On Wednesday, the Supreme Court bench, led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, along with Justices Abhay S Oka, JB Pardiwala, Pankaj Mithal, and Manoj Misra, has reserved its decision on the automatic expiration of temporary stay orders issued in both civil and criminal cases. The panel's verdict follows a brief hearing, during which none of the legal representatives advocated for the automatic lifting of stay orders. This matter gained attention following the Supreme Court's referral of its judgment in the Asian Resurfacing Of Road Agency v. Central Bureau Of Investigation case to a Constitution bench.

The 2018 ruling by a three-judge panel mandated that all stay orders, whether in criminal or civil cases, would remain effective for only six months unless explicitly extended. However, the recent concerns voiced by the Court regarding the drawbacks of prolonged extensions prompted a reevaluation. During the hearing, Chief Justice Chandrachud emphasized that the initial ruling aimed to address the issue of certain High Courts granting stay orders that extended for decades, particularly in larger High Courts. He acknowledged the genuine problem, especially in High Courts with substantial caseloads, where judges face challenges in handling 200-300 matters daily.

The discussion also delved into the appropriate course of action for dealing with stay orders issued by High Courts under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code in petitions filed for the quashing of criminal cases. While some argued against automatically vacating such stay orders, citing potential complications, others emphasized the need for a carefully considered resolution.

Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi highlighted the erosion of trust in High Courts due to the 2018 decision and cautioned against the potential disastrous consequences of exacerbating the caseload before the Supreme Court. Dwivedi advocated for empowering High Courts to find solutions, asserting that the power to grant interim orders is inherent in their authority.

The discussion also touched upon the provision in Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India, which mandates that applications to lift stay orders be resolved by High Courts within two weeks. However, nuances were raised regarding the applicability of this provision, particularly when interim relief is granted with or without giving the opposing party an opportunity to be heard.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued against using ongoing judicial mandamus to restrict the discretion of High Courts. He contended that the 2018 ruling overlooked precedents emphasizing the importance of transparency and fairness in legal proceedings.

The Chief Justice of India acknowledged the practical challenges faced in the legal system, where setting strict timelines for High Courts to decide cases may not be feasible. The debate continues, balancing the need for efficient resolution with considerations for the rights and trust of litigants in the justice system.

Case: High Court Bar Association Allahabad vs State of Uttar Pradesh and ors.