The Kerala High Court recently observed that a majority of the adjournment requests made by advocates citing illness, are not genuine. [Gokul Raj v. State of Kerala].Justice A Badharudeen said that even though judges spend sleepless nights studying cases, advocates keep seeking adjournment with illness being their "last weapon"."At present, even though the Judge studies the cases, by halting on sleepless nights and expresses willingness to dispose of the cases, after hearing both sides with a view to reduce the pendency, some Advocates are not co-operating with the Court and they are seeking adjournment on various grounds and `illness’ is their last weapon. I have been granting such adjournments in plenty and the proceedings of this Bench would speak for the same. No doubt, some adjournment requests on the ground of illness are genuine, but majority are not. In such situation, it is very difficult to identify the genuine requests on the ground of illness," the Court said. The Court further said that the "menace of adjournments" is a major reason for pendency of cases."Even though lawyers are duty bound to co-operate with the Court in the matter of disposal and that is what is intended by co-operation between the Bar and the Bench in letter and spirit, time bound disposal of cases could not be materialized because of unnecessary adjournments. This is the biggest menace and the same is the reason for huge pendency of matters before all courts" the Court said in its judgment..Justice Badharudeen also in the judgment included a table showing year-wise pendency of the types of cases under his jurisdiction and noted that the total pendency as of February 2024 is 12,536 cases..Considering the fact that prior study and detailed hearing are required for disposing of second appeals, the Court said that even if a judge disposes of four such cases per day, it would take around 15 years to dispose of all the cases. If four new cases are filed daily, then even a 30 year period would not be sufficient, the Court estimated. "If this is the scenario, how could this pendency be reduced without co-operation of the lawyers, by avoiding unnecessary adjournments," the Court asked. .However, the Court did acknowledge and appreciate the lawyers who have co-operated with it so far. .The issue of adjournments came to the notice of the Court while it was considering a petition moved by a man accused in a case under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. The High Court had previously directed the trial court to dispose of the matter in which the petitioner is accused within a period of 3 months. However, when the lawyer representing him requested a 6 month adjournment citing her illness, the trial court refused to do so. This prompted the petitioner to move the High Court seeking directions to the trial court to complete the trial within 6 months taking into account his counsel's illness. His counsel later passed away but the High Court decided to examine the extent to which an advocate can seek adjournment of a trial for his/her convenience. .Examining the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and judgments of the Supreme Court on the issue of adjournments, the High Court said that the convenience of parties or their counsel cannot supersede the convenience of the court. However, courts can grant adjournments in appropriate cases, on payment of costs, the High Court said. However, considering the fact that the petitioner's counsel had passed away, the Court directed the trial court to allow him two weeks time to appoint a new lawyer and then complete the trial within a period of six weeks from then. .The petitioner was represented by advocate Nireesh Mathew. Senior Public Prosecutor K Denny Devassy appeared for the State. .Justice Badharudeen was recently mired in controversy after he refused to adjourn a matter on a request by a lawyer who cited a doctor's appointment to address a serious back injury.Both the Kerala High Court Advocates Association and the Bar Council of Kerala had written to the High Court Chief Justice, taking objection to Justice Badharudeen's actions..[Read Judgment]
The Kerala High Court recently observed that a majority of the adjournment requests made by advocates citing illness, are not genuine. [Gokul Raj v. State of Kerala].Justice A Badharudeen said that even though judges spend sleepless nights studying cases, advocates keep seeking adjournment with illness being their "last weapon"."At present, even though the Judge studies the cases, by halting on sleepless nights and expresses willingness to dispose of the cases, after hearing both sides with a view to reduce the pendency, some Advocates are not co-operating with the Court and they are seeking adjournment on various grounds and `illness’ is their last weapon. I have been granting such adjournments in plenty and the proceedings of this Bench would speak for the same. No doubt, some adjournment requests on the ground of illness are genuine, but majority are not. In such situation, it is very difficult to identify the genuine requests on the ground of illness," the Court said. The Court further said that the "menace of adjournments" is a major reason for pendency of cases."Even though lawyers are duty bound to co-operate with the Court in the matter of disposal and that is what is intended by co-operation between the Bar and the Bench in letter and spirit, time bound disposal of cases could not be materialized because of unnecessary adjournments. This is the biggest menace and the same is the reason for huge pendency of matters before all courts" the Court said in its judgment..Justice Badharudeen also in the judgment included a table showing year-wise pendency of the types of cases under his jurisdiction and noted that the total pendency as of February 2024 is 12,536 cases..Considering the fact that prior study and detailed hearing are required for disposing of second appeals, the Court said that even if a judge disposes of four such cases per day, it would take around 15 years to dispose of all the cases. If four new cases are filed daily, then even a 30 year period would not be sufficient, the Court estimated. "If this is the scenario, how could this pendency be reduced without co-operation of the lawyers, by avoiding unnecessary adjournments," the Court asked. .However, the Court did acknowledge and appreciate the lawyers who have co-operated with it so far. .The issue of adjournments came to the notice of the Court while it was considering a petition moved by a man accused in a case under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. The High Court had previously directed the trial court to dispose of the matter in which the petitioner is accused within a period of 3 months. However, when the lawyer representing him requested a 6 month adjournment citing her illness, the trial court refused to do so. This prompted the petitioner to move the High Court seeking directions to the trial court to complete the trial within 6 months taking into account his counsel's illness. His counsel later passed away but the High Court decided to examine the extent to which an advocate can seek adjournment of a trial for his/her convenience. .Examining the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and judgments of the Supreme Court on the issue of adjournments, the High Court said that the convenience of parties or their counsel cannot supersede the convenience of the court. However, courts can grant adjournments in appropriate cases, on payment of costs, the High Court said. However, considering the fact that the petitioner's counsel had passed away, the Court directed the trial court to allow him two weeks time to appoint a new lawyer and then complete the trial within a period of six weeks from then. .The petitioner was represented by advocate Nireesh Mathew. Senior Public Prosecutor K Denny Devassy appeared for the State. .Justice Badharudeen was recently mired in controversy after he refused to adjourn a matter on a request by a lawyer who cited a doctor's appointment to address a serious back injury.Both the Kerala High Court Advocates Association and the Bar Council of Kerala had written to the High Court Chief Justice, taking objection to Justice Badharudeen's actions..[Read Judgment]
