The Order noted that a vague assertion of “prior personal commitments” cannot, by any legal reasoning,
Police officers walk past Pakistan’s Supreme Court building, in Islamabad, Pakistan, April 6, 2022. REUTERS
ISLAMABAD:
The Supreme Court has strongly opposed the growing trend of lawyers seeking adjournments of cases.
The court has also advised lawyers that adjournments requested without strict compliance with the legal framework and without sufficient demonstrable cause will attract appropriate consequences, including the imposition of compensatory costs in terms of the Supreme Court Rules.
“Despite the legal framework, repeated reminders and the established position that adjournments are granted only with sufficient cause, the record before the Court demonstrates that these principles are not being followed in practice.
“We note, with immense disappointment, that the mandate governing adjournments is increasingly ignored by lawyers,” reads a seven-page judgment written by Pakistan’s Chief Justice Yahya Afridi during the hearing of a case in which a lawyer sought an adjournment due to “prior personal commitments.”
The order noted that a vague assertion of “prior personal commitments” cannot, by any legal reasoning, constitute sufficient cause for a postponement.
“If anything, it reveals a callous disregard for professional discipline and a disturbing lack of appreciation of the responsibility that accompanies the privilege of hearing before this court.”
A division bench headed by CJP Afridi, in its order, noted that the official data generated by the IT Directorate of the court reveals a very worrying pattern. Between January 2026 and March 2026, attorneys requested a total of 653 continuances, according to the order.
The order further noted that what is more worrying is the fact that an overwhelming majority of adjournments are being requested even though the Court is sitting and matters are ready to be heard, rendering substantial judicial time unproductive.
“These data clearly reflect a pattern of casual, convenience-based requests made without regard to binding rules and express caveats on the cause list, which is not expected of advocates performing their duties at the top level of our judicial system,” the order said.
The court made it clear that such a practice is totally unacceptable. Lawyers, not only before this court but across Pakistan, must realize the direct correlation between adjournments and the burden they impose on the public exchequer.
The court also said that unnecessary adjournments go to the very heart of access to justice. For litigants, particularly those with limited resources, repeated adjournments translate into increased expenses and, in effect, a denial of timely justice.
This, in turn, erodes public confidence in the judicial system and runs counter to the Court’s institutional efforts to ensure rapid resolution of cases.
