In a recent ruling on Saturday, the Supreme Court of India firmly rejected an adjournment request, emphasizing that the seniority or designation of legal representatives does not influence the Court’s decision-making process. The case involved an Additional Solicitor General (ASG) who was unable to attend due to commitments in another courtroom. A Bench consisting of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva presided over the matter.
The government counsel had sought an adjournment, requesting that the hearing be rescheduled to a later date, given the ASG’s unavailability. ‘Learned ASG is held up in some other court. Please have it on Monday or Tuesday. Let him be there,’ the counsel pleaded. However, Justice Nagarathna decisively stated, ‘Whether ASG, Solicitor General, our order will be the same. It does not differ based on the advocates who appear before us. Please tell your ASG that. If Mr. Senior counsel will appear, we will pass another order? In our court, every counsel is the same.’
Justice Nagarathna reiterated the Court’s stance on impartiality, underscoring that the designation of an advocate, whether a Solicitor General or a junior counsel, holds no weight in their deliberations. The focus remains on the quality of legal assistance provided, not the stature of the lawyer. She further remarked, ‘We look at the gown and say senior counsel or not. Sometimes we say senior counsel, they only say we are not senior counsel. Everybody is the same to us. A junior may assist, and we give the best order then. We feel satisfied if a junior assists very well. But we feel frustrated when a senior doesn’t assist well. Sometimes it’s just noise and no assistance.’
Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva joined Justice Nagarathna in stressing that the Court’s decisions are guided by the merit of arguments presented, rather than the identity of the lawyer. This perspective underscores the judiciary’s commitment to fairness and equality, ensuring that justice is served based on the substance of the case at hand.
The Supreme Court’s decision sends a clear message about the uniform standards applied in court proceedings, reinforcing that the Court’s primary concern is the effective administration of justice.
