No Automatic Vacation Of Stay Orders Of HCs On Civil & Criminal Trials : Supreme Court Overturns 'Asian Resurfacing' Judgment

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court on Thursday (February 29) overturned its 2018 Asian Resurfacing judgment which mandated the interim orders passed by High Courts staying trials in civil and criminal cases will automatically expire after six months from the date of the order, unless expressly extended by the High Courts.The latest verdict, setting aside the earlier ruling, was handed out by a five-judge bench comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, and Justices Abhay S Oka, JB Pardiwala, Pankaj Mithal, and Manoj Misra.Justice Oka, who read out the judgment, stated that the bench has not agreed with the directions in Asian Resurfacing. "A direction that all interim orders passed by high courts will automatically expire on the lapse of time cannot be issued in exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution," the court held. "The directions of the Court that provide for automatic vacation of the order of stay and the disposal of all cases in which a stay has been granted on a day-to-day basis virtually amount to judicial legislation. The jurisdiction of this Court cannot be exercised to make such a judicial legislation. Only the legislature can provide that cases of a particular category should be decided within a specific time. By a blanket direction in the exercise of power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, Court cannot interfere with the jurisdiction conferred on the High Court of granting interim relief by limiting its jurisdiction to pass interim orders valid only for six months at a time. Putting such constraints on the power of the High Court will also amount to making a dent on the jurisdiction of the High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution, which is an essential feature that forms part of the basic structure of the Constitution," the Court observed.The five-judge bench also held that constitutional courts should refrain from laying down time-bound schedules for cases pending before any other courts. The pattern of pendency of cases in every court including the high court is different and giving out-of-turn priority for certain cases is best left to the concerned judge, who is aware of the the grassroots situation of the court.In interest of justice that reasoned stay order should persist unless time-bound, modified, or vacated: Justice Pankaj Mithal delivers concurring opinionIn his concurring opinion, Justice Pankaj Mithal said that a reasoned stay order, unless specified to be time-bound, should persist until the main matter is decided, or until the order is extended, modified, varied, or vacated. Agreeing with the lead judgment, Justice Mithal said –“It is in the interest of justice to provide that a reasoned stay order, once granted in any civil or criminal proceedings, if not specified to be time-bound, would remain in operation till the decision of the main matter and until and unless an application is moved for its vacation and a speaking order is passed adhering to the principles of natural justice either extending, modifying, varying, or vacating the same.”The five-judge bench heard a reference against the March 2018 judgment in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency v. Central Bureau of Investigation last year, before reserving its verdict on December 13. This stemmed from an appeal against an Allahabad High Court decision which doubted the 'automatic stay vacation rule and framed ten questions of law for the apex court to consider.Arguments and observationsWhile hearing the reference, the five-judge bench led by Chief Justice Chandrachud highlighted two critical issues arising from the automatic vacation of stay orders. First, he noted that this mechanism could adversely impact litigants without considering their circumstances or conduct. Second, he emphasised that vacating a stay order is a judicial act, not an administrative one, necessitating a thoughtful application of judicial discretion.Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, representing the High Court Bar Association Allahabad, which had intervened in the case before the Allahabad High court, argued against the automatic vacation of stay orders. He raised concerns about the potential interference with the constitutional structure, particularly Article 226, which empowers high courts to issue writs. The senior counsel suggested the creation of specialised benches to consider extensions, highlighting the need for a nuanced approach to different case types.In a similar vein, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta underscored that the judicial discretion of high courts should not be curtailed by a blanket directive. The law officer stressed the need for courts to maintain their discretion in deciding the duration of stay orders, highlighting instances where automatic vacation directives had led to contempt cases against judges for not resuming trials after six months from the issuance of stay orders.The legal arguments also delved into the broader implications of the 2018 ruling. Senior Advocate Vijay Hansaria and...

No Automatic Vacation Of Stay Orders Of HCs On Civil & Criminal Trials : Supreme Court Overturns 'Asian Resurfacing' Judgment

Awstika Das

Tags