Chief Justice of India, Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, highlights the urgency to curb adjournment culture in courts and expedite justice.

In the corridors of justice, the phrase “Tarikh-pe-Tarikh” has often resonated as a stark reminder of the adjournment culture prevalent in Indian courts. This practice of repeated postponements, immortalized by Bollywood’s iconic “Damini” dialogue, has long plagued the legal landscape, delaying the dispensation of justice and eroding public trust. However, Chief Justice of India Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, in a resolute stance, has called upon lawyers to rethink their approach. He urges the legal fraternity not to seek adjournments unless absolutely necessary, aiming to prevent the Supreme Court from becoming a “tarikh-pe-tarikh” court.

In the past two months, the Supreme Court has witnessed a staggering 3,688 cases where lawyers sought adjournments, highlighting the urgency of this issue. The gravity of this situation lies in its potential to undermine citizens’ trust in the judicial system and delay justice delivery. The Chief Justice’s plea resonates with the intent to enhance the efficiency of the courts, reduce adjournments, and uphold the sanctity of justice.

Adjournments have been a common recourse for lawyers, often with legitimate reasons like : Lawyers may request adjournments to adequately prepare for hearings, gather evidence, and review legal documents. This is critical to ensure that cases are presented comprehensively, and justice is served ; Unexpected events, such as family emergencies or significant changes in circumstances, may necessitate adjournments to address these exigencies effectively ; In the face of a burgeoning caseload, lawyers may seek adjournments to avoid scheduling conflicts with other cases and ensure that their case is heard with the attention it deserves.

However, it is crucial to note that adjournments, when excessively and needlessly sought, can disrupt the judicial process, compromise the sanctity of justice, and erode public faith in the legal system. The plea made by Chief Justice Chandrachud arises from this very concern.

Chief Justice Chandrachud’s call for restraint in seeking adjournments is aligned with a broader vision to expedite the process of justice. In his view, the Supreme Court must not merely be a “tarikh-pe-tarikh” court, but an institution committed to timely resolution of cases. The urgency of this matter is underscored by the fact that an average of 154 adjournment slips is filed every miscellaneous day, often in sharp contrast to the urgency with which cases are mentioned for hearing. A noteworthy aspect of Chief Justice Chandrachud’s plea is his acknowledgment of the progress achieved in reducing the time between filing fresh cases and their listing in the Supreme Court. This accomplishment has been the result of fruitful collaboration with lawyers’ associations, and it is imperative to ensure that this progress is not undermined by excessive adjournments.

The significance of Chief Justice Chandrachud’s plea lies in its potential to transform the Indian judicial landscape. As of now , approximately 5 million cases were pending in Indian courts, encompassing the Supreme Court, High Courts, and subordinate courts across the country. The exponential growth of pending cases is a consequence of historical backlogs and an increasing number of cases being filed. It poses a substantial challenge to the Indian judiciary’s ability to ensure timely justice. The culture of adjournments not only exacerbates the backlog issue but also affects the efficiency and credibility of the court system. The refrain of “Tarikh-pe-Tarikh” in courts echoes a process marred by delays, inefficiencies, and prolonged agony for litigants.

The essence of Chief Justice Chandrachud’s call to limit adjournments is to uphold the trust of citizens in the judicial system. When cases are filed and listed with urgency, it reflects the commitment of the judiciary to dispense justice promptly. Conversely, excessive adjournments create a perception of procrastination and indifference, which can erode the faith that individuals and communities place in the legal system. By curbing adjournment culture, the legal fraternity has the opportunity to send a powerful message to the public: the pursuit of justice is a priority, and the courts are dedicated to delivering it efficiently. This transformation aligns with the principles of transparency, accountability, and accessibility that underpin a robust democracy.

Chief Justice of India Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud’s impassioned plea marks a pivotal moment in the evolution of the Indian legal system. It emphasizes the need for change, not only within the legal fraternity but in the hearts and minds of every Indian who looks to the courts for justice. The quest to expedite justice, eliminate the culture of adjournments, and prevent the Supreme Court from becoming a “tarikh-pe-tarikh” court is a shared responsibility.

As legal practitioners and advocates reflect on the Chief Justice’s call, the legal landscape stands on the brink of a transformative era. The vision to reshape the judicial process, reduce delays, and enhance efficiency is a commitment to the welfare of citizens and the integrity of the legal system. In this vision, the court system is a beacon of hope, a sanctuary for the pursuit of justice, and a true embodiment of the phrase “Justice delayed is justice denied.” With Chief Justice Chandrachud’s plea as a catalyst for change, the legal community has the power to expedite justice and secure the trust of citizens, transcending the echoes of “Tarikh-pe-Tarikh” to embrace the promise of “Justice on time.”

visit arjasrikanth.in for more insights