'Do You Take A Salary?': Justice Surya Kant’s Sharp Rebuke to Junior Lawyers

A Supreme Court hearing turned into a classroom for professional ethics when the bench questioned the request for adjournments by legal juniors.

The courtroom atmosphere grew palpably tense this week when Justice Surya Kant, presiding over a bench at the Supreme Court, took a firm stand against the habitual practice of seeking adjournments. During the proceedings, as junior lawyers stood up to request a 'tareekh' (date) on behalf of their seniors, the bench was visibly unimpressed. Justice Surya Kant posed a stinging question that echoed through the corridors of the apex court: "If you are taking a salary, how can you not do the work?"

The exchange was not merely a momentary flash of judicial temper; it struck at the heart of the "culture of adjournments" that has long plagued the Indian judicial system. For litigants waiting months, sometimes years, for their turn, the casual ease with which cases are pushed to a later date is a source of profound frustration. The bench made it clear that the court’s time is a finite public resource, not a convenience to be traded away by busy legal professionals.

The Bench’s Stance

Justice Surya Kant’s intervention serves as a reminder that the responsibility of a lawyer extends beyond merely showing up to ask for more time. By questioning the work ethics of the juniors present, the court highlighted a systemic issue: the delegation of crucial court appearances to those who may not be fully prepared or authorized to argue the matter, simply to keep the file moving.

The courtroom observed a rare moment of candor where the bench signaled that it is no longer business as usual. The message to the legal fraternity was categorical: if a lawyer is briefed and compensated to represent a client, the expectation is that they arrive ready to assist the court in reaching a resolution, not just to seek a postponement.

Why It Matters

This incident highlights a growing push within the judiciary to curb the backlog of cases by tightening administrative discipline. In the broader landscape, the Indian legal system is currently grappling with a massive pendency issue. When senior counsel—often juggling multiple high-profile cases—rely on juniors to stall proceedings, it compounds the workload of an already overburdened judiciary.

The bigger picture here is the judicial push for efficiency. By demanding accountability from those standing at the bar, the court is subtly shifting the burden back onto the legal profession to value the time of the bench and the litigant. If this becomes a consistent pattern in future hearings, we might see a shift in how law firms and chambers manage their schedules, potentially reducing the number of frivolous adjournments that clog the docket.