How adjournments adjourn justice

Frequent adjournments of cases only make matters worse

With an estimated 1.7 million-plus cases pending before different courts in Pakistan, it would not be an exaggeration to say that all of the cases have been given, at least, one adjournment during their pendency before the court.

Now, imagine how many cases would have been decided in the several decades and how many adjournments would have been taken in those cases causing not only an inordinate delay in getting swift justice but a huge loss to the national kitty in terms of hefty payments to counsels appearing on behalf of different departments on state expenses.

One recent example is of the trial of Zakiur Rehman Lakhvi, the alleged mastermind of the Mumbai attacks. A few months back, the special prosecutor had told the Islamabad High Court that the defence took 57 adjournments while prosecution took only 18 adjournments in the case.

Another example is of the Benazir Bhutto assassination case. It has been pending before the courts for almost eight years and is still far from being finished.

In the high-profile murder case, after several notices and warrants, when SSP Tahir Ayub, a member of the joint investigation team, appeared before the special anti-terrorism court on October 19, it was revealed that the judge was on leave.

The fate of several cases against former president General (retd) Pervez Musharraf is of no exception.

Similarly, how can one forget model Ayyan Ali’s currency smuggling case, which has been routinely adjourned for months now owing to some minor discrepancy or the other.

Suits the suits

Sometimes it is the judges who are liberal in granting adjournments whereas some lawyers are known to take adjournments on frivolous grounds. Regardless of engaging multiple lawyers, adjournments are repeatedly sought in many cases.

Lawyers always seem to find a way to delay the case but they, ultimately, get paid for their time and appearance. Often people are on their toes to find out what might happen in a case at a particular day, when lawyers simply move an application seeking adjournment for reasons ranging from engagement before another court to personal issues.

But with every adjournment, the process becomes costly for the court and for the litigants.

Another reason for seeking adjournments is the fact that judges are burdened with excessive workload as more than one police station is placed under their jurisdiction and dozens of cases are fixed before them. On the other hand, lawyers also take up more cases than they can handle and frequently seek adjournments so as to delay work.

On a daily basis, files are moved from one section to another and then placed before the court but many a times adjournments are sought and granted just because no other way is adopted to deal with the issue. In fact, many relevant quarters have yet to consider it an issue at all.

In the courts, the word ‘adjourned’ might have been used more than any other as it’s been the ultimate fate of every case ever filed, currently being dealt with and the ones that would be filed in future.

In order to make the ‘legal wasteland’ a useful ground again, cases must only be adjourned in exceptional circumstances. Only a limited number of adjournments should be granted so the proverbial common man does not spend a substantial part of his life and savings running around the courtroom.

Published in The Express Tribune, October 26^th, 2015.