R ARIVANANTHAM
CHENNAI, MAR 20
In India’s courtrooms, justice has long been measured not just in verdicts—but in adjournments. Now, in a decisive institutional pivot, the Supreme Court of India has moved to dismantle what many call the “adjournment economy”—a culture where delay often outpaced delivery.
- From courtroom culture to constitutional correction—adjournments under judicial scanner
- A paradigm shift: discipline, disclosure, and digital scrutiny redefine litigation practice
- From unilateral pleas to adversarial testing—new regime empowers the opposite side
- Legal titans weigh in: efficiency vs fairness debate intensifies across the Bar
- From Krishna Iyer’s humanism to Chandrachud’s structural realism—law evolves, delays shrink?
- Voice from the ground: ‘Delay is denial for working journalists’
With over 92,800 cases pending before the apex court and more than 5 crore cases across the judicial system, the latest circular marks a structural intervention aimed at reclaiming time as the judiciary’s most critical resource.
The end of informality: Procedure takes command
The new framework replaces discretion-heavy practices with codified discipline. Adjournment requests must now be pre-served on the opposing party, filed with proof, and submitted before strict deadlines—effectively ending the era of ambush adjournments in open court.
This aligns with longstanding judicial concern that procedural laxity fuels pendency. Legal studies have repeatedly flagged adjournments as a major driver of delay in India’s courts.
From silence to scrutiny: The other side speaks
For the first time, adjournment pleas face structured opposition. The adverse party can formally object, ensuring that delay is no longer a unilateral privilege but a contested judicial question.
Former Attorney General K.K. Venugopal had cautioned, “Adjournments cannot become a strategy—they defeat justice itself.”
Disclosure as deterrence: Accountability redefined
The circular mandates full disclosure—reasons for adjournment and prior history—placing litigant conduct under judicial lens.
Former CJI Ranjan Gogoi had underscored this ethos: “Procedure is not a technicality; it is the discipline of justice.”
Exception, not entitlement: Raising the bar
Adjournments will now be granted only in exceptional situations—bereavement, medical emergencies, or compelling necessity. Routine excuses—lack of preparation or scheduling conflicts—stand effectively disqualified.
Former CJI N.V. Ramana had warned, “Justice delayed is justice denied in its most literal sense.”
Jurisprudential shift: From Krishna Iyer to Chandrachud
The debate over delay is not merely procedural—it reflects evolving judicial philosophy.
The late V. R. Krishna Iyer, known for his humanist approach, viewed procedure as a means to advance substantive justice—often favouring flexibility where equity demanded.
But recent judicial thinking signals a shift. Former CJI D. Y. Chandrachud, in a separate constitutional context, cautioned against rigid or expansive doctrines that could distort institutional balance, noting that earlier approaches sometimes rested on “a rigid economic theory” influencing constitutional outcomes.
In fact, he observed that such doctrinal approaches could amount to a “disservice to the broad and flexible spirit of the Constitution.”
The philosophical subtext is clear: where earlier courts privileged flexibility, the present moment demands structure to preserve institutional efficiency.
No second chances: Hard guardrails imposed
The circular introduces strict limitations:
- Only one adjournment in fresh matters
- No back-to-back adjournments without court scrutiny
- Absolute bar on adjournment letters in regular hearings
Senior jurist Fali S. Nariman has long argued, “Delay is the most visible failure of the system.”
Bar & Bench: Between hope and hesitation
The Bar’s response has been mixed. While many hail the move as overdue, others caution against over-correction.
On social media, the reform is being described as everything from a “historic clean-up” to a “procedural squeeze.” Younger lawyers, however, see it as a leveller—reducing tactical delays by better-resourced litigants.
A moment of reckoning
This is more than a circular—it is a constitutional signal. By embedding timelines, transparency, and accountability, the Supreme Court is attempting to rewrite courtroom culture itself.
As former CJI Dipak Misra aptly said, “Delay is the deadliest enemy of justice.”
The question now is not whether the system can change—but whether it can sustain this change.
Voice from the ground: ‘Delay is denial for working journalists’
R. Manickavasagam, Joint Secretary of the Gujarat Journalists’ Union and a retired Senior Sub-Editor who has been at the forefront of implementing the Majithia Wage Board Award since 2017, welcomed the Supreme Court’s move as a “trendsetting intervention” to curb systemic delays.
“We wholeheartedly welcome this decisive step, which will go a long way in checking the dilatory tactics often employed by powerful media managements,” he said.
Urging wider judicial reform, he added, “We appeal to the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India to ensure that this framework is replicated across all subordinate courts without delay, so that uniform discipline is enforced throughout the judicial system.”
Highlighting the human cost of prolonged litigation, Manickavasagam noted with concern, “Several of my colleagues have passed away without reaping the benefits of justice, despite two binding orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court delivered by Benches led by former Chief Justices Justice P. Sathasivam and Justice Ranjan Gogoi.”
He further alleged that repeated re-litigation has become a strategy to wear down employees. “Media managements routinely resort to re-litigation and procedural delays, effectively discouraging print media workers—especially those on contractual terms—from pursuing their rightful claims,” he said.
