Majority Of Adjournment Requests On Ground Of Illness Of Advocates Are Not Genuine; Court Not Able To Identify Genuine Requests: Kerala HC
The Kerala High Court said that the majority of adjournment requests on the ground of illness of lawyers are not genuine and that it is not in a position to identify genuine requests of lawyers, who actually suffering illness or infirmity.
The court observed that the time bound disposal of cases could not be materialized because of unnecessary adjournments sought by Advocates which is the biggest menace.
The Court said thus in an original petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution by an accused against the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act Special Court (Additional Sessions Court-IV), Thiruvananthapuram.
A Single Bench of Justice A. Badharudeen observed, “Even though lawyers are duty bound to co-operate with the Court in the matter of disposal and that is what is intended by co-operation between the Bar and the Bench in letter and spirit, time bound disposal of cases could not be materialized because of unnecessary adjournments. This is the biggest menace and the same is the reason for huge pendency of matters before all courts. In this connection, I am inclined to have an arithmetical glimpse of the present scenario, in as much as second appeals are concerned. The position is not much different in other categories of cases which I dealt earlier.”
The Bench also said that some Advocates are not co-operating with the Court and they are seeking adjournment on various grounds and `illness’ is their last weapon.
Advocate Nireesh Mathew appeared on behalf of the petitioner/accused while Sr. Public Prosecutor K Denny Devassy appeared on behalf of the respondent/State.
In this case, the petitioner/accused sought direction to the Additional District and Sessions Court to dispose of a case within a period of 6 months taking into account of the illness of his counsel. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was accused for the commission of offences punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). Though the earlier bail applications filed by him were dismissed, he was subsequently released on bail.
Thereafter, the High Court directed the Trial Court to dispose of the case within a period of 3 months. Though the lawyer representing the petitioner sought adjournment of 6 months to conclude the trial pointing out her illness, the court was not inclined to grant the same. So the crux of the matter is adjournment sought for on the ground of illness of the lawyer who subsequently died. Hence, the High Court had to address the question as to what extent an Advocate has right to seek adjournment of trial according to his/her convenience.
The High Court in view of the aforesaid issue noted, “… I am forced to refer the present scenario and the menace of adjournments which would stand in the way of disposing cases in a time bound manner, before the trial courts, appellate courts and the High Court, tantamounts to denial of justice to the real aggrieved persons. Since I am dealing with Second Appeals, Execution Second Appeals, Miscellaneous Second Appeals and Regular Second Appeals, I had a glimpse on the total pendency of matters during the month of February, 2024. Registry placed statements showing the total pendency which is 12,536.”
The Court further emphasised that in so far as the Second Appeals are concerned, in admitted matters, detailed hearing is absolutely necessary to address the substantial question/s of law formulated and therefore, the Judge also should have to study the case thoroughly to hear and dispose of the matters in a time bound manner.
“At present, even though the Judge studies the cases, by halting on sleepless nights and expresses willingness to dispose of the cases, after hearing both sides with a view to reduce the pendency, some Advocates are not co-operating with the Court and they are seeking adjournment on various grounds and `illness’ is their last weapon. I have been granting such adjournments in plenty and the proceedings of this Bench would speak for the same. No doubt, some adjourment requests on the ground of illness are genuine, but majority are not. In such situation, it is very difficult to identify the genuine requests on the ground of illness”, it also said.
The Court said that it is shocking to note that nobody is cared of the position of the Judge, who is prepared and ready to hear a matter posted for hearing with endorsement `hearing finally’, ‘last chance’ and ‘for disposal’ and in such matters also, some advocates seek adjournment again and invariably the ground for adjournment is ‘illness’.
“Then, the Judge would be put into dilemma and dejection, because the Judge feels that, his hard work giving a go-by to sound sleep being spoiled”, it added.
“If a Judge is able to dispose of 5 cases per day, then also the number of days required to clear the pendency is 2507, which is equivalent to 11.93 years. When, 5 newly filed cases added daily 24 years period also not sufficient to dispose of the second appeals pending before this Court. If this is the scenario, how could this pendency be reduced without co-operation of the lawyers, by avoiding unnecessary adjournments”, it also remarked.
Coming back to the matter, the Court concluded by saying that the counsel who appeared for the petitioner is no more and taking note of the interest of fair trial and to provide an opportunity for the accused to defend him properly, a reasonable time in this case can be granted in the interest of justice.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the petition and directed the Special Judge to provide two weeks’ time for the petitioner to appoint a lawyer of his choice.
Cause Title- Gokul Raj v. State of Kerala (Neutral Citation: 2024:KER:18009)
