Gauhati High Court Concludes PIL on Adjournment Reforms
The Gauhati High Court has brought to a close a public interest litigation (PIL) aimed at establishing uniform guidelines for court adjournments and mandating the digital upload of court records. The decision was rendered by a Division Bench comprising Justices Michael Zothankhuma and Arun Dev Choudhury on August 10. The bench acknowledged that an administrative notification from the High Court Registry had effectively addressed the issues raised in the petition.
The court noted the submission by petitioner R. Singh, who appeared in person. Singh referred to Notification No. 21, dated March 23, 2026, issued by the Registrar General of the Gauhati High Court, declaring that the PIL no longer required adjudication. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.
Background of the Petition
Advocate Reetam Singh, a member of the Bar Council of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram, Arunachal Pradesh, and Sikkim, initiated the PIL in 2024. Drawing from his experience with a case under the Negotiable Instruments Act and a money suit, Singh argued that trial courts frequently granted adjournments on insufficient grounds, contravening the directives of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), and the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC).
The petition sought to enforce a stringent regime for adjournments, limiting them to exceptional and well-substantiated circumstances. It called for the imposition of costs on counsel seeking unwarranted adjournments, a uniform date-allocation system for subordinate courts akin to the High Court’s system, and the obligatory online publication of daily order sheets. Furthermore, the petition advocated for the creation of a committee to formulate adjournment guidelines and a digital date-allocation system developed in collaboration with experts from IIT Guwahati. Disciplinary measures against lawyers who misuse adjournments were also proposed.
Implementation of New Criminal Laws
In an important legislative development, new criminal laws were enacted in India starting July 1, 2024, with the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) replacing the CrPC. The High Court’s March 2026 notification underscored the necessity for trial courts to comply with the BNSS’s two-adjournment limit as stipulated in Section 346(2). This section mandates that once a criminal trial commences, it should proceed daily until all witnesses have testified, with adjournments being limited and justified through recorded reasons.
More Read
The notification further called for the implementation of BNSS provisions regarding e-signed summons and the digital signing of judicial orders via the e-Hastakshar application, aimed at ensuring the swift upload of daily orders. Additionally, it allowed for formal witnesses and police officers to participate in court hearings through video conferencing, provided their physical presence was not necessary.
On August 10, the court concluded that the notification addressed the core issues highlighted by the petitioner, leading to the dismissal of his PIL. Advocate Reetam Singh represented himself in the matter, while Advocates S Baruah and D Bora appeared for the respondents.
For further details, refer to the judgment and the March 2026 notification.
