“Justice delayed may be prejudice. But not every adjournment is injustice.”

“Tarikh pe tarikh, tarikh pe tarikh…” — the famous courtroom lament of Sunny Deol in Damini has become a cultural shorthand for frustration with judicial delay.
And admittedly, excessive delay in the delivery of justice can itself become a form of prejudice. Rights weaken with time. Evidence fades. Lives remain suspended. The burden of waiting is real.
But a courtroom is a different place.

It does not move by emotion. It moves by process.
And that process carries a burden—one that every Hon’ble Court bears with care.
Between allegation and judgment lies a fragile architecture of fairness.
A witness may need to be recalled because one answer remained incomplete. A document may surface late but still carry the truth. A cross-examination may be deferred because one unanswered question could alter the foundation of the case.

To the ordinary eye, these are delays.
To the judicial mind, they are safeguards.
Because while justice delayed may wound fairness, justice rushed may destroy it altogether.
The Hon’ble Courts have long recognised that no person should be condemned unheard. That principle demands time, patience, and often one more opportunity.
Truth is rarely punctual.
It arrives late—through forgotten papers, hesitant testimony, or a final explanation.
And perhaps that is the difficult dignity of law:
Not every “tarikh pe tarikh” is a failure.
Sometimes, it is the burden of ensuring that when judgment finally arrives, it is worthy of being called justice.

#GSLegal #JusticeDelayed #FairTrial #NaturalJustice #TarikhPeTarikh #LitigationPractice #TrialLaw #LegalAwareness