The Allahabad Court Delay Criticism comes after the High Court questioned litigants who seek repeated adjournments. The Court also criticised those who later blame the judiciary for delays on social media.
A Division Bench of Justice J.J. Munir and Justice Indrajeet Shukla made the remarks. The Bench said litigants often contribute to delays in court proceedings.
Court Criticises Strategic Adjournments
The Court made the observations while hearing a First Appeal. The respondent did not appear despite receiving personal notice.
Two advocates had also entered an appearance for the respondent. However, neither lawyer appeared when the Court called the matter.
The Bench viewed the conduct as a possible attempt to delay the case. It noted that filing an appearance without participating can frustrate the hearing process.
The Court expressed concern over such practices. It said litigants should not create delays and then blame courts for case backlogs.
Social Media Criticism May Invite Contempt
The Bench also addressed criticism of courts on social media. It noted that some litigants complain about judicial delays after seeking adjournments themselves.
The Court described this conduct as a longstanding malpractice. It warned that such actions could raise issues under contempt jurisdiction.
According to the Bench, litigants who benefit from delays should not later blame the judicial system. Courts must protect the integrity of their proceedings.
Court Seeks Explanations From Advocates
The High Court issued several directions to ensure the case moves forward.
First, it ordered personal service on the respondent. She must appear before the Bench on August 14, 2026, at 2:00 PM.
The Court also listed the First Appeal for hearing on the same date. The Registry must place the service report before the Bench.
In addition, the Court directed the Registry to contact both advocates. They must explain why they failed to appear when the matter came up for hearing.
The advocates had filed their vakalatnama on July 24, 2026. Despite that, neither counsel appeared during the hearing.
Litigants Also Contribute to Court Delays
The Bench referred to wider concerns about judicial pendency. Public criticism often focuses on the slow pace of court proceedings.
However, litigants can also contribute to the problem. Repeated adjournments can increase the workload and extend the life of cases.
Justice J.J. Munir had raised similar concerns in an earlier decision. He noted that litigants sometimes seek adjournments when delays benefit them.
The Court had previously described litigant-driven delays as a serious menace. It stressed the need to discourage such practices.
Court Stresses Responsibility of Litigants
The Allahabad Court Delay Criticism highlights the shared responsibility of courts, lawyers and litigants.
Litigants have a duty to participate in proceedings properly. Advocates must also appear when courts call their cases.
At the same time, the Court’s remarks caution against using social media to unfairly blame the judiciary. The Bench indicated that deliberate interference with proceedings may have legal consequences.
The Court’s directions aim to prevent further delays in the pending appeal. The matter will return before the Bench on August 14, 2026.
