MUMBAI: Mere days before the President of India and Union law minister sought steps to tackle a ‘tareekh pe tareekh’ culture, Bombay HC reprimanded the Maharashtra govt for its “casual,” “robotic approach” in seeking adjournments, its “routine mantra” and “total neglect” in failing to file an affidavit for over a year and called for devising an effective procedure to ensure replies are filed promptly in all matters.
The HC on Aug 29 said the state had since Nov 2022 only been seeking adjournments in one matter. The case was an example of the “casual approach” to “drag proceedings,” unmindful of the cost litigants bear as does the govt itself, said Justices Girish Kulkarni and Somasekhar Sunderasan.
“In the event, there is no justification, we shall not permit the request either for an adjournment or to file reply affidavits except on payment of costs,” the HC said, observing that the issue of unjustified adjournments needed to be tackled separately from the merits of the matter before it.
The HC order came three days before Union law minister Arjun Ram Meghwal on Sunday spoke of collectively tackling the “common perception of a ‘tareekh pe tareekh’ culture.” President Droupadi Murmu had echoed his sentiments. They spoke at the National Conference of the District Judiciary to mark 75 years of the Supreme Court of India.
The CJI D Y Chandrachud at the same conference mentioned an action plan to reduce case pendency through case management.

“Considering repeated instances of a robotic approach of endless adjournments being sought to file reply affidavits, henceforth we are inclined to take a strict view of the matter” especially when orders are not complied with within the specific deadlines without justifiable reasons, said the HC when the state and Cidco sought time again on Aug 29.
The HC lashed out at the “sorry state of affairs” while hearing a petition, where some Navi Mumbai residents claimed compensation over an alleged 2018 acquisition of their land. The HC directed the state to pay Rs 10,000 to the petitioners, residents of Navi Mumbai, as a “last chance” to file the reply affidavits and posted the matter to Sept 12.
Noting the inadequacy of the amount-Rs 10,000 – in compensating the “actual expenses” incurred by the petitioners, the HC warned of possibly imposing “reasonable costs” on the state for unjustifiable adjournments in the future.
The HC judges pondered on whether to adopt a realistic approach to “compensate the petitioner,” “especially when senior counsel is briefed and the high cost of litigation incurred by the litigant?”