In a notable ruling on Monday, the Supreme Court of India imposed a ₹25,000 fine on a litigant who had challenged an adjournment order from the Uttarakhand High Court in the case of Vishal Aggarwal vs Ritu Sharma. The High Court had deferred a hearing in a cheque bounce case by three weeks due to scheduling constraints, prompting the litigant to seek relief from the apex court.
Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma presided over the matter and expressed bewilderment at the litigant’s decision to challenge the adjournment. Justice Trivedi pointedly criticized the appeal, stating, “We cannot let you go like this. How can you file this?” The Supreme Court bench subsequently dismissed the appeal and levied the costs as a punitive measure.
This decision aligns with the Supreme Court’s consistent stance that it does not have the authority to enforce time-bound proceedings in High Courts. This principle was underscored in previous statements from the court, including a clarification in August that High Courts are not subordinate to the Supreme Court, and therefore, not obliged to follow directives on case handling within specified timelines.
Furthermore, in February 2023, the apex court had emphasized the constitutional autonomy of High Courts, denying their subordination under the Supreme Court. This perspective was reiterated in a decision made last year when the Supreme Court dismissed a plea against a Bombay High Court administrative circular that modified working hours due to a surge in COVID-19 cases, thereby affirming the independence of High Courts in administrative matters.
