18 Jan 2022 4:29 AM GMT
On Monday, the Supreme Court expressed its displeasure to Counsels approaching it assailing adjournment orders passed by High Courts. The Apex Court was perturbed that everyday it comes across four to five matters challenging the adjournment orders. A Bench comprising Justices L. Nageswara Rao and B.V. Nagarathna was hearing a challenge to the adjournment order passed by the...
On Monday, the Supreme Court expressed its displeasure to Counsels approaching it assailing adjournment orders passed by High Courts. The Apex Court was perturbed that everyday it comes across four to five matters challenging the adjournment orders.
A Bench comprising Justices L. Nageswara Rao and B.V. Nagarathna was hearing a challenge to the adjournment order passed by the Allahabad High Court in a matter wherein the concerned Passport Authority had declined travel clearance to Asif Idrees, who had been granted a scholarship to go to Spain to pursue his degree in M.A.
As Advocate, Ms. Amiy Shukla, Counsel for the Petitioner, being led by Senior Advocate, Mr. Colin Gonsalves sought a passover, Justice Rao observing that the challenge was to an adjournment order informed her that if the matter is passed over then the Bench was inclined to dismiss it by imposing cost.
On the request of Ms. Shukla the matter was passed over and when, subsequently, it came up for hearing Mr. Gonsalves submitted that -
"I appear for the petitioner. This is a matter regarding a student who had got a scholarship to go to Spain for his M.A. I only want to mention a few facts and a few dates."
The Bench apprised the Counsel that it would finally dismiss the matter with cost. It added that Mr. Gonsalves could go ahead with his submissions if he chose to argue the matter at his own peril.
"We will dismiss this with cost. You come up against an adjournment order and want to argue all the facts and all. Do it at your peril."
Mr. Colin requested the Court to consider the urgency in the matter, due to the passage of time, the Petitioner could lose the scholarship.
Acknowledging that the Petitioner might have relevant submissions on merits, the Bench was not keen to entertain a challenge to an order of adjournment.
"High Court took up the matter in December. If it is not taken up you go back with liberty to mention."
Lamenting that such challenges are becoming a routine practice, the Bench discouraged the same -
"Don't come up against adjournment orders. Everyday we have 4-5 matters against the adjournment order."
In the alternative, Mr. Gonsalves requested the Bench to consider telling the High Court to not pass any further adjournment orders and take up the matter for final hearing on the next date.
"If your lordship will only tell the Court to take up the matter on that date, otherwise my scholarship will lapse. I'll go back, if your lordship can gently tell the court."
On the plea of the Counsel, the Bench requested the High Court to expedite the hearing -
"I would request the High Court to expedite the hearing."
It enquired, "What is this petition? What did you file?"
Mr. Gonsalves informed the Court that the petition before the Allahabad High Court was one filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging the order of the respondents declining his client clearance, thus, impeding his travel to Spain.
"My challenge to the order declining to give me clearance."
[Case Title: Asif Idrees v. Union of India, SLP (Crl) No. 9971 of 2021]
Click Here To Read/Download Order