The Lucknow bench of Allahabad High Court has expressed concern over the tendency of postponing the hearing of cases and not being present in the court without proper reason. The court said that this is against the dignity of the advocacy profession. The court said that in some cases, deliberate efforts are made to delay the hearing. Due to this, the burden of pending cases increases artificially instead of for real reasons, thereby affecting the process of providing justice.
The bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi made this comment while giving its verdict in a criminal case related to SC-ST Act of Shravasti. The bench said, 'Repeated postponement of hearing due to busyness in lower courts or tribunal and non-appearance without assigning any reason shows lack of respect for professional responsibilities of lawyers and lack of respect for the court. It also highlights the falling standards of the advocacy profession.
Justice Vidyarthi said, 'The Bench, therefore, requests the members of the Bar to understand the importance of their role as responsible officers of the High Court, improve the level of their assistance and not seek postponement of hearings for frivolous or frivolous reasons, as this reduces the productivity of the Bench and hinders speedy delivery of justice'.
He said that in some cases, new cases are deliberately not allowed to be heard so that they remain pending without any effective order, which leads to artificial increase in the number of cases pending in the High Court. He also said that lower courts often postpone proceedings merely because the case is pending in the High Court, even if no interim order is passed, thereby delaying justice.
Justice Subhash Vidyarthi made these comments while dismissing an appeal of Shravasti related to the Scheduled Caste/Tribe Act case. He upheld the order of the Special Judge (SC/ST Law), Shravasti, in which he had rejected the application to name Ankit Yadav as an additional accused under section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
The case was related to a case filed in 2022, in which it was alleged that Ram Suresh Yadav and his son Ankit Yadav assaulted the complainant and his son and subjected them to caste-based abuses.
After investigation, the police filed charge sheet only against Ram Suresh Yadav and said that there was not enough evidence against Ankit Yadav. During the trial, the appellant had filed an application under Section 319 of the CrPC to call Ankit Yadav as an additional accused.
After examining the evidence, the special court for SC/ST cases found that the injured eyewitness had clearly stated that there was no one else present at the place of the incident except Ram Suresh Yadav. The appellant had also not mentioned any specific role of Ankit Yadav. On the basis of these facts, the special court rejected the application after which this appeal was filed.
Dismissing the appeal, the High Court said that the power under Section 319 of the CrPC is extraordinary and can be used only when there is evidence stronger than just the prima facie case. The bench said that there was no concrete evidence or material to justify naming Ankit Yadav as an additional accused in the case. Therefore, the bench did not find any flaw in the order of the special court which required interference at the appeal stage.
