A Supreme Court Constitution bench today set aside a 2018 earlier ruling of the apex court limiting the life of interim stay orders granted by courts in civil and criminal cases to six months.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice Abhay S Oka, Justice JB Pardiwala, Justice Pankaj Mithal, and Justice Manoj Misra stated that there cannot be automatic vacation of stay orders after six months as laid down in its 2018 judgment in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency v. Central Bureau of Investigation.
The bench remarked that they have held that they do not agree with Asian resurfacing judgement and that there cannot be automatic vacation of stay. Hence, the court set aside the directions in the 2018 judgment in Asian Resurfacing in which a three-judge bench of the apex court had directed that all stay orders in criminal as well as civil proceedings would be valid only for six months unless specifically extended.
The Court stated that it is unable to concur with the directions issued in para 36 and 37 of the decision in the Asian Resurfacing case. The court remarked that a direction of stay of all interim orders passed by High Court that automatically expire with lapse is something which cannot be issued under Article 142. It added that Constitutional courts should refrain from laying down time bound schedules for cases pending before any other courts.
It ruled that such directions for timebound decisions should be issued only in exceptional circumstances. Earlier on December 13, the bench had reserved its judgment in the case. Notably, none of the counsel who appeared in the matter supported the automatic vacation of stay orders.
Earlier, the top court too had expressed reservations about the Asian Resurfacing, although it had acknowledged the drawbacks of prolonging stay orders. The bench had then requested Attorney General R Venkataramani or Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta to assist it in the matter. Solicitor General Mehta had contended that a continuing judicial mandamus from the Supreme Court cannot be used to curtail the discretion of High Courts.
The Court in its judgment on Thursday said that the Pattern of pendency of cases in every court including High Courts is different and hence, out of turn priority for certain cases is best left to the concerned court.
The judgment stated that Constitutional courts should not lay down time bound manner to decide cases since grassroot issues are known to concerned courts and such orders only in exceptional circumstances.