The Supreme Court now requires advance written notice to the opposing side before seeking an adjournment, disclosure of how many adjournments have already been taken in the case, and, in regular matters, permits no adjournment letters at all. These directions come from Registry Circular F.No. 3/Judl./2026, dated 18 March 2026, which supersedes two earlier circulars from 29 November and 2 December 2025. The change is part of a wider push by the Court to reduce delay and clear a backlog that has repeatedly been cited in its own case-management directions.
What exactly does the new circular require?
For fresh and after-notice matters, an advocate or party-in-person seeking an adjournment must serve a copy of the adjournment letter in advance on the Advocate-on-Record, the party-in-person on the other side, or the caveator, and submit the request along with proof of that service. The request must reach the Registry before 11:00 am on the previous working day, using the prescribed Annexure-A format sent to the Registry's designated email address. The opposing side then has until noon the following day to object by email before the request goes before the Bench. The letter itself must state a specific reason for the adjournment and disclose how many adjournments have already been sought in that case, a field that did not exist as a formal requirement before.
Why the distinction between "regular" and "fresh/after-notice" matters?
The circular splits cases into two tracks. Fresh and after-notice matters, generally cases still at an early procedural stage, can still get an adjournment, but only for genuine reasons such as bereavement or medical grounds, and only once per circulation in most situations; two consecutive adjournments without the matter actually being listed are barred. Regular matters, cases that have moved further along and are listed for substantive hearing, get no such route at all: the circular states plainly that no adjournment letters will be permitted in regular matters. SCC Online's summary of the circular notes this is a marked tightening from the informal practice that preceded it, where adjournment letters were routinely filed and rarely scrutinised for how many times a case had already been put off.
Old informal practice vs. the new circular
| Aspect | Earlier informal practice | Circular F.No. 3/Judl./2026 |
|---|---|---|
| Notice to opposing side | Not formally required | Mandatory advance service, with proof of service submitted |
| Disclosure of prior adjournments | Not a standard field on the request | Must state how many adjournments already sought in the case |
| Submission deadline | No fixed cut-off consistently enforced | Before 11:00 am on the previous working day, prescribed format |
| Opposing party's right to object | Informal, inconsistent | Formal window to object by email before the request is placed before the Court |
| Regular matters | Adjournment letters commonly filed | No adjournment letters permitted at all |
| Consecutive adjournments | Not capped in practice | Two consecutive adjournments without listing are barred |
Why is the Court doing this now?
The circular follows a series of case-management directions aimed at reducing the Supreme Court's pending caseload. Supreme Court Observer's coverage frames this as the Court's second attempt within months at clamping down on routine adjournments, after the November and December 2025 circulars proved insufficient. Coverage in The Week places the move in the context of the Court's broader effort to speed up disposal rates, alongside other 2026 reforms such as the increase in judge strength.
What does this mean if you have a matter listed before the Supreme Court?
If your case is at the fresh or after-notice stage and your advocate genuinely needs more time, factor in the advance-service requirement and the 11 am deadline the previous day; a request submitted late or without proof of service to the other side risks being rejected on procedure alone. If your matter has progressed to a regular hearing, plan on the basis that no adjournment will be available through a letter, and prepare accordingly for the listed date. This is also a good moment to check when your matter is actually coming up: see our guide on how to check your case status and read a cause list if you are unsure how to track a listing. The circular's disclosure requirement also mirrors a broader trend of courts applying a stricter due-diligence standard, similar to what we cover in our piece on delay condonation and advocate diligence.
Disclaimer: This article is for general information only and is not legal advice. Procedural circulars can be amended or superseded; confirm the current position with a qualified advocate or the Supreme Court Registry before relying on it for a specific matter.
Frequently asked questions
Can I still get an adjournment in the Supreme Court in 2026?
Yes, but only in fresh and after-notice matters, and only for a stated genuine reason such as bereavement, medical grounds, or another cause the Court finds satisfactory. In regular matters (cases already admitted and proceeding to hearing), the March 2026 circular does not permit adjournment letters at all.
What is Circular F.No. 3/Judl./2026?
A Supreme Court Registry circular dated 18 March 2026 that supersedes two earlier circulars from 29 November and 2 December 2025. It tightens the procedure for requesting adjournments: advance service on the opposing side, a submission deadline of 11:00 am the previous working day, mandatory disclosure of how many adjournments have already been taken, and a complete bar on adjournment letters in regular matters.
Do I have to inform the other side before asking for an adjournment?
Yes. The circular requires the party seeking an adjournment to serve a copy of the adjournment letter in advance on the Advocate-on-Record, party-in-person, or caveator on the other side, and to submit proof of that service along with the request itself.
What is the deadline for submitting an adjournment request?
The request, together with proof of service on the other side, must reach the Registry before 11:00 am on the previous working day. The opposing party then has until noon the following day to raise any objection by email before the request is placed before the Court.
What happens if I've already taken several adjournments in my case?
The letter itself must disclose the number of adjournments already sought in that case. This is a new mandatory field; the Registry and the Bench can see the adjournment history at a glance rather than relying on the file being checked separately.