The Delhi High Court on Thursday witnessed an unusual exchange between Justice Subramonium Prasad and Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan over the issue of adjournments, a practice often criticised in the judicial system. This time, however, it was the judge who sought an adjournment to prepare a judgment.

The exchange took place during the hearing of a plea filed by All India Students' Association (AISA) President Neha Bora challenging a notice issued by the Delhi Special Executive Magistrate (SEM), asking her to execute a peace bond.

During the post-lunch session, arguments continued for over two hours, following which Justice Prasad said he needed additional time to write the judgment. Addressing Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Chetan Sharma, appearing for the Delhi Police, the judge sought an adjournment until Tuesday, October 27, and asked the police not to take any coercive action against Bora in the meantime.

“Sharma sir, just a small request. It will require a bit more time to write a judgment. Unfortunately, Saturday and Sunday I am not in the station. We will finish the hearing today. Adjournment I am seeking to write the judgment till Tuesday. The only request is till Tuesday, when I pronounce the judgment. Hold your hands,” Justice Prasad said.

The judge sought the time as Bora's next hearing before the SEM was scheduled for Saturday, October 24.

Responding to the request, ASG Sharma flagged a concern, arguing that the matter involved a notice asking Bora to show cause why she should not execute a peace bond and that there was no order for her detention.

“There is a slight problem there. And I will leave it to the court. It is a seminal point… Show cause as to why a bond be not executed. Kindly see no detention,” Sharma submitted.

Justice Prasad said the judgment would have to address the submissions made by both the Delhi Police and Sankaranarayanan, who represented Bora. The judge also observed that rushing to deliver a judgment could create difficulties.

“The point is that when a judge is rushed, there is a problem,” the Court remarked.

At this point, Sankaranarayanan remarked that it might not sound appropriate for a court to seek an adjournment. He then offered to take responsibility for seeking additional time.

“I will take it on myself. I am seeking an accommodation till Tuesday or Wednesday,” the senior advocate said.

However, an adjournment was ultimately not required. The High Court reserved its verdict in the matter and is scheduled to pronounce it at 6 PM on October 23.