'Automatic Stay Vacation Prejudices Litigant' : Supreme Court Reserves Judgment In Reference Against 'Asian Resurfacing' Judgment

The Supreme Court today (December 13) reserved its judgement in the reference against the 2018 judgment in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency P. Ltd. Director V. Central Bureau of Investigation as per which interim orders of stay granted by High Courts and other courts in civil and criminal trials will automatically expire after a period of six months unless the orders are specifically extended. The bench comprised Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice Abhay S Oka, Justice JB Pardiwala, Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Manoj Misra. As per the Asian Resurfacing dictum, trial courts can automatically resume trials in criminal and civil cases, after six months from the stay orders passed by the higher courts (except the Supreme Court), without any further notice to the parties, if there is no extension order. During the hearing, the CJI underscored two problems arising from the automatic vacation of stay orders– first, that it can adversely impact litigants irrespective of their conduct and second, that the act of vacating a stay was not administrative but judicial, requiring a thoughtful application of mind. However, in an automatic vacation directive, there could be no corresponding application of mind. The CJI remarked–"There are two problems. One, the automatic vacation of stay prejudices the litigant irrespective of the conduct of that litigant. Because there are circumstances over which a litigant has no control. Second, the vacation of an order of stay is also a judicial act. It is not an administrative act. So by directing that the stay will stand vacated without application of mind a judicial order is enforced as a result of which the stay is effected without application of mind."Courtroom ExchangeDelays In Court Proceedings A Result Of Systemic Issues, Not The Fault Of Individual Judges: CJISenior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, appearing for the High Court Bar Association Allahabad, argued against the automatic vacation of stay orders. Dwivedi contended that such a mechanism could interfere with the constitutional structure, particularly Article 226, and may be seen as judicial legislation. He proposed the creation of separate benches to consider extensions, emphasizing the importance of a nuanced approach to different case types.He started by acknowledging the delay in court proceedings, specifically in certain High Courts such as the Allahabad High Court and the Patna High Court. To this, the CJI remarked–"That is also what weighed with the judges. Otherwise, stay just continues for decades, particularly in larger High Courts."Dwivedi pointed out that delays in legal proceedings are often exacerbated when accused individuals secure interim orders, taking advantage of the situation. He highlighted the adverse impact on trials, including frustration and potential memory lapses among witnesses as time elapses. He noted that delays were not solely the result of individual actions but could also be attributed to systemic faults within the judicial process. This included overburdened judges who struggled to manage extensive caseloads, leading to challenges in providing timely resolutions.Chief Justice DY Chandrachud agreed with Dwivedi's assessment, particularly emphasizing the magnified problem in Allahabad and other larger High Courts like Karnataka and Bombay. He clarified that the issue stemmed not because of fault of individual judges but rather a consequence of the sheer volume of cases, making it practically impossible to address every matter on the docket promptly.Solution Should Not Be Worse Than The ProblemWhen the CJI asked for solutions to the issue of vacation of stay, Dwivedi asked– "Do we find a solution which is greater than the disease?...the question is do we come up with some sort of formula to ensure there is application of mind...this is automatic vacation."He asked if the correct approach to tackle delays was calling for the establishment of specialized benches in various legal disciplines. He stated that these dedicated benches would be responsible for considering and justifying the extension of stay orders. Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta highlighted instances where contempt cases were filed against judges, for not resuming trials on the strength of Asian Resurfacing, particularly in states like Punjab and Haryana. Mehta echoed Dwivedi's sentiment, suggesting that the solution might be more severe than the underlying issue of delayed justice.Article 226 Part Of Basic Structure Of Constitution, Cannot Be Whittled Down: Senior Advocate Rakesh DwivediThe arguments by Senior Advocate Dwivedi covered the following points–1. Article 226 Cannot Be Whittled Down Dwivedi highlighted the significance of Article 226 as a fundamental aspect of the constitutional framework. He argued that automatically vacating a stay meant that there was no application of mind by the judiciary and the same resulted in interference with the process of judicial review. He asserted that Article 226 was a...

'Automatic Stay Vacation Prejudices Litigant' : Supreme Court Reserves Judgment In Reference Against 'Asian Resurfacing' Judgment

Padmakshi Sharma

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

'Automatic Stay Vacation Prejudices Litigant' : Supreme Court Reserves Judgment In Reference Against 'Asian Resurfacing' Judgment

Padmakshi Sharma

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers