MSG

[E.RAJENDRAN IYER]

📄 Immediate Objection and Representation

Subject: Objection to the adjournment order dated 09.04.2026 in the M.C. Singla case and regarding violation of the directions of the CJI

To,

The Hon’ble Registrar,

Supreme Court of India, New Delhi

Respected Sir,

With due respect, it is submitted that the M.C. Singla case (Case No. 102–103) was listed for hearing on 09.04.2026.

On that day, the learned senior counsel for the respondent, Mr. Dhrub Mehta, requested an adjournment on the ground of physical indisposition (leg-related issue), which was accepted by the Hon’ble Bench, and the matter was adjourned to 15.04.2026.

⚖️ Serious Objection

As per the clear directions issued by the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India on 18.03.2026:

Adjournments shall be granted only for specific and unavoidable reasons

Before granting an adjournment, the consent/objection of the petitioner’s counsel must be obtained

👉 However, on 09.04.2026—

The counsel for the petitioner was not heard at all

The adjournment was granted directly

❗ Serious Questions Arising

Are the clear orders of the CJI not mandatory?

If these directions are not followed even in the Supreme Court, what remains of their enforceability?

Is this not contrary to the principle of priority for “Part Heard” matters?

🔴 Particularly Concerning

This case—

Has been pending for more than 10 years

Concerns lakhs of bank pensioners

Most affected persons are senior citizens

👉 In such circumstances, granting an adjournment without hearing the petitioner’s side raises serious questions about both the principles of justice and transparency.

📢 Request / Prayer

Therefore, it is humbly requested that:

An administrative review of the adjournment order dated 09.04.2026 be conducted

The status of compliance with the CJI’s order dated 18.03.2026 be clarified

Strict adherence to “No adjournment without hearing both sides” be ensured in future cases

Hearing of the matter on 15.04.2026 be ensured under all circumstances

Continuous hearing be ensured for “Part Heard” matters

🔥 Conclusion

Sir,

If even within the Supreme Court, the highest administrative directions appear to be disregarded, it is a matter of serious concern not only for the judicial process but also for

👉 the fundamental spirit of the Constitution and democracy.

“Justice delayed is justice denied” — in this case, it has become a living reality.

Yours sincerely,

Kamal Patni, Ratlam

Mobile: 9827061001

[E.RAJENDRAN IYER]

Source: Live Law

 https://share.google/v0RUjZ54nA6luqXq0

[E.RAJENDRAN IYER]

https://youtu.be/Y3USm4Awv14?si=p2kCtZ1VsC41QofZ