SC decries disregard for its leniency, categorical directives

The Supreme Court has expressed disappointment that litigants and their legal representatives often view the court's leniency and lenient decisions as merely routine steps, ignoring the gravity of the court's clear instructions. During a three-page order dismissing three civil miscellaneous applications, Justice Salahuddin Panhwar, part of a three-member bench led by Justice Munib Akhtar and Justice Malik Shahzad Ahmad Khan, emphasized the importance of adhering to the court's categorical directives.

The bench had previously granted an adjournment on March 4, 2024, for review petitioners due to medical reasons. However, the court's tolerance was bound by a strict conditional directive stating that if the counsel couldn't attend on the next scheduled date, "for any reason," an alternative arrangement must be made, otherwise, the case could be dismissed for non-prosecution.

Despite this explicit instruction, the court observed that on September 12, 2024, when the applications were revisited, the court's orders were "blatantly disregarded," and another adjournment was requested. The court noted that while one litigant claimed a stomach ailment caused by food poisoning, others cited pharyngitis, or throat inflammation, and attributed their inability to make alternative arrangements to a nerve response and sedating medication.

However, the court found the claimed ailment to be insignificant and that no alternative arrangement had been made, making the breach of the conditional order "categorical and absolute." Justice Panhwar highlighted that allowing the applications to recall the September 12, 2024, order would render the March 4, 2024, conditional order "utterly redundant," dismissing the applications.