Gauhati High Court: Closes Adjournment PIL After Administrative Action

• The Gauhati High Court closed a public interest litigation (PIL) concerning adjournment guidelines and digital record uploads.
• The PIL was filed by advocate Reetam Singh in 2024, citing routine, inadequately justified adjournments by trial courts.
• Singh argued these practices violated the Code of Civil Procedure and the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (which replaced the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973).
• The court closed the PIL after petitioner Reetam Singh confirmed his concerns were addressed by Notification No. 21 dated 23.03.2026.
• This administrative notification, issued by the Registrar General, rendered further judicial adjudication unnecessary.

The decision came after the petitioner, Reetam Singh, informed the court that his concerns had been adequately addressed by an administrative notification issued by the High Court Registry.

The Gauhati High Court recently concluded a significant public interest litigation (PIL) that had sought to establish consistent guidelines for court adjournments and mandate the digital uploading of judicial records. On August 10, a Division Bench comprising Justices Michael Zothankhuma and Arun Dev Choudhury formally closed the petition. The decision came after the petitioner, Reetam Singh, informed the court that his concerns had been adequately addressed by an administrative notification issued by the High Court Registry.

This crucial development effectively saw the Gauhati High Court closes adjournment PIL, acknowledging that the administrative action rendered further judicial intervention unnecessary. The specific directive, Notification No. 21 dated 23.03.2026, originated from the Registrar General of the Gauhati High Court, signaling a proactive administrative response to the issues raised.

The PIL, initiated in 2024 by Reetam Singh, an advocate registered with the Bar Council of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram, Arunachal Pradesh, and Sikkim, stemmed from his direct professional experiences. Mr. Singh highlighted instances from a case under the Negotiable Instruments Act and a separate money suit, where he observed what he considered to be routine and insufficiently justified adjournments granted by trial courts. He argued that such practices contravened the established framework of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), and the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), which replaced the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) on July 1, 2024, and now govern court procedures in India.

The Reetam Singh PIL specifically called for a stringent adjournment regime, advocating for adjournments to be granted only in exceptional, well-substantiated circumstances. Furthermore, it proposed the imposition of costs on legal counsel who sought adjournments without proper justification and requested the implementation of a standardized date-allocation system across subordinate courts, mirroring the system already in place at the High Court level. These demands underscored a broader push for court procedure reforms in Assam, aiming to streamline judicial processes and reduce delays.

The resolution of the PIL hinged entirely on the issuance of Notification No. 21 dated 23.03.2026 by the Registrar General of the Gauhati High Court. This administrative directive effectively provided the necessary framework or clarification that the petitioner had sought through his public interest litigation. During the August 10 hearing, Mr. Singh himself confirmed to the Division Bench that, in light of this new notification, there remained no outstanding issues for judicial adjudication within the PIL.

The court's order explicitly noted this submission, stating that "nothing survives to be adjudicated" in the matter. This outcome signifies a direct administrative response to calls for enhanced Gauhati High Court adjournment guidelines and broader court procedure reforms. The notification's content, though not detailed in the court's order, was sufficient to satisfy the petitioner's demands for a more disciplined approach to adjournments, thereby concluding the legal challenge.

Lawyers practicing in the Gauhati High Court's jurisdiction should review the administrative notification (No. 21 dated 23.03.2026) that prompted the closure of this PIL. This notification likely contains new or clarified guidelines on adjournments, which will impact trial court procedures, case management, and the ability to obtain adjournments, requiring adjustments to litigation strategy.

Source: Reporting based on a legal news source.