Culture of Adjournments Must Change: Delhi High Court Waives ₹20,000 Cost

In an order dated December 10, 2025, the High Court had allowed an application filed under Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Section 403 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking modification of an earlier order.

The Bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna noted that its previous order had incorrectly stated that the cost of ₹20,000 was imposed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari Courts.

Clarifying the record, the High Court held that the cost had, in fact, been imposed by the High Court itself and directed that the order be corrected accordingly.

In a connected application seeking waiver of the ₹20,000 cost, filed under Section 528 of the BNSS and Section 482 of the CrPC, the petitioner submitted that her counsel could not appear due to being engaged in another time-bound matter before the Tis Hazari Courts. It was further argued that the counsel was a single woman with two children and faced multiple personal difficulties, warranting waiver of the cost.

While considering the plea, the High Court made sharp observations on the prevailing practice of seeking adjournments. The Court noted that over time, a “misplaced expectation” had developed that adjournments would be granted routinely, regardless of the nature of the case or inconvenience caused to the opposing counsel and the court.

The Court observed that adjournments were often sought indiscriminately, without due regard to judicial time or professional responsibility. It also rejected the attempt to portray the absence as a personal difficulty, pointing out that the reason cited was actually a professional engagement in another court.

Terming such conduct as “least appreciated,” the High Court expressed hope that the entrenched culture of adjournments would change in the future. Despite its strong remarks, the Court exercised discretion and waived the cost of ₹20,000, allowing the application.

Both applications were disposed of accordingly.

Even the Supreme Court of India, has depreciated the culture of taking adjournments. While warning against adjournments in a case, the Apex Court in January 2025 had made it clear that it would hear the plea of the convicts regarding the 2002 Godhra Carnage, in which 59 Hindu pilgrims were killed, on 13 February. The Bench of Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Aravind Kumar had passed these orders in criminal appeals moved by the convicts challenging the orders of the trial court and the Gujarat High Court, which had upheld their conviction. During the hearing, the court clarified that it would not adjourn the matter and said, "The hearing has to start. We have already adjourned this matter five times over six years, for more than one year, I have been adjourning this matter."