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

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 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 –

Arguments and observations

While 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 Advocate Amit Pai echoed concerns about the erosion of judicial discretion and the potential for arbitrary outcomes. They emphasised the need to balance the imperative of speedy trials with the fundamental principles of justice and fair adjudication.

Background

The 2018 Asian Resurfacing ruling, which came under the Supreme Court's scrutiny, directed stay orders to be automatically vacated without requiring courts to provide reasons or consider the circumstances of each case. The ruling stipulated that trial courts could resume proceedings after six months from the issuance of stay orders by higher courts. Subsequently, the Supreme Court in August 2019 clarified that the six months' cap on interim stay orders will not be applied to Supreme Court orders.

The original judgment, delivered by a three-judge bench comprising Justices AK Goel, Navin Sinha, and Rohinton Nariman, mandated automatic stay vacation after six months unless in any exceptional case, such stay is extended by a speaking order.

“The speaking order must show that the case was of such exceptional nature that continuing the stay was more important than having the trial finalised. The trial court where the order of stay of civil or criminal proceedings is produced may fix a date not beyond six months of the order of stay so that on expiry of period of stay, proceedings can commence unless order of extension of stay is produced,” the court held.

Although the dictum was reiterated by the Supreme Court in October 2020, this verdict was not free from criticism. In September last year, a bench led by Justice BR Gavai orally remarked that it required 'serious consideration'.

In November, a three-judge bench of the Allahabad High Court, while rejecting a reference regarding the directions in the Asian Resurfacing judgment, framed ten questions of law for the apex court to consider. It also granted a certificate of appeal to applicants, allowing them to approach the top court. 

While hearing the appeal, a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court led by Chief Justice Chandrachud expressed reservations over the Asian Resurfacing judgment, raising apprehensions of potential miscarriage of justice in some cases. Accordingly, the court referred its earlier decision to a larger bench for reconsideration. In its order, the bench noted -

"We have reservations in regard to the correctness of the broad formulations of principle in the above terms. There can be no gainsaying the fact that a stay of an indefinite nature results in prolonging civil or criminal proceedings, as the case may be, unduly. At the same time, it needs to be factored in that the delay is not always on account of conduct of the parties involved. The delay may also be occasioned by the inability of the Court to take up proceedings expeditiously. The principle which has been laid down in the above decision to the effect that the stay shall automatically stand vacated (which would mean an automatic vacation of stay without application of judicial mind to whether the stay should or should not be extended further) is liable to result in a serious miscarriage of justice."

On the same day, another bench comprising Justices Oka and Mithal also raised doubts about the 2018 ruling.

Other stories about the judgment can be read here.

Case Details

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