The Bombay High Court has raised concerns over the practice of “robotic adjournments” frequently sought by the state government in legal matters. The court criticized the state for routinely requesting adjournments without substantial reasons, which leads to unnecessary delays in the administration of justice and a backlog of cases.
Background of the Court’s Observation:
The observation was made by the Bombay High Court during the hearing of multiple cases where the state sought adjournments, often on procedural grounds or without adequate preparation. The term “robotic adjournments” refers to the mechanical, routine, and automatic requests for postponement of hearings without genuine cause, undermining the efficiency and effectiveness of judicial proceedings.
Key Points Highlighted by the Court:
- Impact on Judicial Efficiency: The court pointed out that frequent and unreasoned adjournments by the state disrupt the judicial process and waste valuable court time. It emphasized that such practices contribute to a backlog of cases and impede the timely delivery of justice, which is a fundamental right under the Constitution.
- Need for Preparedness: The court admonished the state government and its legal representatives for appearing unprepared or for failing to submit required documents on time, resulting in requests for adjournments. The court underscored the duty of state counsel to come fully prepared for hearings and to avoid unnecessary delays.
- Detriment to Litigants: The court stressed that repeated adjournments have a direct adverse impact on litigants, many of whom may be waiting for years for their cases to be heard and decided. It acknowledged that this practice affects the public’s trust in the legal system and can be particularly harmful to individuals seeking urgent relief.
- Call for Responsible Conduct: The judges called upon the state to act responsibly and ensure that its legal representatives adhere to high standards of professionalism and preparedness. The court suggested that adjournments should only be sought in exceptional circumstances where there is a compelling reason, rather than as a matter of routine.
Broader Implications of the Court’s Criticism:
The Bombay High Court’s remarks about “robotic adjournments” carry significant implications for the functioning of the judiciary and the government’s role in ensuring efficient legal processes:
- Judicial Accountability: The court’s criticism is a call for greater accountability within the state’s legal apparatus. It emphasizes that the state, as a major litigant, has a duty to avoid contributing to delays in the justice system.
- Prompt and Effective Justice: The court’s observation reinforces the importance of prompt and effective justice. It is a reminder that procedural delays not only clog the judicial system but also deny litigants their right to a fair and speedy trial.
- Administrative Reforms: The remarks may prompt state authorities to undertake administrative reforms to reduce unnecessary adjournments. This could involve better training for state legal officers, stricter adherence to court schedules, and improved internal coordination to ensure readiness for hearings.
Next Steps and Expected Outcomes:
In response to the court’s criticism, the state government is likely to review its current practices and guidelines regarding requests for adjournments. This could include stricter internal policies to ensure that adjournments are sought only when absolutely necessary and that all necessary preparations are made well in advance of court hearings.
The court’s firm stance against “robotic adjournments” could also encourage other courts across India to adopt similar measures to minimize delays, streamline judicial proceedings, and improve the overall efficiency of the justice system.
Conclusion:
The Bombay High Court’s strong remarks against the state’s habitual seeking of adjournments serve as a reminder of the need for efficiency and accountability in legal proceedings. The court’s insistence on preparedness and its criticism of procedural delays underscore the importance of delivering timely justice and maintaining public confidence in the legal system.