Case Name: Payio Ashihio v. Union of India & Others
The petitioner, Payio Ashihio, instituted a writ petition before the Bombay High Court against the Union of India and other respondents. While the underlying petition reportedly concerns the extension of benefits under the Income Tax Act to same-sex couples, the present order does not deal with the substantive legal issues involved. Instead, it concerns a procedural request made by the respondents seeking an adjournment of the scheduled hearing.
At the commencement of the proceedings, the learned Additional Solicitor General, appearing for the respondents, submitted that although the matter had been listed for hearing on 9 July 2026, the learned Solicitor General of India intended to personally appear and argue the matter. On that basis, the respondents requested that the hearing be adjourned by approximately three weeks. The petitioner opposed any unnecessary delay, particularly as counsel representing the petitioner was travelling from outside India to address the Court. The Bench therefore considered whether further adjournment was justified considering the previous procedural history of the case.
The Division Bench observed that the writ petition had already been adjourned on several previous occasions at the instance of the Revenue. Recognising the need to avoid undue delays in judicial proceedings, the Court expressed its concern regarding the repeated requests for adjournment. However, considering the representation that the Solicitor General of India would personally appear to argue the matter, the Court exercised its discretion to grant one final opportunity to the respondents.
The Bench also attached significance to the fact that the petitioner’s counsel was travelling from outside India specifically for the hearing. In balancing procedural fairness with judicial efficiency, the Court made it unequivocally clear that the present adjournment was being granted as a last opportunity and that no further adjournments would be entertained at the request of the Revenue. The Court’s observations reflect its commitment to ensuring that important constitutional and statutory questions are heard expeditiously while accommodating exceptional circumstances only where genuinely warranted.
The Bombay High Court adjourned the writ petition and directed that it be listed for hearing on 30 July 2026 at 3:00 p.m. The Court expressly recorded that this would be the final adjournment granted to the respondents and that no further requests for postponement would be entertained. It also directed that the order be digitally signed by the Private Secretary/Personal Assistant of the Court and clarified that all concerned authorities could act upon a digitally signed copy transmitted by fax or email for administrative convenience.
This order is purely interlocutory and does not decide the merits of the writ petition concerning benefits for same-sex couples under the Income Tax Act. Its significance lies in the Court’s emphasis on preventing repeated procedural delays while ensuring that the respondents were afforded one final opportunity to be represented by the Solicitor General of India. The substantive legal questions raised in the petition remain pending adjudication and are yet to be considered by the Court.
Written by Adv. K. Sri Hamsa
