The Supreme Court on Thursday dismissed a writ petition seeking the formulation of guidelines to regulate adjournments in courts across the country, prescribe timelines for the disposal of cases and implement a uniform national case flow management policy for the judiciary.
The Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice V Mohan rejected the plea after a brief hearing, declining to issue any directions on the measures sought by the petitioner.
At the outset, the Court questioned the petitioner, who appeared in person, for wearing an advocate’s band while arguing his own case. When the petitioner informed the Bench that he was an advocate, Justice Nath observed that an advocate is entitled to wear the band only when appearing in the capacity of a lawyer and not while appearing as a litigant in person.
After the petitioner stated that he was unaware of the rule, Justice Nath remarked that although the petitioner claimed ignorance of the dress code requirements, he was simultaneously seeking extensive directions on how courts across the country should regulate adjournments and manage judicial proceedings.
The petitioner clarified that he was merely seeking guidelines to improve judicial administration. However, the Court suggested that concerns regarding court procedures and professional practices could be raised before appropriate institutional bodies, including the Bar Council of India (BCI), State Bar Councils and Bar Associations functioning at the High Court and District Court levels.
When the petitioner contended that the Supreme Court was the appropriate constitutional forum to issue such directions, Justice Nath responded in a lighter vein that the Court did not wish to create friction with members of the Bar, observing that judges and lawyers function as partners in the administration of justice. The Bench thereafter proceeded to dismiss the petition.
The petitioner sought comprehensive guidelines governing the grant of adjournments in all courts and tribunals. He requested that adjournments be restricted to exceptional and bona fide circumstances and that courts be required to record detailed reasons whenever an adjournment is granted.
The plea also proposed that parties be informed about the number of previous adjournments granted in a matter and that realistic and deterrent costs be imposed in cases involving unnecessary delays. It further sought strict enforcement of statutory provisions relating to adjournments under the Code of Civil Procedure and the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.
The petitioner also sought directions for the time-bound disposal of cases. The proposed framework included indicative outer timelines for different categories of proceedings, subject to flexibility depending on the complexity and nature of the dispute. The plea further suggested mandatory case management hearings at the initial stage of proceedings, written explanations for delays beyond prescribed timelines and periodic monitoring of case progression.
In addition, the petition sought the formulation and implementation of a Uniform National Case Flow Management Policy applicable across all courts in the country. The proposed policy envisaged stage-wise timelines for judicial proceedings, regulation of adjournments, continuous and day-to-day hearings in appropriate matters and priority disposal of old and long-pending cases.
The Supreme Court, however, declined to entertain the plea and dismissed the petition without issuing any directions, leaving the proposed reforms and policy suggestions unaddressed.
The post Supreme Court declines plea seeking guidelines on adjournments and time-bound disposal of cases appeared first on India Legal.