In a landmark decision on Thursday (February 29), the Supreme Court reversed its 2018 Asian Resurfacing judgment. This ruling had previously established that interim orders issued by High Courts, which halted trials in civil and criminal cases, would expire automatically after six months from the date of issuance unless specifically prolonged by the High Courts.

The recent judgment, overturning the previous ruling, was delivered by a five-judge bench composed of Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, along with Justices Abhay S Oka, JB Pardiwala, Pankaj Mithal, and Manoj Misra.

"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 5-judge bench further emphasized that constitutional courts ought to abstain from establishing time-bound schedules for cases pending before other courts. Recognizing the diverse patterns of case backlog in each court, including the High Court, the bench asserted that assigning priority to specific cases should be left to the discretion of the presiding judge, who is well-versed in the practical dynamics of the court.

Justice Oka noted that the verdict includes specific guidelines regarding the exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution. However, the comprehensive text of the judgment has not yet been made available online.Additionally, Justice Manoj Misra penned a concurring judgment in agreement with the decision of the bench.

Last year, the five-judge bench reviewed a reference concerning the March 2018 judgment in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency v. Central Bureau of Investigation, before concluding its deliberations and reserving its verdict on December 13. This referral originated from an appeal against a ruling by the Allahabad High Court, which raised doubts regarding the 'automatic stay vacation rule' and presented ten legal questions for the consideration of the apex court.

During the hearing of the reference, the five-judge bench, under the leadership of Chief Justice Chandrachud, underscored two critical issues arising from the automatic vacation of stay orders. Firstly, he pointed out that this mechanism could potentially harm litigants without taking into account their individual circumstances or behavior. Secondly, he stressed that vacating a stay order is a judicial decision, not an administrative one, underscoring the importance of exercising judicial discretion thoughtfully.

Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, representing the High Court Bar Association Allahabad, which intervened in the case before the Allahabad High Court, voiced opposition to the automatic vacation of stay orders. He expressed apprehensions about the potential encroachment upon the constitutional framework, particularly highlighting Article 226, which grants high courts the authority to issue writs.

Similarly, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta emphasized that the judicial discretion of high courts should not be restricted by a sweeping directive.

The legal arguments also explored the wider implications of the 2018 ruling. Senior Advocate Vijay Hansaria and Advocate Amit Pai echoed concerns regarding the erosion of judicial discretion and the possibility of arbitrary outcomes. They highlighted the importance of striking a balance between the necessity of expeditious trials and the fundamental principles of justice and equitable adjudication.

Case Details

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