The Supreme Court has made it clear that filing or circulating an adjournment slip does not automatically result in the postponement of a case. During a hearing on Wednesday (8 July), the Court reminded lawyers that only the Bench has the authority to decide whether a matter should be adjourned and that advocates must remain prepared to argue unless the Court expressly grants more time.
The observations came from a Bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice R. Mahadevan while dealing with a request linked to an adjournment slip filed by one of the parties.
During the proceedings, counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that arguments were not required because the respondents had already circulated an adjournment slip seeking postponement of the matter.
The Bench, however, immediately clarified that an adjournment request is only a request before the Court and does not automatically change the scheduled hearing. It stressed that lawyers should not assume that a listed matter stands deferred merely because such a slip has been circulated.
Take CourtBook Everywhere
Access your account on the go with our mobile app.
Rejecting the assumption that the hearing stood postponed, Justice Amanullah reminded the Bar that the power to grant or refuse an adjournment lies solely with the Court.
The Bench observed:
“Please counsel. It is upto us whether or not we allow adjournment. You have to come prepared and argue. If we allow only then adjourned. This is a message to the bar.”
The Court said advocates are expected to appear fully prepared in every listed matter unless a judicial order specifically grants an adjournment. It emphasized that an adjournment slip cannot be treated as an automatic permission to avoid arguments.
When the petitioner's counsel later sought another date, the Bench initially indicated that the matter could be taken up later the same day by placing it at the end of the board. However, counsel requested that it be listed on another working day instead.
Responding to the request, Justice Amanullah remarked:
“Today also is a day.”
The remark reflected the Court's expectation that cases listed for hearing should ordinarily proceed on the scheduled date unless there are sufficient grounds to defer them.
Although the Bench expressed its concern over treating adjournment slips as automatic grounds for postponement, it ultimately exercised its discretion to adjourn the matter. The Court directed that the case be listed for hearing in the following week.
Before passing the order, the Bench reiterated its broader message to the legal fraternity that filing an adjournment slip does not relieve advocates of their responsibility to appear prepared, as the final decision on granting an adjournment rests exclusively with the Court.
, E20 Petrol-300x169.webp)
