Supreme Court Rejects Plea Seeking Guidelines Regulating Adjournments, Timelines For Case Disposals

The Supreme Court today dismissed a petition seeking a series of directions for regulating adjournments in courts across the country, prescribing timelines for the disposal of cases and formulating a uniform national case flow management policy.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice V Mohana rejected the plea after a brief hearing.

At the outset, Justice Nath questioned the petitioner, who was appearing in person, for wearing an advocate's band. When the petitioner replied that he was an advocate, Justice Nath observed that an advocate could wear a band only when appearing as a lawyer and not when appearing as a petitioner.

The petitioner responded that he was unaware of the rule. Justice Nath then remarked, “But you know so many things that how the system should function, how adjournments should be granted and a policy should be framed. See the reliefs that you have claimed.”

The petitioner replied that he had only sought guidelines. Justice Nath suggested that he approach professional bodies instead. “Go to the Bar Council of India, State Bar Council or High Court Bar Association, District Court Bar Association,” he said.

When the petitioner submitted that the Supreme Court was the appropriate authority to issue such directions, Justice Nath responded, “No no, we don't want to take animosity with the lawyers. We are friends with the lawyers.”

The Court then dismissed the petition.

Through the writ petition, the petitioner had sought guidelines governing adjournments in all courts across India. He sought guidelines restricting adjournments to exceptional and bona fide circumstances, mandating detailed reasons for every adjournment granted, requiring disclosure of the number of previous adjournments in a case to both sides, imposing realistic and deterrent costs for unwarranted adjournments, and ensuring strict enforcement of provisions relating to adjournments under the CPC and the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

The petitioner also sought directions for time-bound disposal of cases. He proposed measures such as indicative outer timelines for different categories of cases with flexibility based on complexity, mandatory case management hearings at the initial stages of proceedings, written reasons for delays beyond prescribed timelines, and periodic monitoring and reporting of case progression.

The petitioner also sought formulation and implementation of a Uniform National Case Flow Management Policy applicable to all courts in the country. The proposed policy envisaged stage-wise timelines for proceedings, regulation of adjournments, continuous and day-to-day hearings in appropriate matters, and priority disposal of old and long-pending cases.

Case no. – Rajat v. Union of India and Others

Case Title – Writ Petition (Civil) No. 000578-000578/2026