Judges Forced To Function As 'Glorified Clerks': Allahabad High Court On Repeated Adjournments In Criminal Appeals

The Allahabad High Court on Tuesday expressed concerns over repeated adjournments being sought in criminal appeals on the ground that counsel have not received the paper book.

The Court said that the practice is resulting in a "gross wastage of judicial time" and forcing the Court to function "more as glorified clerks" than Judges entrusted with adjudication.

A Bench of Justice Salil Kumar Rai and Justice Padam Narain Mishra made these observations while hearing two criminal appeals after counsel sought an adjournment, stating that the paper book had not been received.

The Bench noted that in 80% of the criminal appeals listed for hearing, counsel for the appellant seeks an adjournment on the ground that the paper book has not been received or that they had no information that it had been prepared.

"The very nature of these proceedings grievously errodes the dignity of this Institution, effectively relegating a court of law to the status of a bureaucratic information booth. It forces us to function less as Judges entrusted with the solemn duty of adjudication and more as glorified clerks presiding over an inquiry counter", the bench further remarked.

The observations were made in two connected criminal appeals of 2023. The Court noted that both appeals had been listed on July 21, 2026, and by that date the paper book had been prepared.

However, when the matter was heard on August 5, the counsel for the appellant sought an adjournment stating that he had not received the paper book.

When the Court pointed out that the paper book had already been prepared on July 21, counsel stated that he was unaware of the same and had no information that it had been prepared.

The Bench clarified that it was making no imputation against counsel. However, it observed that, in the circumstances, it was “difficult to believe” that counsel did not know that the paper book had been prepared.

The Court said it felt that the plea of lack of information was “only an excuse to get the matter adjourned today”, while making no final observation on that aspect.

The Bench also flagged concerns on the broader issue of paper books and adjournments in criminal appeals. It observed thus:

"In 80% of the criminal appeals listed for hearing, the counsel for the appellant seeks an adjournment on the ground that they have not received the paper book and had no information that the paper book had been prepared".

The Court further noted that in some cases, paper books had been prepared three or four years earlier, but counsel continued to state that the paper book had not been received.

The Bench referred to the High Court Rules and found no rule mandating that the ministerial section of the Court publish a notice, either in the cause list or on the website, officially informing counsel that the paper book in a particular criminal appeal had been prepared and could be collected from the office.

The Court summoned the concerned Section Officer and Registrar, who informed the Bench that counsel for the parties are notified by phone once the paper book is prepared.

However, no official record of such information is maintained.

The Bench observed that this arrangement did not assist the Court, particularly when a large number of adjournments were being sought because counsel claimed not to have received the paper book.

The Bench requested the competent Committee to consider either amending the High Court Rules or issuing an administrative order requiring the concerned Section to publish a weekly notification.

The Court suggested that the notification could be published on the official website of the High Court or through other appropriate means, identifying the appeals for which paper books had been prepared.

The Court further suggested that such appeals should be listed only after expiry of the period stipulated for counsel to collect the paper books.

According to the Bench, such a "pro-active step" would enable the Court to adjudicate appeals on their merits and help prevent the "gross wastage of judicial time".

Despite the observations, the Court adjourned the matter for the day because counsel for the appellant stated that he had not received the paper book.

The appeal was directed to be listed in the ordinary course.