Lucknow, Jul 24 The Allahabad High Court on Friday said that repeated requests for adjournments on the ground that advocates are engaged before district courts or tribunals, coupled with their absence from the high court without sufficient cause, are not in keeping with the dignity of the legal profession.
A bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi in Lucknow observed, "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."
"Therefore, the Court requests the members of the bar to realise the importance of their role as responsible officers of the Court, improve the standards of assistance being provided by them and refrain from seeking adjournments on unreasonable and frivolous grounds, which results in decreased productivity of the Court and creates hurdles in speedy dispensation of justice," added Justice Vidyarthi.
He said that in some cases, fresh matters are deliberately kept from being heard so that they remain pending without any effective order, resulting in an artificial increase in the high court's pendency.
The bench further noted that trial courts often adjourn proceedings merely because a matter is pending before the high court, even when no interim order has been passed, thereby delaying the administration of justice.
The observations were made by Justice Vidyarthi while dismissing an appeal arising out of an SC/ST Act case from Shravasti, upholding an order of the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Shravasti, whereby the special judge SC/ST Judge had rejected an application under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which empowers a trial court to summon an additional accused during an inquiry or trial, seeking summoning of Ankit Yadav as an additional accused.
The case stemmed from an FIR lodged in 2022 alleging that Ram Suresh Yadav and his son Ankit Yadav had assaulted the complainant and her son, and hurled caste-based abuses at them. After investigation, police filed a chargesheet only against Ram Suresh Yadav, saying there was insufficient evidence against Ankit Yadav.
During the trial, the appellant had moved an application under Section 319 of the CrPC seeking to summon Ankit Yadav as an additional accused. The special SC/ST court, after examining the evidence, found that the injured eyewitness had categorically stated that no one except Ram Suresh Yadav was present at the scene.
The appellant, too, had failed to assign any specific role to Ankit Yadav. On these findings, the special court rejected the application, prompting the appellant to file the present appeal.
Dismissing the appeal, the high court held that the power under Section 319 of the CrPC is extraordinary in nature and can be exercised only when there is evidence stronger than a mere prima facie case.
The court observed that no such cogent material was available in the present case to justify summoning Ankit Yadav as an additional accused. It, therefore, found no infirmity in the special court's order warranting appellate interference.
