Gauhati High Court closes PIL on adjournment reforms after HC notification addresses concerns

The Gauhati High Court recently closed a public interest litigation (PIL) petition filed seeking uniform guidelines on adjournments and mandatory digital upload of court records.

A Division Bench of Justices Michael Zothankhuma and Arun Dev Choudhury on August 10 noted that the petitioner himself submitted that an intervening administrative notification issued by the High Court Registry had addressed the concerns raised in the matter.

"Mr. R. Singh, petitioner-in-person submits that in view of the Notification No. 21 dated 23.03.2026, issued by the Registrar General, Gauhati High Court, nothing survives to be adjudicated in the present Public Interest Litigation (PIL). Accordingly, the instant PIL stands closed," the Court said.

Reetam Singh, an advocate enrolled with the Bar Council of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram, Arunachal Pradesh and Sikkim, had filed the PIL in 2024.

He cited his own experience in a case filed under the Negotiable Instruments Act and a money suit to argue that adjournments were being routinely granted by trial courts on inadequate grounds. This violated the scheme of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), and of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), he contended.

He sought directions for a strict adjournment regime limiting adjournments to rare, substantiated circumstances, imposition of costs on counsel seeking unjustified adjournments, a uniform date-allocation system across subordinate courts on the pattern followed by the High Court, and the mandatory online upload of daily order sheets.

These measures were intended to ensure transparency for litigants who otherwise depend entirely on their counsel for information about case proceedings.

The petition also sought the constitution of a committee to frame adjournment guidelines, a digital date-allocation system to be developed in consultation with technical experts from IIT Guwahati, and the framing of disciplinary rules against counsel who misuse the adjournment process.

In the meantime, the new criminal laws came into effect in India, from July 1, 2024. The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) replaced the CrPC.

In March 2026, the High Court's registry issued a notification for the implementation of these new criminal laws. It emphasised that trial courts should adhere to the two-adjournment limit under Section 346(2) of the BNSS.

This provision requires that once a criminal trial begins, it must proceed from day to day until all witnesses are examined, with adjournments discouraged and granted only for recorded reasons. Among other provision, it caps the number of adjournments a party can be granted during the trial at two.

"Where the circumstances are beyond the control of a party, not more than two adjournments may be granted by the Court after hearing the objections of the other party and for the reasons to be recorded in writing," it states.

The March 2026 notification also called for the implementation of BNSS provisions for e-signed summons and the digital signing of judicial orders through the e-Hastakshar application, a measure that could ensure the expeditious upload of daily orders.

The notification further stated that formal witnesses and police officers whose physical presence is not required for court hearings can appear through video conferencing.

The Court on August 10, noted that the said notification appeared to address the main concerns raised by the petitioner. Therefore, it closed his PIL.

The petitioner, advocate Reetam Singh appeared in person.

Advocates S Baruah, and D Bora appeared for respondents.

[Read Judgment]

[Read March 2026 notification]