'Applications To Vacate Interim Reliefs Can't Be Kept Pending For Long' : Supreme Court Issues Guidelines To HCs On Granting & Vacating Interim Stay

The apex court speaking through Justice Abhay S Oka, who authored the lead judgment, has held that while granting ex-parte ad-interim relief without hearing the affected parties, high courts should typically grant such relief for a limited duration. After hearing both sides, the court may confirm or vacate the interim order. The order must indicate sufficient application of mind to relevant factors.

Even after an interim order is passed following a hearing of contesting parties, the high court cannot vacate it without giving the affected party an opportunity to be heard. Applications for vacating interim reliefs should be given priority, especially when the main case cannot be immediately heard. The high courts are instructed not to delay such applications, and if a party applies for vacating an interim order due to suppression of facts, it should be taken up promptly.

These guidelines were issued in the judgment which reversed the 2018 Asian Resurfacing judgment, which mandated automatic expiration of interim orders after six months, unless extended by the high courts. It was delivered yesterday by a five-judge bench comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justices Abhay S Oka, JB Pardiwala, Pankaj Mithal, and Manoj Misra.

The court speaking through Justice Oka, who wrote the lead judgment, set aside the earlier directive issued in the 2018 judgment, stating that a direction for the automatic expiration of interim orders cannot be issued under Article 142 of the Constitution.

 Procedure to be adopted by High Courts while passing interim order of stay of proceedings and for dealing with the applications for vacating interim stay

The judgment stated :

"To avoid any prejudice to the opposite parties, while granting ex-parte ad-interim relief without hearing the affected parties, the High Courts should normally grant ad-interim relief for a limited duration. After hearing the contesting parties, the Court may or may not confirm the earlier ad-interim order. Ad-interim relief, once granted, can be vacated or affirmed only after application of mind by the concerned Court. Hence, the Courts must give necessary priority to the hearing of the prayer for interim relief where ad- interim relief has been granted. Though the High Court is not expected to record detailed reasons while dealing with the prayer for the grant of stay or interim relief, the order must give sufficient indication of the application of mind to the relevant factors.

An interim order passed after hearing the contesting parties cannot be vacated by the High Court without giving sufficient opportunity of being heard to the party whose prayer for interim relief has been granted. Even if interim relief is granted after hearing both sides, as observed earlier, the aggrieved party is not precluded from applying for vacating the same on the available grounds. In such a case, the High Court must give necessary priority to the hearing of applications for vacating the stay, if the main case cannot be immediately taken up for hearing. Applications for vacating interim reliefs cannot be kept pending for an inordinately long time. The High Courts cannot take recourse to the easy option of directing that the same should be heard along with the main case. The same principles will apply where ad-interim relief is granted. If an ad-interim order continues for a long time, the affected party can always apply for vacating ad-interim relief. The High Court is expected to take up even such applications on a priority basis. If an application for vacating ex-parte ad interim relief is filed on the ground of suppression of facts, the same must be taken up at the earliest"

Grounds to vacate interim orders

The High Courts are always empowered to vacate or modify an order of interim relief passed after hearing the parties on the following, amongst other grounds: –

(a)If a litigant, after getting an order of stay, deliberately prolongs the proceedings either by seeking adjournments on unwarranted grounds or by remaining absent when the main case in which interim relief is granted is called out for hearing before the High Court with the object of taking undue advantage of the order of stay;

(b)The High Court finds that the order of interim relief is granted as a result of either suppression or misrepresentation of material facts by the party in whose favour the interim order of stay has been made; and

(c) The High Court finds that there is a material change in circumstances requiring interference with the interim order passed earlier. In a given case, a long passage of time may bring about a material change in circumstances.

These grounds are not exhaustive. There can be other valid grounds for vacating an order of stay 

Other stories about the judgment can be read here.

High Court Bar Association Allahabad v. State Of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. | Criminal Appeal No. 3589 of 2023

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 177

Click here to read the judgment