Senior counsel Ram Jethmalani's remark holding judges responsible for adjournments may have ruffled feathers, but some lawyers believe that litigants may get a better deal from now on.
Senior advocate Satish Borulkar explained that that if hearings are not adjourned, then litigants stand to benefit. In the same breath, though, he clarified that judges do not go in for unnecessary adjournments. "There cannot be a strait-jacket formula for granting or rejecting adjournments. A judge can adjourn a matter for paucity of time or if there is some genuine difficulty on the part of the counsel or advocate who is arguing," argued Borulkar.
Retired HC judge VG Palshikar caustically said Jethmalani was known for changing his opinions. "What he said was his individual opinion. He changes his opinions as often as one changes shirts in a day."
Palshikar said categorically that no judge adjourns a hearing with reason. "An adjournment is granted if a request for it is found to be reasonable and genuine. Ultimately, judges have litigants' interest in mind," said Palshikar.
A HC judge asked, "Is Jethmalani trying to show that he has never asked for an adjournment in his life?"
Jethmalani had on November 26 blamed the judiciary for adjournments. "Why do you (judges) adjourn when they (lawyers) ask for it? You also have become sycophants to maintain relations," was the remark that has now become a talking point.
An angry Justice PB Majmudar countered it by saying he will not grant any more adjournments.
Comments