Allahabad HC Condemns Lawyers Seeking Adjournments To Attend District Courts

"Repetitive adjournments on the ground of the Advocates being engaged in the subordinate Courts or Tribunals and their non-appearance without assigning any reason, shows lack of respect towards the professional duties of Advocates, besides showing lack of respect towards the High Court. It also highlights the falling standards in the profession of Advocacy." Allahabad High Court, in a significant ruling, held that the assistance of advocates is not a mandatory prerequisite for a court to adjudicate a dispute and dispense justice.

A single-judge bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi strongly deprecated the practice of lawyers seeking repeated adjournments to attend matters in subordinate courts. While dismissing a criminal appeal, the Court proceeded to decide the matter on merits after noting that all three counsel engaged by the appellant had abstained from appearing without providing any reasonable cause.

The case arose from an FIR lodged by the appellant alleging assault by a father-son duo, following which the police filed a charge-sheet solely against the father. During the trial, the appellant filed an application under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) to summon the son as an additional accused. The Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Shravasti, rejected this application, prompting the present appeal before the High Court.

The primary question before the court was whether the trial court erred in refusing to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 319 of the CrPC to summon an additional accused. The court was also called upon to determine whether it could proceed to adjudicate a dispute on merits when the engaged advocates deliberately abstain from court proceedings.

Court Can Proceed Without Legal Assistance

At the very outset, the bench expressed strong displeasure over the absence of the three counsel engaged by the appellant. The Court emphasised that while advocates are entitled to assist the bench, their presence is not an absolute necessity for the dispensation of justice. If advocates choose to refrain from appearing without just and reasonable cause, the court remains duty-bound to perform its adjudicatory functions. The bench noted that despite granting a pass-over on a previous date, nobody had appeared for the appellant.

"Assistance of Advocates is not a condition precedent for adjudication of a dispute by this Court or by any Court."

Deliberate Adjournments Create Artificial Pendency

Addressing a broader systemic issue, the Court observed a concerning trend where legal professionals prioritise subordinate courts and tribunals over the High Court. The bench noted that lawyers often deliberately avoid attending fresh hearings merely to get matters passed over without any order being passed. Such practices, the Court remarked, trigger an artificial and unwarranted spike in the pendency of cases before the High Court. The judge further stated that trial court proceedings are also repetitively delayed on the mere pretext of pending High Court matters.

Bench Highlights Falling Standards Of Advocacy

The Court issued a stern reminder to the bar, stating that seeking repetitive adjournments for district court engagements reflects a severe lack of respect for professional duties. The bench observed that this conduct highlights the falling standards within the legal profession and urged lawyers to recognise their role as responsible officers of the court. Seeking adjournments on unreasonable and frivolous grounds, the Court warned, decreases court productivity and creates massive hurdles in the speedy dispensation of justice.

Section 319 CrPC Is An Extraordinary Power

Turning to the merits of the appeal, the Court examined the scope of summoning an additional accused under Section 319 CrPC. Relying on Supreme Court precedents including Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab and Municipal Corpn. of Delhi v. Ram Kishan Rohtagi, the bench reiterated that this is a discretionary and extraordinary power. The Court noted that such power must be used very sparingly and cannot be exercised in a casual or cavalier manner merely on the basis of suspicion or probability of complicity.

No Strong Evidence To Summon Additional Accused

The High Court observed that the test for summoning an additional accused requires strong and cogent evidence that is more than a mere prima facie case. In the present dispute, the trial court had rightly noted that the injured witness explicitly denied the presence of any person other than the already charge-sheeted accused. Furthermore, the complainant had failed to assign any specific role to the son in her testimony, rendering the Section 319 application entirely meritless.

The High Court ultimately found no error or illegality in the trial court's order rejecting the application to summon the additional accused. Concluding that the appeal lacked merit, the bench dismissed it at the admission stage while formally recording its strong concerns regarding the unprofessional conduct of the advocates.

Date of Decision: 17 July 2026