Prohibition Of Adjournments
Prohibition of Adjournments
Adjournments refer to the postponement or deferral of a court proceeding to a later date. While adjournments are sometimes necessary for ensuring fair trial and justice, excessive or unjustified adjournments delay justice and amount to denial of justice, which is considered against the principle of speedy trial.
Importance of Prohibition of Adjournments
Expedite Justice: The legal maxim "Justice delayed is justice denied" underscores the importance of avoiding unnecessary adjournments.
Prevent Abuse of Process: Excessive adjournments can be used by parties to harass the opponent or to frustrate the judicial process.
Protect Litigants' Rights: The right to a speedy trial is part of the right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
Judicial Discipline: Courts must exercise restraint and avoid giving adjournments as a matter of course.
General Principles on Adjournments
Adjournments should only be granted for sufficient cause.
Courts should balance the need for fairness with the need to prevent undue delay.
Parties must be discouraged from seeking adjournments as a tactic.
Courts have inherent power to refuse adjournments if they cause injustice or delay.
Case Laws Explaining Prohibition of Adjournments in Detail
1. Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin (1978) AIR 851, 1978 SCR (3) 183
Facts:
The Supreme Court dealt with the issue of repeated adjournments causing delay in hearing.
Held:
The Court held that adjournments should be sparingly granted and only for valid reasons. Courts must resist the practice of giving adjournments as a matter of routine.
Significance:
Established that excessive adjournments defeat the object of speedy justice and courts must exercise judicial discipline.
2. Ravindra Kumar v. Union of India (1985) 3 SCC 114
Facts:
The petitioner complained about unnecessary adjournments in a matter which delayed the hearing.
Held:
The Court held that a party seeking adjournment must satisfy the court about the necessity and cause. Courts have a duty to discourage abuse of adjournments to ensure justice is delivered in a timely manner.
Significance:
This case reinforced that adjournments should not be granted as a matter of course.
3. Jaya Bachchan v. Union of India (2006) 8 SCC 504
Facts:
The Supreme Court took suo motu cognizance of delayed cases caused by frequent adjournments.
Held:
The Court emphasized the constitutional right to speedy justice and directed courts to minimize adjournments. It stated that adjournments must be restricted to exceptional cases.
Significance:
Strong judicial message on curbing misuse of adjournments to uphold Article 21 rights.
4. M/s Mohan Singh and Co. v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1977) 4 SCC 441
Facts:
The appellant had repeatedly sought adjournments which delayed the trial.
Held:
The Supreme Court held that the right to adjourn is not absolute, and courts have the discretion to refuse adjournments when parties abuse this right.
Significance:
Emphasized the importance of judicial discretion in preventing adjournment abuse.
5. K.C. Varghese v. ITO (1981) 4 SCC 99
Facts:
The case involved adjournments in tax proceedings leading to delayed disposal.
Held:
The Court ruled that the Court or Tribunal must act with due diligence and not indulge in adjournments unless absolutely necessary.
Significance:
This principle applies across civil and criminal cases to avoid unnecessary delay.
6. Rajendra Singh v. Union of India (1976) 2 SCC 677
Facts:
The petitioner challenged delays caused by repeated adjournments.
Held:
The Supreme Court observed that courts should not grant adjournments on flimsy grounds and must ensure speedy trial as part of the right to life.
Significance:
Affirmed that speedy justice is a fundamental right and adjournments must not frustrate this.
Summary
Adjournments should be granted only for justifiable and exceptional reasons.
The court must exercise judicial restraint and discretion to prevent adjournment abuse.
Excessive adjournments amount to denial of justice and violate the constitutional right to speedy trial (Article 21).
Parties should avoid seeking adjournments as a litigation tactic.
Courts have a duty to expedite cases and ensure justice is delivered timely.
RELATED Blog
0 comments