In a significant move aimed at tackling mounting pendency and curbing routine delays in hearings, the Supreme Court has issued a fresh circular laying down a stricter and more structured framework for seeking adjournments in cases.
The revised norms mark a clear shift from a relatively flexible adjournment practice to a more disciplined regime, where adjournments are to be granted only in exceptional circumstances and subject to procedural safeguards.
As of January 2026, over 92,800 cases are pending in the top court. This backlog includes significant constitutional matters, with over 5 crore total cases pending across all Indian courts.
Under the new framework, advocates-on-record (AoRs) and parties appearing in person are permitted to circulate adjournment requests in both fresh matters and cases listed after notice. However, the process has now been formalised with mandatory pre-service requirements intended to ensure transparency and fairness.
A key feature of the circular is the requirement that a copy of the adjournment request must be served in advance on the opposing party. The request must be submitted along with proof of such service before 11:00 am on the previous working day. This effectively eliminates last-minute adjournment pleas that often disrupt court proceedings and inconvenience the opposing side.
Importantly, the opposing party has now been given a formal right to object. Any objection to the adjournment request can be communicated via email before 12:00 noon, and such responses will be placed before the bench for consideration. This provision introduces an element of adversarial scrutiny into adjournment requests, which were previously largely unilateral.
The Court has also mandated greater accountability in the content of adjournment pleas. Every request must clearly spell out the reasons for seeking the adjournment and disclose the number of adjournments previously sought in the matter. This requirement is expected to help judges assess whether a party is engaging in dilatory tactics.
Crucially, the circular underscores that adjournments will be granted only in exceptional circumstances. Illustrative grounds include bereavement in the family, medical emergencies involving the advocate or party, or other genuine reasons that satisfy the Court. Routine grounds such as inconvenience, lack of preparation, or scheduling conflicts are unlikely to meet this threshold under the new regime.
To further discourage delays, the Court has introduced additional restrictions. In fresh matters, adjournment letters can be circulated only once, effectively preventing repeated deferments at the admission stage. Moreover, two consecutive adjournments will not be permitted without the matter being listed before the Court, irrespective of which party seeks the adjournment. This ensures judicial oversight in cases where repeated adjournments are sought.
All adjournment requests are now required to be submitted in a prescribed format via a designated email ID, signalling a move towards the standardisation and digitisation of procedural aspects.
Significantly, the circular draws a sharp distinction for regular hearing matters. It categorically states that no adjournment letters will be permitted in cases listed as regular matters before the Court. This suggests that once a case reaches the stage of a final or regular hearing, parties will be expected to proceed without seeking adjournments through informal mechanisms.
The move comes against the backdrop of persistent concerns over judicial delays and the high pendency of cases in courts across the country. Frequent adjournments have long been identified as a major contributor to the backlog, with courts and legal commentators alike calling for stricter controls.
By introducing structured timelines, mandatory disclosures, and a higher threshold for granting adjournments, the Supreme Court appears to be signalling a zero-tolerance approach towards avoidable delays. The new framework is likely to place greater responsibility on lawyers and litigants to be prepared and to approach the Court with genuine reasons when seeking a deferment.
