In a strong and clear message, the Allahabad High Court has criticized the frequent habit of litigants seeking adjournments, calling it a serious reason behind delays in the judicial process. Justice J.J. Munir made these remarks during a hearing in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by Shailendra Prajapati against the State of Uttar Pradesh and seven others.
The case concerns alleged encroachment on a pond in village Bendui, Post Saren, Pargana Atrauliya, Tehsil Budhanpur, District Azamgarh. The Tehsildar Budhanpur had already passed an eviction order under Section 67 of the UP Revenue Code, 2006, but the order was not implemented.
On April 10, 2025, the Court had ordered the Tehsildar to submit a compliance report regarding the eviction. However, instead of submitting the report, the Tehsildar sent written instructions to the Chief Standing Counsel asking for an additional 15 days’ time.
"It is surprising that despite such widespread protest against delays in Courts, citizens of the country, in whatever position they are, when they appear in Court as litigants, love to seek time and enjoy adjournments that suits their cause," the Court observed.
Justice Munir expressed strong displeasure, stating that the contribution of litigants to judicial delays is rarely discussed or condemned, even though it is a significant issue.
"The contribution of the litigating public to delays in Court, which, in fact, is a menace, is neither spoken of nor condemned. In any case, this tendency has to be discouraged firmly," the Court stated in its order dated April 23, 2025.
Rejecting the Tehsildar’s request for more time, the Court directed him to submit his affidavit within three days or appear in person on the next date of hearing, April 30, 2025.
The Court further ordered that a copy of this directive be communicated to the Tehsildar through the Chief Judicial Magistrate of Azamgarh by the Registrar (Compliance) within 24 hours.
This is not the first time the Court has raised concerns about such behavior. Earlier this year, the same bench had pointed out the irony when a litigant complained about fast proceedings under the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, even though the public regularly criticizes delays in courts.
In both instances, the High Court highlighted the double standards among litigants—criticizing slow courts but contributing to delays when it suits them.
Case title - Shailendra Prajapati vs. State Of U.P. And 7 Others
