Bilaspur, April 6 The Chhattisgarh High Court strongly criticized Amit Jogi, the son of former Chief Minister Ajit Jogi, accusing him of using "deliberate delaying tactics" to stall proceedings in the high-profile Ram Avtar Jaggi murder case.
While the high court convicted Amit Jogi for conspiracy to murder Jaggi in 2003, the 75-page judgment shows how the accused attempted to push the legal system to the brink in order to stall justice.
A copy of the order passed on April 2 was made available on Monday.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Arvind Kumar Verma said in the judgment that the repeated change of counsel and "mechanical" requests for adjournments were a clear attempt to obstruct the progress of a matter specifically remanded by the Supreme Court for expeditious disposal.
The bench noted with concern that despite being granted sufficient time, Jogi's legal team repeatedly sought four-week adjournments on identical grounds.
On March 25, 2026, previous counsel Shailendra Shukla was provided with the complete case record (paper book) but later withdrew, claiming he was "prevented" by his client from filing his 'vakalatnama'.
Subsequently, a new counsel, Vikas Walia, appeared on April 1 and again on April 2, seeking more time to study the "extensive" record.
"...when the learned Counsel appearing for the accused-Amit Jogi- was called upon, the Counsel, Mr. Walia, did not even make the slightest of effort to commence his arguments except to say that he needs four weeks' time to submit his reply.
"The conduct of the learned counsel goes to show that he has been made to appear/stand in these cases only to seek adjournment and stall the proceedings of these cases, by any means for the reasons best known to the accused...and his counsel," the High Court noted.
The court wondered how a counsel, appearing on behalf of a party, can abruptly withdraw from the case on the instructions of the client, followed by the appearance of another counsel who files a Vakalatnama and again seeks an adjournment, especially when the matter has been pending after being remanded by the apex court for a considerable long period of nearly five months.
"Such conduct on the part of the accused appears to be a deliberate attempt to delay the proceedings, which this Court cannot countenance," the order said.
Refusing to grant any further reprieve, the bench asserted, "this court cannot sit helplessly as a silent spectator if a party to a case is deliberately trying to adopt dilatory tactics. The court cannot evade its obligation to ensure the proper and timely dispensation of justice."
The bench highlighted that the matter had been pending for nearly five months since the Supreme Court's remand on November 6, 2025, and the accused was well aware of every development in the case.
The bench quoted a 2021 Supreme Court judgment which had warned that the "task of adjournments is often used to kill Justice" and repeated delays shake the confidence of the common man in the rule of law and "break the back of the litigants."
"Any effort which weakens the system and shakes the faith of the common man in the justice dispensation has to be discouraged," the apex court had noted, adding that trial courts must not be intimidated by the "displeasure of the Bar" when refusing unnecessary adjournments.
The court subsequently rejected the application for further time and proceeded with the final hearing, despite the defence counsel's refusal to commence their concluding arguments.