A five-judge bench of the Supreme Court has overturned a three-judge bench’s 2018 decision that all interim orders passed by high courts or lower courts automatically expire after six months and cannot be issued under article 142 of the Indian constitution.
The latest ruling, in February 2024, affirmed that the Supreme Court or high courts should refrain from setting a specific timeframe for resolving pending cases in any court when exercising authority under article 142.
The ruling flowed from a 2018 judgement in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency v CBI, (2018). In 2018, the Supreme Court stipulated that trial courts could resume proceedings after six months from the issuance of stay orders by higher courts. Subsequently, these events took place:
- The Supreme Court in August 2019 clarified that the six-month cap on interim stay orders would not be applied to Supreme Court orders;
- The High Court Bar Association Allahabad intervened in a case before the Allahabad High Court, arguing against the automatic vacation of stay orders. The association highlighted the possible infringement on the constitutional framework, specifically emphasising article 226 of the constitution, which grants high courts the authority to issue writs. Additionally, they proposed specialised benches to review extensions, emphasising the importance of adopting a nuanced approach based on the nature of each case; and
- In November, a three-judge bench of the Allahabad High Court, while rejecting a reference to the directions in the Asian Resurfacing case, framed 10 questions of law for the Supreme Court to consider. It also granted a certificate of appeal to applicants, allowing them to approach the top court.
The five-judge bench of the Supreme Court underlined two crucial concerns stemming from the automatic vacation of stay orders. Firstly, the judges observed that this process might negatively affect litigants without considering their individual circumstances or behaviour. Secondly, they stressed that the vacation of a stay order was a judicial action, not an administrative one, requiring a judicious exercise of judicial discretion.
The court clarified that the directives in the Asian Resurfacing case concerning the automatic vacation of stay orders were issued within article 142 of the constitution. The court held that:
- An interim relief order is typically granted in support of the final relief sought in the case;
- The need for issuing a stay order on proceedings usually arises when the high court is addressing a challenge to an interim or interlocutory order issued during the ongoing main case before a trial or appellate court; and
- The high court can grant a stay of the main proceedings if it is satisfied that a prima facie case exists and that the failure to stay the proceedings before the relevant court is likely to render the adopted remedy ineffective.
Addressing the high court’s authority to revoke or alter interim relief, the court:
- Reiterated the fundamental principles of natural justice, emphasising the necessity of hearing all affected parties before issuing an order to revoke or modify interim relief;
- Emphasised that a legally sanctioned interim order, made after a comprehensive hearing of all contesting parties, does not become unlawful merely due to the passage of time;
- While expressing concern on the application in the Asian Resurfacing matter, stated that if a high court, after hearing all relevant parties, determines that a case justifies the stay of civil or criminal proceedings, the stay order should not automatically be set aside after six months solely because the high court could not hear the main case; and
- Additionally, the court highlighted that a high court, being a constitutional court and not judicially subservient to the Supreme Court, possesses the power under article 227 of the Constitution to exercise judicial supervision over all courts within its jurisdiction, including the authority to stay proceedings before such courts.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court held that it could always issue procedural directions to lower courts for streamlining procedural aspects to ensure timely disposal of cases.
However, while doing so, it could not affect the substantive rights of the litigants. It further held that Supreme Court and high courts should generally refrain from fixing a time-bound schedule for the disposal of pending cases before any other courts, except in exceptional circumstances. Case prioritisation should be best left to the courts where the cases are pending as their judges would be more familiar with the situation at the grassroots level.
Additionally, the court issued a directive that, to prevent prejudice to opposite parties, high courts should typically grant ad-interim relief for a limited duration when providing ex-parte ad-interim relief without hearing the affected parties.
The dispute digest is compiled by Numen Law Offices, a multidisciplinary law firm based in New Delhi & Mumbai. The authors can be contacted at support@numenlaw.com. Readers should not act on the basis of this information without seeking professional legal advice.
