'Pendency Of This Court Is 90,000; Will Cross A Lakh; Who's Responsible?' : Supreme Court Pulls Up Lawyer For Adjournment

The Supreme Court on Tuesday criticised the practice of lawyers seeking adjournments to obtain instructions from clients, observing that such conduct contributes to the mounting pendency before the Court.

A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice R Mahadevan pulled up the counsel appearing for the State of Karnataka after she sought time to obtain instructions in a criminal case concerning allegations of trespass and theft of coffee beans.

“Whenever we ask a question, learned counsel will say I have to seek instructions. That's how matters are getting adjourned. The pendency of this court is 90,000. Who is responsible for it? It will cross a lakh”, Justice Nagarathna said.

The Court made the remarks while hearing a plea filed by three sisters seeking discharge in a criminal case relating to alleged trespass into a coffee estate and removal of harvested beans.

During the hearing, the State's counsel sought time to look into the record and obtain instructions on basic questions posed by the bench on the recovery memo. This prompted Justice Nagarathna to remark that the Court was facing a pendency of 90,000 cases.

She added that adjournments may benefit advocates but do not assist litigants. She said counsel must obtain instructions as soon as the cause list is issued, especially now that electronic communication and video conference is available.

Justice Nagarathna also expressed dissatisfaction with the assistance received from the State. “This is not the kind of assistance we should get from the counsels or standing counsel of the State or whoever it is. We asked a simple question – what is the stand of your party…” the judge said.

The case arises from allegations that the accused, who are sisters, trespassed into a coffee plantation on December 23, 2014, harvested coffee beans by threatening estate staff, and transported them in a lorry. They face charges under Sections 447 and 379 of the IPC. The Karnataka High Court refusing their discharge, holding that eyewitnesses had been cited and that the plea of alibi had to be established at trial.

Before the Supreme Court, counsel for the petitioners said that the matter could be settled if sent to mediation. Justice Nagarathna questioned the allegation that the accused had removed 10,000 kg of coffee. The petitioner's counsel said that although this was the allegation, only 10 leaves were seized. When the bench asked what had happened to the coffee seeds and how the coffee seeds were transported, the petitioner's counsel said nothing had been seized and no transporter had been apprehended.

The State counsel said there were eyewitnesses, but when asked about the recovery memo, she sought more time to check the record. This prompted the Court to make the aforementioned remarks.

Ultimately, the Court referred the matter to mediation.

The Supreme Court has often expressed concern about mounting pendency and delays caused by unnecessary adjournments. In 2021, the Court said that the “adjournment culture” breaks the back of litigants and should not be encouraged. In 2023, it noted that long pendency of cases leads to disillusionment among litigants and issued directions to high courts for the speedy disposal of matters, especially those pending for several years.

In May this year, the Court observed that High Courts cannot keep matters involving personal liberty pending after one case had seen 27 adjournments. In September, the Court directed High Courts and trial courts to dispose of bail and anticipatory bail applications without prolonged delay, noting that such applications cannot remain pending for years.