In a noteworthy turn of events the Supreme Court today expressed reservations about its 2018 ruling in the case of Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency P. Ltd. Director v. Central Bureau of Investigation. The ruling, which stipulated that interim stay orders in civil and criminal cases would automatically lapse after six months unless explicitly extended, raised concerns about potential miscarriages of justice.

In the Asian Resurfacing case, the Court also mentioned that trial courts have the authority to resume proceedings after the expiration of the six-month period without waiting for any additional notification, unless there is a specific order extending the stay presented.

A three-judge bench, comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra, referred the matter to a larger bench for reconsideration. This decision stemmed from the realization that the Asian Resurfacing judgment was also delivered by a three-judge bench with similar authority.

The High Court Bar Association Allahabad, supported by a Certificate of Appeal from the Allahabad High Court, presented an appeal, outlining numerous concerns about the Asian Resurfacing judgment. In its decision on November 3, a three-judge panel from the Allahabad High Court formulated ten questions for the Supreme Court to consider, specifically addressing the principle of the automatic vacation of stay. Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi argued that the judgment was causing complications, emphasizing that the directions on the automatic vacation of stay were incidental and in the nature of obiter dicta.

The Supreme Court bench, led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, acknowledged concerns raised by Dwivedi and noted in its order that while indefinite stays could prolong proceedings, court inefficiencies also contribute to delays.

The bench observed that the primary issue in the Asian Resurfacing case was different, focusing on whether an order framing charges constituted an interlocutory order. Despite this, the judgment provided directives on the automatic vacation of stay orders, prompting the current reconsideration.

Expressing reservations about the general formulation of principles in the Asian Resurfacing case, the bench stated that the automatic vacation of stay without a judicial assessment has the potential to lead to a miscarriage of justice.

Referring the matter to a larger bench of five judges, the Court sought the assistance of either the Attorney General for India or the Solicitor General of India. Chief Justice DY Chandrachud assured a prompt reconsideration, citing information from the Registrar indicating a pending review in Asian Resurfacing itself.

Recently, Justices BR Gavai and PK Mishra also expressed verbal observations highlighting challenges and difficulties caused by the Asian Resurfacing judgment. In August 2019, the Supreme Court clarified that the six-month cap on interim stay orders would not apply to its own orders, ensuring a justified continuation beyond six months if necessary.

Case: HIGH COURT BAR ASSOCIATION ALLAHABAD v. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ORS,

Crl.A. No. 3589/2023.

Click to read/download order.