In Asian Resurfacing judgment, a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court earlier had directed that all stay orders in criminal as well as civil proceedings would be valid only for six months unless specifically extended.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: A Constitution bench of the Supreme Court Today (29 Feb) overturned a 2018 ruling of the apex court that limited the duration of interim stay orders granted by courts in civil and criminal cases to six months.
Chaired by Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud and comprising Justices Abhay S Oka, JB Pardiwala, Pankaj Mithal, and Manoj Misra, the bench stated that there cannot be an automatic vacation of stay orders after six months, as stipulated in the 2018 judgment in Asian Resurfacing Of Road Agency v. Central Bureau Of Investigation.
“We have held we do not agree with Asian resurfacing….There cannot be automatic vacation of stay,”
-the Court affirmed.
Consequently, the Court nullified the directives outlined in the 2018 Asian Resurfacing judgment, wherein a three-judge bench of the apex court had mandated that all stay orders in criminal and civil proceedings would only remain valid for six months unless expressly extended.
The Court clarified that it disagrees with the directives laid out in paragraphs 36 and 37 of the Asian Resurfacing case decision.
“A direction of stay of all interim orders passed by High Court automatically expire with lapse is something which cannot be issued under Article 142. Constitutional courts should refrain from laying down time bound schedule for cases pending before any other courts,”
-the Supreme Court emphasized.
The Constitution bench further emphasized that such directives for time-bound decisions should only be issued in exceptional circumstances.
The bench had reserved its judgment in the case on December 13. Notably, none of the counsel who appeared in the matter supported the automatic vacation of stay orders. The Supreme Court also expressed reservations about the Asian Resurfacing ruling, although it acknowledged the drawbacks of prolonging stay orders.
The bench then requested Attorney General R Venkataramani or Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta to assist it in the matter. Solicitor General Mehta argued that a continuing judicial mandamus (from the Supreme Court) cannot be used to curtail the discretion of High Courts. Senior Advocates Rakesh Dwivedi and Vijay Hansaria also appeared in the matter.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Bar Association to Issue Communication in Vernacular Languages
In its judgment today, the Court stated that the pattern of pendency of cases in every court, including High Courts, is different and hence, giving out-of-turn priority to certain cases is best left to the concerned court.
“Constitutional courts should not lay down a time-bound manner to decide cases since grassroots issues are known to concerned courts, and such orders should only be issued in exceptional circumstances,”
-the judgment emphasized.
CASE TITLE:
High Court Bar Association Allahabad vs State of Uttar Pradesh and ors.
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
