Poor Assistance By Advocates Hinders SC's Direction For Disposal Of Bail Pleas In 2 Months : Allahabad High Court

A bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi observed that such conduct of the lawyers becomes "a hurdle in speedy dispensation of justice" and thwarts the Supreme Court's recent direction that bail matters be decided within two months of filing.

The Court made these remarks while hearing a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution seeking direction to a family court to expeditiously dispose of a maintenance case (filed in 2023) under Section 125 CrPC.

Briefly put, on March 12, 2025 the Family Court passed an order granting interim maintenance to the petitioner and fixed the matter for evidence on May 23, 2025.

During the course of the hearing in the HC, the High Court noted that the petition's annexures were put in such a 'haphazard' manner that the Court had to invest 'unduly long time' in going through the record.

It noted that the matter had earlier been taken up on September 16, 2025, when it was passed over to enable the petitioner's counsel to bring on record the copies of the orders of the trial court arranged in a proper manner.

Yet, on the next date, the single judge further noted, petitioner's counsel again began his submissions afresh without even pointing out that on the last date, the Court had passed over the case in order to enable him to correct the error.

Taking exception to this conduct, Justice Vidyarthi observed,

"It is indeed a very sad state of affairs where the Courts are overburdened with work and several of the learned counsel do not assist the Court fairly and to the best of their ability".

The Court also recorded the scale of its workload on that particular day as it stressed it had 91 fresh matters and 182 other matters listed before it, besides 6 miscellaneous applications. The Court added that all petitions were to be dealt with within the Court's scheduled sitting time of 300 minutes.

It also noted that the roster assigned to it included an extensive range of matters such as all minor bail and anticipatory bail applications, criminal cases pertaining to the Enforcement Directorate and CBI, matters related to MPs and MLAs and other criminal proceedings under the CrPC and BNSS.

The single judge further observed that when the Supreme Court has directed all courts to decide bail matters within two months of their filing, such poor quality of assistance by counsel "creates a hurdle in speedy dispensation of justice to the litigants".

The Court also referred to its recent judgment in Vipin Tiwari vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 175 wherein the HC had requested the Bar members to cooperate in expeditious dispensation of justice by being precise and concise while preparing pleadings as well as while making submissions before the Court.

Expressing dismay that its repeated requests had gone unheeded, Justice Vidyarthi remarked that when the Court is under oath to perform its duties to the best of its ability, "there is no option except for going through the record to ensure rendering justice to the petitioner inspite of the poor assistance rendered by the Advocate".

Furthermore, the Court also said that although all courts in Uttar Pradesh are functioning under immense workload, applications under Section 125 CrPC must be decided expeditiously.

It also noted from the Family Court's order sheet that the respondent had repetitively abstained from appearing and that the case was proceeding ex parte.

Accordingly, the High Court directed the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bahraich, to proceed with the case expeditiously in accordance with law, without granting any unnecessary adjournment to any of the parties and by fixing dates at short intervals.