Adjournment

What is 'Adjournment'

Adjournment refers to the temporary suspension or postponement of a meeting, session, or court proceeding to a later date or time. The term adjournment is generally used in the context of parliamentary proceedings, and, secondly, adjournments in court proceedings. An adjournment in a court proceeding is a temporary postponement of a court proceeding. It essentially means putting the court case on hold for a specific period and then resuming it later.

Official Definition of 'Adjournment'

Adjournment as defined in Legislations

The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 grants a maximum of three adjournments. The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 mandates that the verdict of a case should be pronounced within three to five months.

The Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) seeks to regulate this practice by prohibiting the grant of adjournment for any reason except those which are beyond the control of the party seeking adjournment. To further curb this problem, a new proviso has been introduced, in s. 346 BNSS (corresponding to Section 309 of CrPC), which states that even adjournments on account of reasons beyond control of the parties cannot be granted more than twice.

Other than the CPC, the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, and respective High Court rules, further, modify the operation of adjournments. Besides, the Commercial Courts Act and Consumer Protection Act provide for subject-matter-specific modifications to the general operation of adjournments.

Adjournment as defined in Government reports

NCMS Committee Report on Case Management System (2024)

The NCMS Committee Report on Case Management System (2024) recommends establishing an Automated Adjournment Request System, allowing parties or counsel to request adjournments within specified timeframes without the need for the case to be called in court. This system would enable opposing parties to raise objections before the scheduled date, allowing a decision on the adjournment to be made in advance. The Case Administration Manager would handle these requests, enhancing efficiency and enabling waitlisted matters to progress smoothly.

The report also suggests that High Courts should formulate their own adjournment policies, ideally limiting each party's right to a maximum of three adjournments. Beyond this limit, costs should be imposed mandatorily. An incremental cost structure, detailing additional charges for each subsequent adjournment, should be designed to reflect systemic costs, published, and implemented accordingly.

Committee on Reforms of Criminal Justice System (Malimath Committee Report (2003)

The Malimath Committee report suggested that the adjournments should not be used as a tool for delaying the justice by the Courts and recommended penal imposition to the party which demands adjournments. It recommended, "Section 309 should be amended to make it obligatory toward costs against the party who obtains adjournment. The quantum of costs should include the expenses incurred by the opposite party as well as the Court, the expenses of the witnesses that have come for giving evidence. Costs may be awarded to the opposite party or to the State which may be credited to victim compensation fund if one exists. The number of cases should depend upon the time the cases are likely to take. Indiscriminate posting of a large number of cases should be avoided."

Legal provision(s) relating to 'Adjournment'

Adjournment in Civil Cases

In the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), Order XVII deals with adjournment. The order contains three rules which, although do not provide a definition of “adjournment”, it helps us understand how adjournments work.

• Rule 1 grants the court the discretion to grant time and adjourn hearings at any stage of a lawsuit if sufficient cause is shown. The court must record in writing the reasons for such adjournments. However, a limitation is imposed by the proviso, which restricts the grant of adjournments to a party to no more than three times during the hearing of the suit. In cases of adjournment, the court is required to fix a day for the further hearing of the suit and make orders regarding costs incurred due to the adjournment. The provision also outlines certain conditions and restrictions related to adjournments, including the continuous hearing of the suit once commenced, limited adjournments at the request of a party, disallowance of adjournments due to the engagement of a party's pleader in another court, and strict conditions for adjournments based on the illness or inability of a pleader to conduct the case. Additionally, the provision allows the court to take appropriate actions, including recording the statement of a witness, in cases where a party or their pleader is not present or not ready for examination or cross-examination.

• Rule 2 states that if, on a day to which a court hearing is adjourned, the involved parties or any of them fail to appear, the court has the authority to continue with the suit in accordance with the procedures outlined in Order IX or make any other appropriate order. Furthermore, if a party's evidence has been substantially recorded and that party fails to appear on the adjourned day, the court may, at its discretion, proceed with the case as if the absent party were present.

• Rule 3 states that if a party in a legal suit fails to present evidence, bring witnesses, or fulfill any other essential actions within the specified time granted by the court, the court has the authority to proceed with the case regardless of this default. The court can either make a prompt decision if all parties are present or, if any party is absent, proceed according to the relevant rules.

Adjournment during Case Management hearing

Another important provision in the CPC dealing with adjournments is Order XV, Rule 7. It provides that the Case Management Hearing cannot be adjourned solely because the advocate representing a party is absent. However, if an adjournment is requested in advance through a formal application with associated costs, the Court may consider it. Additionally, if the Court finds a justified reason for the advocate's absence, it has the discretion to adjourn the hearing to another date on terms and conditions it deems appropriate.

Adjournment in Criminal Cases

For criminal cases, Section 346 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) emphasizes expediting court proceedings by mandating that inquiries or trials continue on a day-to-day basis until all present witnesses are examined. For certain serious offences ((under Sections 64, 66, 67, 68, and 70 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023), the trial must be completed within two months from the date the chargesheet is filed. Any adjournment beyond the following day requires the court to record specific reasons in writing.

Further, the provision provides that courts can postpone or adjourn cases if necessary, but this is subject to strict conditions. An accused in custody cannot be remanded for more than 15 days at a time. This section contemplates a remand to jail and not to police custody. Under this section, the Magistrate may remand the accused to custody for a period not exceeding 15 days at a time, and no limit is set to the number of such orders of remand. Section 309(2) applies only after cognizance has been taken, not during the investigation phase. If the accused is not in custody, this section does not apply.

Adjournments are limited to situations beyond a party's control, and even then, only two adjournments may be granted with valid reasons. Adjournments should not be granted without examining witnesses present, except for special reasons recorded in writing, and the unavailability of a lawyer due to engagement in another court is not considered valid grounds for adjournment. The court may record witness statements and proceed if a party or their advocate is not ready.

In cases involving serious penalties, such as the death penalty, the court retains discretion to adjourn hearings for the accused to present their case against the proposed sentence, despite the general restrictions on adjournments.

Apart from this, Section 355 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) (Section 317 0f CrPC) deals with the adjournment of proceedings due to the absence of the accused. It allows the court to proceed with the trial in the absence of the accused under certain conditions, ensuring that the trial is not unduly delayed.

Modifications under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS)

Under Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, there was no limit to adjournments in criminal cases and this leads to delaying the case by filing frivolous adjournments. However, Section 346 of BNSS a new clause (b) is added to the last proviso of subsection (2), which states, "Where the circumstances are beyond the control of a party, not more than two adjournments may be granted by the Court after hearing the objections of the other party and for the reasons to be recorded in writing”

Adjournments as defined in caselaws

In Akil@Javed v. State, (2013) 7 SCC 125 the Supreme Court disapproved the practice of giving long adjournments during trials. It pointed out there is dire need for the Court dealing with cases involving serious offences to proceed with the trial on day-to-day basis in de die in diem until the trial is concluded as stipulated by s. 309.

Functional Variations

Adjournment Slips

Various high courts have prescribed different formats and templates for adjournment applications. For instance, the Calcutta High Court has circulated a template for the three adjournment rule. Delhi High Court has a standard format for application for adjournment. Here is an example of an adjournment slip of the Punjab & Haryana High Court. Gujarat High Court has prescribed a format for adjournment applications. However, recently, the Supreme Court Bar Association and the Supreme Court Advocate on Record Association raised issues with the discontinuation of the practice of circulation of adjournment slips by the Supreme Court of India.

The Supreme Court had issued two circulars in December 2023, stating that the practice of circulating adjournment slips/letters would be discontinued temporarily. Following the concerns raised by the bar bodies, the Supreme Court constituted a committee of judges to prepare a standard operating procedure (SOP) for lawyers seeking adjournments. The committee invited suggestions from the bar and other stakeholders on this issue. Until the SOP is finalized, the practice of circulating adjournment slips remains discontinued.

Adjournment as appearing in Official Databases

Case Information System

The daily proceedings under CIS 3.0 provide for recording of reasons for adjournment as shown in the image below. It covers reasons for adjournment - Accused not present, Accused not produced by jail authorities, Additional/ Supplementary charge-sheet not filed, and Adjournment by consent.[Image retrieved from CIS 3.0 Manual at pg. 36]

eCourtIS Portal

e-Committee, Supreme Court is also trying to enforce compliance with the ‘three adjournment rule’ by creating a facility which is provided in "daily proceedings screen" to alert judges about listing of case. If the case is listed on same stage on next date, indicator depicts as follows:

• Green: Indicates that the case is listed on the same stage for less than 3 times
• Orange: Indicates that the case is listed on the same stage between 3 to 6 times
• Red: If the case is listed on the same stage for more than 6 times.

Green: Indicates that the case is listed on the same stage for less than 3 times.

Orange: Indicates that the case is listed on the same stage between 3 to 6 times.

Red: Indicates that the case is listed on the same stage for more than 6 times.

Along with the coloured indicator, number of times the case is listed on the same stage along with period/time since when the case is listed on the same stage is also shown. The alert may assist the Judges to decide adjourning the case further on the same stage or to list for next stage.

Causelists

The information relating to adjournment is provided in the cause list of some courts/tribunals. The information may relate to the categorisation of cases in which adjournment may not be granted based on the age of the case, or where cases are adjourned because the matter is not taken up by the court.

Adjournments as mentioned in cause lists

Adjournments as mentioned in causelists

Research that engages with 'Adjournment'

Inefficiency and Judicial Delay - New Insights from the Delhi High Court (Vidhi)

A report by Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy suggests that excessive adjournments are one of the major causes of judicial delays. As per their findings, in 91% of delayed cases, counsel sought time at least once. In 70% of delayed cases, counsel sought time more than thrice; and in 30% of delayed cases, counsel sought time more than six times. The report suggests that there should be the imposition of costs on excessive adjournments to reduce judicial delay.

Time-and-Motion Study of four district and sessions courts in Bangalore, Karnataka (DAKSH)

A study by DAKSH notes that about 54% of the sitting time of civil courts and 33% of that of criminal courts are spent on handling adjournments. The rest of the time is used for hearings, comprising recording evidence, oral arguments and such activities. This study was undertaken by procuring the daily cause lists published on the website (http://ecourts.gov.in) of the four courts selected for this study, namely, XXIX Additional City Civil Court Judge, Bangalore; 2nd Additional Civil Judge, Bangalore District; Assistant Chief Metropolitan Magistrate III, Bangalore, and Assistant Chief Metropolitan Magistrate IV, Bangalore.

Addressing case delays caused by multiple adjournments (GSDRC)

The GSDRC helpdesk research report on Addressing case delays caused by multiple adjournments provide examples of more and less successful attempts to address case delays in developing countries, with particular focus on delays caused by multiple adjournments.

Related to Adjournments

Passover, pendency, delay, hearing