open for misuse by allowing the party to seek adjournment for events or circumstances beyond their control. It is viewed that in contemporary times, lawyers use this mechanism to flout the rules and mandate and present fabricated and exaggerated claims of “uncontrollable circumstances” to secure adjournments, resulting in strategic delay. Justice Dipak Mishra observed, “that litigants pray for adjournment as if it were their right to seek adjournment, displaying a blatant disregard for the court proceedings”.[xxii] In 2022, the Hon’ble Supreme Court revealed that there were 70,000 cases whose primary reason was adjournments [xxiii].

Judicial Pronouncements:

Granting adjournments is dependent on the catholic discretionary power of the courts. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Radha v State of Uttar Pradesh underlined that the image of the Supreme Court as someone who gives “tareekh pe tareekh” should be rebuilt, and hence, the credence in the judiciary must be restored.[xxiv] It was also underlined that judges, owing to their sluggish attitude, approve the request of adjournments, which invigorates the lawyers to ask for it at every minor inconvenience.[xxv]

When an adjournment was sought in the case of Ramji Lal Shama v Civil Judge, Allahabad, it was explicitly observed that “seeking unnecessary adjournment on non-existent grounds with the oblique motive of delaying the trial of the suit, invites action to contempt.”[xxvi]

Similarly, in the case of Surendra Kumar and Anr. v. Rajendra Kumar Agarwal held that the sluggish attitude adopted by the judiciary leads to unnecessary delays & multiple adjournments and hence needs to be curtailed, and such can be done through close perusal of the grounds of appeal.[xxvii] The Apex Court, while deliberating Proviso (d) of Order XVII Rule 1(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in the case of Bashim Ahmed v. Mehmood Hussain Shah laid down that an adjournment cannot be granted on the grounds of illness unless court is satisfied that they are unable to engage with another counsel “in time”, where “in time” refers to reasonable time given to the party with a view of making alternative arrangements, and if still the party defaults to present a counsel that would lead him to bear the costs for failing to present and alternative counsel.[xxviii]

In a case, the higher court dismissed the case after deciding the adjournment and denying the appeal for restoration, with a penalty of 50,000 rupees, when the counsel defaulted to show up owing to his illness.[xxix] Former Chief Justice of India, J.C.Shah, made a statement that “If the backlog of cases keeps rising at this same pace, it would be a danger that judicial administration may collapse in the future.”[xxx]

4. Comparative Analysis

Comparison: Philippines:

The Philippines has made significant strides in addressing its long-standing issue of backlogs. The Philippines, a nation in the southern archipelago of Asia and India both the nations share the same colonial legacy, which had a great impact on the legal framework of the nation.

The widely revered Continuous Trial Reform, implemented since 2017, aims to expedite trials and resolutions by shifting from a stricter timeline to arrangement methods to place similar trials together and dispose of them efficiently. This not only streamlines the process but also incentivises efficiency.

Further, their Justice on Wheels programme tackles geographical barriers to justice by bringing courts directly to remote areas and empowers marginalised communities to seek justice. Also, to streamline case processing and identify bottlenecks, they have introduced the Case Flow Management System, which provides data for improved court management and monitors and tracks the time that a particular case takes, increasing judicial transparency. This not only helps in real-time monitoring of the cases but also helps prioritise pending cases and allocate resources accordingly. Additionally, Judicial Performance Evaluation tools hold the Judges accountable for their case handling efficiency, ensuring that judges are accountable even for the adjournment dates, unlike India.

Comparison: China

China, India’s neighbouring country with a comparable population, reported a backlog of 4.54 million cases in 2023. This was 4.45 % less as compared to the pending cases of the previous year. Further, China has a population similar to that of India in numbers.This decline resulted from multiple systemic reforms, namely:

Ø Strict Case Time Limits:

The Chinese judiciary has implemented a limit of 6 months for the disposal of civil cases, and judge exceeding this limit has to seek approval from the president for the extension of time for such a case, with the grounds for such extension, hence making the extension a long procedure.

Ø Judge’s accountability :

Every adjournment order has to be well-reasoned and cannot be merely granted for “unavailability of the party”. If the case is of unavailability, electronic mediums can be resorted to resolve the case. The judges will be evaluated on their case disposal rate, and if a judge repeatedly fails to meet the deadlines, they would have to face disciplinary actions. Further, courts to have internal audits to ensure the judges do not delay the case unnecessarily.

Comparison: Singapore

Singapore serves as a compelling benchmark due to its reputation for judicial efficiency and a shared British legal legacy. What needs to be noted is that both Singapore and India have British influence over their legal system, and with growing ties between both nations, the best practices can help India truly emerge as a “vishwaguru”. Some of them are:

Ø No adjournment without justification rule

The courts do not grant adjournments easily. Lawyers must provide a valid and compelling reason for seeking an adjournment. Reasons such as lack of preparation or personal inconvenience, unavailability of the witness, are not accepted as valid grounds.

Ø Case Management Conferences (CMCs)

Before a trial commences, parties mandatorily have to attend a case management conference where the court sets strict deadlines for filing documents and hearing dates. Judges ensure that parties adhere to these schedules, minimising adjournment requests later.

Ø Adjournment Penalties & Cost Sanctions

If unjustified and repeated requests are made for adjournment the judge might impose sanctions, penalty and if the judge thinks that such adjournments are to cripple the judicial time then they might proceed ex-parte.

Ø Electronic Case Management & Digital Hearings

Courts in Singapore have resorted to fully digital systems, reducing logistical adjournments. This eliminates delay and adjournment requests based on travel or scheduling issues, and many minor hearings (subject to the discretion of courts) are conducted through audio-video means.

5. Solution

After going through the mechanism prevalent in multiple nations, one can conclude that adjournment is a necessary evil in modern times. However, unfettered use creates an extensive backlog and maximises negative impacts. To achieve the balance between fairness and efficiency, the following steps are suggested:

1. Creating an Adjournment Credit System:

Once the statutory limit of three adjournments is exhausted, further adjournments can be granted only after a certain fee is deposited. If the defendant seeks adjournment, he will have to submit fees, and the amount to be decided by the court, depending on the nature of the suit. The fee should progressively increase with each subsequent adjournment to discourage misuse.

2. Follow a two-tier mechanism

Increase judicial transparency, the judge alone should not only take decisions post three adjournments, and a panel of retired judges for each court must be established to decide upon the adjournment, and all the applications for adjournment must be heard on specific dates. The panel should convene on predetermined days to assess adjournment requests. Such a panel of retired judges must maintain the records of why the adjournment is being granted and can only allow on valid grounds and not mere “unavailability and travel issues”. The panel of judges is to be paid with the money collected through the adjournment credit system, as suggested earlier.

3. Case Management System:

In light of the judiciary, a “case management system” refers to a system of management of time and events in a lawsuit as it proceeds through the justice system. The two crucial objectives of this are setting time standards for key court events and regulations on adjournments. Following the Singapore system, we can establish precise timelines for crucial case events such as entering an appearance, filing defences, and closing pleadings, which provides a structured and predictable pathway for the progression of cases. Incorporating similar procedural standards can reduce delays and adjournments.

4. Incentivising and Deterrence:

Incentivise judges who tend not to allow adjournment and are not callous in their approach. It should be made a criterion to help assess judges for their promotion. An additional step can make the parties who seek adjournment act as a financial deterrent by paying the other party the costs of delay

6. Conclusion and Suggestions

Adjournments have become a serious impediment to the efficient functioning of the judiciary. The rising culture of delay owing to multiple issues let it socio-legal concerns, ethical concerns, financial concerns, tactical abuse of the process by counsels, and the lackadaisical judicial approach, threatens the right of the people to have a fair share of trial and prompt justice. Taking inspiration from foreign nations and law commission reports, it calls for solutions that can curb this menace and immunize our courts to the cancer of delay. Such steps must also be supported with proper implementation methods. Earlier, several law commission recommendations were also made, but were never implemented. Vacancies of judges in courts must be filled at the earliest. The law commissioners studied the subject of understaffing the judiciary in its 120th report, and the apex court recommended 50 judges per million of the population instead of the current 10.5/million.[xxxi] As a result, it should be implemented as early as possible.

The cost of establishing courts at any level is significant. If the court could be made to run in the same infrastructure in two shifts, employing retired judges, judicial officers, that would alleviate the arrears steadily and swiftly. Taking inspiration from the Philippines, implement a Judges' Performance Evaluation tool to increase the efficacy of cases disposed of and reasons for justifying the adjournments. It is the need of the hour to implement alternative dispute resolution mechanisms like arbitration, mediation to minimise the sheer amount of undisposed cases. The judges should be fairly strict at the first stage and differentiate between frivolous and genuine litigation.

The responsibility for fostering the adjournment culture lies collectively with litigants, legal practitioners, and the judiciary. The malicious litigants seek it to obtain an unfair edge over the other party in a lawsuit. Advocates use this strategy to earn extra money from their customers. And, out of institutional inefficiency, the courts give adjournments without questioning the purpose of the side seeking adjournment. Therefore, joint efforts are required to reduce the bulk of cases over the civil court and reinstate their efficiency as well as the belief of the people in receiving fair and speedy justice.

---

By S.Abhipsha Das

The author is a Third-Year law student at Symbiosis Law School, Pune. Born and brought up in the temple city of India, Bhubaneshwar, she holds her culture and roots close to her heart. Amidst her legal coursework, she finds time to mend her pen and keep her culture thriving. 

---

References:

[i] Shobhit Rawat, Adjournment Culture: An Executioner of Justice, 3 Jus Corpus L.J. 302 (2022).

[ii] Gauri Pande, Adjournments in Judiciary; a Relentless Adversity: A Descriptive Study of the Three Adjournment Rule in Civil Suits, 2 INDIAN J.L. &LEGAL Rsch. 1 (2021).

[iii] National Judicial Data Grid, 18th March 2025.

[iv] Ibid at 2.

[v] CIT v. Express Newspapers Ltd, (1994) 2 SCC 374.

[vi] Bhavay Malhotra, Adjournment: A Challenge for the Indian Judicial System, 2 INDIAN J. INTEGRATED RSCH. L. 1 (2022).

[vii] Vandana Ajay Kumar, Judicial Delays in India: Causes & Remedies, 4 J.L. POLY & GLOBALIZATION 16 (2012).

[viii] M/S Shiv Cotex v. Tirgun Autos Plast Pvt Ltd. & Ors, (2011) 9 SCC 678.

[ix] Ibid at 2.

[x] Stage Wise Pendency Chart, National Judicial Data Grid.

[xi] Report No. 163, Law Commission of India, 1999.

[xii] 46th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2002.

[xiii] Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order XVII, Rule 1(1).

[xiv] Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order XVII, Rule 1(2).

[xv] Id.

[xvi] Ibid at 6.

[xvii] Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu v. Union of India, (2005) 6 SCC 344.

[xviii] Committee on Reforms of Civil Justice System, Report, Pt 2, Paragraph 5, 2002.

[xix] Ibid at 6.

[xx] Ibid at 7.

[xxi] Ibid at 7.

[xxii] Gayathri v M Girish (2016) 14 SCC 142.

[xxiii] 70K Pending Cases: Supreme Court Blames It on Adjournments," The Economic Times (Apr. 20, 2022, 9:22 AM),https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/india/70k-pending-cases-supreme-court-blames-it-on-adjournments/articleshow/90943695.cms.

[xxiv] Radha v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2016 (6) ADJ 13.

[xxv] Id.

[xxvi] Ramji Lal Sharma v. Civil Judge, Allahabad, AIR 1988 All. 143.

[xxvii] Surendra Kumar and Anr. v. Rajendra Kumar Agarwal, AIR 1990 All. 49.

[xxviii] Bashir Ahmed v. Mehmood Hussain Shah, AIR 1995 SC 1857.

[xxix] Shibanand Mukherjee v. Gopal Chandra De, (2005) 11 SCC 557.

[xxx] Ibid at 1.

[xxxi] Report No. 120, Law Commission of India, 1987.