Often the criticism is directed towards the judiciary but whether or not the Judiciary is responsible for delay in dispensation of justice is a crunch question requires to be addressed with objectivity.
For a better understanding the paragraph 7 of the decision of the Supreme Court in Anti-Corruption Establishment vs. national accountability Bureau case is being reproduced here:
“As regards the Bahrai Town respondents an application for adjournment was submitted on behalf of their counsel, learned Senior Advocate Supreme Court (“ASC”) Mr. Aitzaz Ahsan. This petition was filed on 4th October 2012 and thereafter it was repeatedly fixed in court, but it did not proceed. Adjournments were sought and granted to learned ASC Mr. Aitzaz Ahsan on 10.7.2013, 12.9.2013, 10.10.2013, 21.01.2014, 20.08.2014, 3.9.2014 and on 17.9.2014, when it was ordered that, “on the next date of hearing, if the Learned ASC [Mr. Aitzaz Ahsan] is not available, then the Learned AOR will proceed”. However, on the next date of hearing, i.e. on 22.10.2014, the case was once again adjourned on the request of Mr. Aitzaz Ahsan. Thereafter, on 17.6.2015 the case was adjourned as Mr. Aitzaz Ahsan was busy; it was ordered that, “the matter be listed for hearing after two weeks.” On 24.7.2015 the case was again adjourned, and it was ordered to be listed, “in the week commencing 31.8.2015”. When on 31.8.2015 this case was first taken up neither the learned ASC nor the learned AOR were present, instead an adjournment application was left with the court associate. The application sought adjournment on the ground, “that the counsel for the aforesaid Respondents [Nos. 4, 15, 12 and 13] is out of country”, however, since the learned AOR was not present, we waited for him. After the tea-break learned AOR appeared along with Mr. Gohar Ali Khan, Advocate, an associate of Mr. Aitzaz Ahsan, and requested for adjournment. However, as the case has been pending for about three years and as repeated adjournments had already been sought the request for adjournment was declined and the adjournment application was dismissed. We then called upon learned AOR to argue the matter as he had already been directed to do so in case of non-availability of learned ASC, but he stated that he has not been permitted to do so by his clients. In the circumstances we CP 1603/2012 8 permitted Mr. Gohar Ali Khan Advocate to argue the case even though he is not an Advocate of this Court, as he had appeared before the High Court in the matter and had also appeared a number of times in this case, but he too requested for an adjournment. Whilst it is the right of a party to be heard and be represented by counsel, but a party cannot be permitted to defeat the cause of justice by indefinite procrastination, as the Bahria Town respondents have done.”
If this is the attitude of a senior lawyer , do we need an Ian Stein to brief us about the causes of the delay?