'Lawyers Cashing On Judges' Sympathy Is Embarrassing': CJI Lalit On Request For Adjournment In A Matter

Supreme Court bench comprising Chief Justice U.U. Lalit and Justice Ravindra Bhat, on Tuesday, expressed displeasure at lawyers cashing on judges' sympathy to get matters adjourned. The context of the same is that an Advocate on Record requested his matter to be adjourned for two days, stating that his senior, who had been leading him in the matter was unavailable at the moment.

To this, CJI Lalit stated–

"These are 2015 matters...please have some mercy on us...Lawyers cashing on judges' sympathy...It is embarrassing."

However, the counsel insisted that the matter be heard two days later. CJI Lalit was quick to ask him what would happen to the matters that are listed for two days later but to no avail as the counsel continued insisting upon the matter to be adjourned. Justice Ravindra Bhat orally remarked that since the matter was being lead by a senior counsel, he must have known that the matter was listed then and chose to not appear timely. Justice Bhat reprimanded him stating–

"You are the Advocate on record! How embarrassing is this. Is this how counsels work in this court?"

When the counsel still insisted on the matter to be taken two days later, CJI Lalit stated that the matter would be adjourned on the condition that he himself argued it. He said–

"We will grant you as much time. In case you want this day after, we will list it day after. Whatever it be. Provided that you appear in the matter. You will appear in the matter. Your senior will sit next to you. Only on that condition will we list it day after...".

In the order allowing adjournment, the bench recorded : "At the request of the counsel, list this matter as first item tomorrow. The learned counsel has assured the court that he will argue the matter himself."

When the counsel stated that him arguing the matter would not do justice to the clients, CJI Lalit agreed to remove the condition of him arguing it on his own and stated–

"See what happens is if we do it out of sympathy, it gives an impression that it is alright. And that is where it pains us. So we have to be very very strict when it comes to individual requests like this why because in the longer run, perhaps, I think the bar will get benefited. If we show sympathy in one matter that percolates down everywhere. Let it be. In case it is passed over tomorrow, you will be responsible, we will go ahead with the matter. It is up to the bar."