ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled that the persistent misuse of adjournment requests by lawyers is equivalent to impeding the court’s duty to fairly and effectively dispense justice, and shall be treated accordingly.
The Supreme Court’s judgment warned, “the Bar is once again put on clear notice that adjournments sought without strict compliance with the legal framework and without demonstrable sufficient cause shall invite appropriate consequences, including imposition of compensatory costs in terms of the Supreme Court Rules, 2025.”
A two-member bench, headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan Yahya Afridi and comprising Justice Shahid Bilal Hassan, heard the Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal (CPLA) against the Lahore High Court judgment.
The CPLA was fixed for hearing on April 2, 2026. However, on that date, a written application for adjournment was filed by the petitioner’s counsel Iftikhar Ahmad Bashir, Advocate of the Supreme Court (ASC)). The plea taken up in the application, filed through Advocate-on-Record (AoR), was “prior personal engagements,” which the bench considered, “cannot, by any stretch of legal reasoning, constitute a sufficient cause for adjournment.”
The judgment said that the Supreme Court of Pakistan issued procedural directions for the counsel through its weekly public cause list, which expressly provides: (i) No application for adjournment through fax/email will be placed before the Court. If any counsel is unable to appear for any reason, the AoRwill be required to argue the case. (ii) No adjournment on any ground will be granted.
These directions serve to reiterate that the unavailability or inability of counsel to appear does not constitute sufficient cause for adjournment, as the AoR is expected to argue the matter in such circumstances.
The procedural framework mandates that adjournments may only be sought through a properly instituted application by the AoR, and even then, only upon demonstration of sufficient cause. Simultaneously, it is abundantly clear that the unavailability or inconvenience of individual counsel does not, in itself, constitute a valid ground for adjournment, as the responsibility to proceed with the matter rests with the AoR.
The judgment said this Court (SC) continues to exercise its discretion where genuine exigencies are demonstrated, and sufficient cause is shown in accordance with the applicable Supreme Court Rules, by duly considering and, where warranted, allowing requests for adjournment in the interest of fairness and due process.
“This, however, cannot be construed as diluting the strictness of the governing framework, nor as justifying the routine invocation of adjournments as a matter of convenience.”
The judgment noted that despite the legal framework, repeated reminders, and the settled position that adjournments are granted only upon sufficient cause. It said that official data generated by the IT-Directorate of the Supreme Court reveals that between January 2026 and March 2026, a total of 653 adjournments were sought by advocates.
The judgment further noted that an overwhelming majority of adjournments are sought despite the Court being assembled and matters being otherwise ready for hearing, thereby rendering substantial judicial time unproductive. It said that the data clearly reflects a pattern of casual, convenience-based requests made in disregard of binding rules and express cause-list warnings, which is not expected from advocates performing their duties at the apex level of the judicial system.
“We state in the clearest possible terms that such a practice is wholly unacceptable. Lawyers, not just before this Court but across Pakistan, must realise the direct correlation between adjournments and the burden they place upon the public exchequer.
“Each matter fixed for hearing necessarily sets in motion the expenditure of public resources. Judicial time, court staff, courtroom infrastructure, security arrangements, and administrative support are all engaged the moment a cause list is issued, and a matter is placed for hearing. When such a matter is then not taken into account of an avoidable adjournment, that entire institutional deployment stands expended without the discharge of its adjudicatory function in that cause, and in essence, is wasted.”
The judgment said that the unnecessary adjournments strike at the very heart of access to justice. For litigants, particularly those of limited means, repeated adjournments translate into increased expense and, in effect, a denial of timely justice. This, in turn, erodes public confidence in the judicial system and runs contrary to the institutional efforts of this Court to ensure expeditious disposal of cases. It thus bears emphasis that the right to fair trial and due process under Article 10-A of the Constitution, as well as the larger constitutional promise of effective judicial remedies, cannot coexist with a culture of routine adjournments sought merely for convenience.
While this Court has shown and will continue to show indulgence where genuine exigencies are shown, such indulgence cannot be mistaken for acquiescence. Adjournments remain exceptions granted at the discretion of the Court, not entitlements.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2026
Comments