Unnecessary adjournments strike at heart of justice: SC

The Supreme Court has taken strong exception to the increasing trend of lawyers seeking adjournments in cases. The court has also warned lawyers that adjournments sought without strict compliance with the legal framework and without demonstrable sufficient cause shall invite appropriate consequences, including the imposition of compensatory costs in terms of the Supreme Court Rules. "Despite the legal framework, repeated reminders, and the settled position that adjournments are granted only upon sufficient cause, the record before the Court demonstrates that these principles are not being followed in practice. "We note, with immense disappointment, that the mandate governing adjournments is being increasingly disregarded by counsel," says a seven-page judgment authored by Chief Justice of Pakistan Yahya Afridi while hearing a case in which a lawyer sought an adjournment on account of "prior personal engagements." The order pointed out that a vague assertion of "prior personal engagements" cannot, by any stretch of legal reasoning, constitute sufficient cause for adjournment. "If anything, it betrays a callous disregard for professional discipline and a troubling lack of appreciation of the responsibility that accompanies the privilege of audience before this court." A division bench led by CJP Afridi, in its order, noted that official data generated by the IT Directorate of the court reveals a highly concerning pattern. Between January 2026 and March 2026, a total of 653 adjournments were sought by advocates, the order states. The order further noted that what is more concerning is the fact that an overwhelming majority of adjournments are sought despite the Court being assembled and matters otherwise being ready for hearing, thereby rendering substantial judicial time unproductive. "This data clearly reflects a pattern of casual, convenience-based requests made in disregard of binding rules and express cause-list warnings, which is not expected from advocates performing their duties at the apex level of our judicial system," said the order. The court made it clear that such a practice is wholly unacceptable. Lawyers, not just before this court but across Pakistan, must realise the direct correlation between adjournments and the burden they place upon the public exchequer. The court also said that unnecessary adjournments strike at the very heart of access to justice. For litigants, particularly those of limited means, repeated adjournments translate into increased expense and, in effect, a denial of timely justice. This, in turn, erodes public confidence in the judicial system and runs contrary to the institutional efforts of the Court to ensure expeditious disposal of cases.