Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, CJI., ABHAY S. OKA, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA, PANKAJ MITHAL JJ.
High Court Bar Association, Allahabad - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No.3589 Of 2023 with Special Leave Petition (Crl.) nos.13284-13289 of 2023 and Criminal Appeal Diary no. 49052 of 2023
Decided On : 29-02-2024
Per Abhay S. Oka, J. (For himself and on behalf of Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, CJI, J. B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, JJ.)
(A) Constitution of India – Article 226(3) – Automatic vacation of all interim orders of stay of proceedings – Though interim orders of stay of proceedings cannot be routinely passed as a matter of course, it cannot be said that such orders can be passed only in exceptional cases – Nevertheless, High Courts, while passing orders of stay in serious cases like offences under PC Act or serious offences against women and children, must be more cautious and circumspect – When a High Court grants a stay of proceedings while issuing notice without giving opportunity of being heard to contesting parties, it is not an interim order, but it is an ad-interim order of stay – It can be converted into an interim order of stay only after opportunity of being heard is granted on prayer for interim relief to all parties to proceedings – Ad-interim orders, by their very nature, should be of a limited duration – High Courts are always empowered to vacate or modify an order of interim relief if a litigant, after getting an order of stay, deliberately prolongs proceedings and/or High Court finds that order of interim relief is granted as a result of either suppression or misrepresentation of material facts by party and/or High Court finds that there is a material change in circumstances requiring interference with interim order passed earlier – In a given case, a long passage of time may bring about a material change in circumstances. (Paras 13, 14 and 15)
(B) Constitution of India – Article 226(3) – Interim relief – Vacation of – Elementary principles of natural justice mandate that an order of vacating interim relief or modification of interim relief is passed only after hearing all affected parties – An order of vacating interim relief passed without hearing beneficiary of order is against basic tenets of justice – Application of mind is an essential part of any decision-making process – Without application of mind, an order of interim stay cannot be vacated only on the ground of lapse of time when litigant is not responsible for delay – An interim order lawfully passed by a Court after hearing all contesting parties is not rendered illegal only due to long passage of time – If a High Court concludes after hearing all concerned parties that a case was made out for grant of stay of proceedings of a civil or criminal case, order of stay cannot stand automatically set aside on expiry of period of six months only on the ground that High Court could not hear main case – If such an approach is adopted, it will be completely contrary to concept of fairness – If an interim order is automatically vacated without any fault on part of litigant only because High Court cannot hear main case, maxim “actus curiae neminem gravabit” will apply – No litigant should be allowed to suffer due to fault of Court – If that happens, it is bounden duty of Court to rectify its mistake – All interim orders of stay passed by all High Courts cannot be set at naught by a stroke of pen only on the ground of lapse of time – Even if Legislature were to come out with such a provision for automatic vacation of stay, same may not stand judicial scrutiny as it may suffer from manifest arbitrariness. (Paras 16, 17 and 18)
(C) Constitution of India – Article 142 – Power to do complete justice – Provisions of Article 142 are meant to further cause of justice and to secure complete justice – Directions in exercise of power under Article 142 cannot be issued to defeat justice –
Jurisdiction under Article 142 cannot be invoked to pass blanket orders setting at naught a very large number of interim orders lawfully passed by all High Courts, and that too, without hearing contesting parties – Jurisdiction under Article 142 can be invoked only to deal with extraordinary situations for doing complete justice between parties before Court – Article 142 does not empower Supreme Court to ignore substantive rights of litigants – Power of Supreme Court under Article 142 cannot be exercised to defeat principles of natural justice, which are an integral part of our jurisprudence. (Paras 19 and 22)
(D) Constitution of India – Articles 226 and 227 – Position of High Courts and its power of superintendence – High Court is also a constitutional Court – It is not judicially subordinate to Supreme Court – High Court is constitutionally independent of Supreme Court of India – Power of High Court under Article 227 of Constitution to have judicial superintendence over all Courts within its jurisdiction will include power to stay proceedings before such Courts – By a blanket direction in exercise of power under Article 142 of Constitution of India, Supreme Court cannot interfere with jurisdiction conferred on High Court of granting interim relief by limiting its jurisdiction to pass interim orders valid only for six months at a time – Putting such constraints on power of High Court will also amount to making a dent on jurisdiction of High Courts under Article 226 of Constitution, which is an essential feature that forms part of basic structure of Constitution. (Paras 23 and 24)
(E) Constitution of India – Articles 142 and 226 – Fixing timelines for disposal of cases – Sustainability – Directions of Court that provide for automatic vacation of order of stay and disposal of all cases in which stay has been granted on a day-to-day basis virtually amount to judicial legislation – Jurisdiction of supreme Court cannot be exercised to make such a judicial legislation – Only legislature can provide that cases of a particular category should be decided within a specific time – There are many statutes which incorporate such provisions – However, all such provisions are usually held to be directory – Ideally, cases in which stay of proceedings of civil/criminal trials is granted should be disposed of expeditiously by High Courts – However, we do not live in an ideal world – Except High Courts of smaller strength having jurisdiction over smaller States, each High Court is flooded with petitions under Article 227 of Constitution of India, petitions under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and petitions filed in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction under CPC and Cr. P.C. – High Courts cannot be expected to decide, on a priority basis or a day-to-day basis, only those cases in which a stay of proceedings has been granted while ignoring several other categories of cases that may require more priority to be given – Constitutional Courts should not normally fix a time-bound schedule for disposal of cases pending in any Court – Issue of giving out-of-turn priority to certain cases should be best left to concerned Courts – Orders fixing outer limit for disposal of cases should be passed only in exceptional circumstances to meet extraordinary situations. (Paras 28, 29, 30 and 32)
(F) Administration of Justice – Courts, superior in judicial hierarchy, cannot interfere with day-to-day functioning of other Courts by directing that only certain cases should be decided out of turn within a time frame – In a sense, no Court of law is inferior to other – Supreme Court is not superior to High Courts in judicial hierarchy – Judges of High Courts should be allowed to set their priorities on a rational basis – As far as setting outer limit is concerned, it should be best left to concerned Courts unless there are very extraordinary circumstances. (Para 33)
(G) Constitution of India – Articles 142 and 226 – Ad-interim relief – Vacation of – Ad-interim relief, once granted, can be vacated or affirmed only after application of mind by concerned Court – Courts must give necessary priority to hearing of prayer for interim relief where ad-interim relief has been granted – Though High Court is not expected to record detailed reasons while dealing with prayer for grant of stay or interim relief, order must give sufficient indication of application of mind to relevant factors – Even if interim relief is granted after hearing both sides, aggrieved party is not precluded from applying for vacating the same on available grounds – In such a case, High Court must give necessary priority to hearing of applications for vacating stay, if main case cannot be immediately taken up for hearing – Applications for vacating interim reliefs cannot be kept pending for an inordinately long time – High Courts cannot take recourse to easy option of directing that same should be heard along with main case – Same principles will apply where ad-interim relief is granted – If an ad-interim order continues for a long time, affected party can always apply for vacating ad-interim relief – High Court is expected to take up even such applications on a priority basis – If an application for vacating ex-parte ad interim relief is filed on the ground of suppression of facts, same must be taken up at the earliest – Cases in which trials have been concluded as a result of automatic vacation of stay based only on decision in case of Asian Resurfacing, orders of automatic vacation of stay shall remain valid. (Paras 34, 35, 37 and 38)
Per Pankaj Mithal, J. (Separate Concurring View)
Constitution of India – Articles 142 and 226(3) – Automatic vacation of all interim orders of stay of proceedings – No one can be made to suffer on account of any mistake or fault of Court – Delay on part of Court in deciding proceedings or any application therein would not be detrimental to any of parties to litigation much less to party in whose favour an interim stay order is passed – Grant of interim stay order ought to be ordinarily by a speaking order and as a necessary corollary, stay order once granted cannot be vacated otherwise than by a speaking order, more so, when its extension also requires reasons to be recorded – Filing of application for vacating stay order is a sine qua non for triggering automatic vacation of stay order under Article 226(3) if such an application is not decided within time prescribed of two weeks – A reasoned stay order once granted in any civil or criminal proceedings, if not specified to be time bound, would remain in operation till decision of main matter or until and unless an application is moved for its vacation and a speaking order is passed adhering to principles of natural justice either extending, modifying, varying or vacating the same. (Paras 4, 5, 6 and 8)
Facts of the case:
Points in issue are: –
(a) Whether this Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 142 of Constitution of India, can order automatic vacation of all interim orders of High Courts of staying proceedings of Civil and criminal cases on the expiry of a certain period?
(b) Whether this Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 142 of Constitution of India, can direct High Courts to decide pending cases in which interim orders of stay of proceedings has been granted on a day-to-day basis and within a fixed period?
Findings of Court:
Constitutional Courts should not normally fix a time-bound schedule for disposal of cases pending in any Court. Pattern of pendency of various categories of cases pending in every Court, including High Courts, is different. Situation at grassroots level is better known to Judges of concerned Courts. Therefore, issue of giving out-of-turn priority to certain cases should be best left to concerned Courts. Orders fixing outer limit for disposal of cases should be passed only in exceptional circumstances to meet extraordinary situations.
Result : Reference answered.
Key Points: - Judgment opposes automatic vacation of stay and day-to-day time-bound disposal directions under Article 142; emphasizes hearing and due process (!) (!) . - Article 142 powers are to do complete justice and cannot defeat substantive rights or ignore natural justice; cannot be used to legislate or override statutory provisions (!) (!) (!) . - High Courts retain independent constitutional status; cannot be subjected to blanket time-bound directives by Supreme Court; priority should be given to hearing applications for vacating interim relief with proper reasons (!) (!) (!) (!) . - Clause (3) of Article 226 (automatic vacation) applies only to ex-parte ad interim orders where a vacating application is filed and decided timely; not applicable when due process and hearing are provided (!) (!) . - Directions from Asian Resurfacing directing automatic six-month vacatur and day-to-day disposal have been rejected; cases should be decided expeditiously but not via judicial legislation (!) (!) (!) . - Legislative competence preferred for time-bound disposal provisions; judiciary should avoid blanket timelines for all cases (!) (!) . - Natural justice and timely determination require that vacating interim relief be done after hearing, with reasons, and not merely by lapse of time (!) (!) (!) . - High Courts' power of superintendence over subordinate courts includes staying proceedings; cannot be overridden by blanket Article 142 directions (!) .
JUDGMENT :
(Abhay S. Oka, J.) :
| Table of Contents |
| A. FACTUAL BACKGROUND I. Directions in Asian Resurfacing II. Order of reference to Larger Bench |
| B. SUBMISSIONS |
| C. ANALYSIS I. Object of passing interim orders II. High Court’s power to vacate or modify interim relief III. Whether an interim order can come to an end automatically only due to the lapse of time IV. Scope of exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution V. Position of High Courts and its power of superintendence VI. Whether the Court should deal with an issue not arising for consideration VII. Clause (3) of Article 226 of the Constitution VIII. Directions issued by the constitutional Courts to decide pending cases in a time-bound manner IX. Procedure to be adopted by High Courts while passing interim order of stay of proceedings and for dealing with the applications for vacating interim stay |
| D. CONCLUSIONS |
A. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
By the order dated 1st December 2023, a Bench of three Hon’ble Judges of this Court expressed a view that a decision of this Court in the case of Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Private Limited & Anr. v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2018) 16 SCC 299 requires reconsideration by a larger Bench.
I. Directions in Asian Resurfacing
1. In Asian Resurfacing, this Court dealt with the scope of interference by the High Court with an order of framing charge passed by the Special Judge under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the PC Act’). The issue was whether an order of framing charge was an interlocutory order. The High Court held that an order of framing charge under the PC Act was interlocutory. A Bench of two Hon’ble Judges of this Court, by the order dated 9th September 2013, referred the case to a larger Bench to consider the issue of whether the case of Mohan Lal Magan Lal Thacker v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1968 SC 733 was correctly decided. A Bench of three Hon’ble Judges held that the order of framing charge was neither an interlocutory nor a final order. Therefore, it was held that the High Court has jurisdiction in appropriate cases to consider a challenge to an order of framing charge. Furthermore, the High Court has jurisdiction to grant a stay of the trial proceedings. Thereafter, it proceeded to consider in which cases a stay of the proceedings ought to be granted. The Bench considered the question in the context of a criminal trial, particularly under the PC Act. In paragraphs 30 and 31, the Bench observed thus:
31. Wherever stay is granted, a speaking order must be passed showing that the case was of exceptional nature and delay on account of stay will not prejudice the interest of speedy trial in a corruption case. Once stay is granted, proceedings should not be adjourned, and concluded within two-three months.” (Emphasis added)
2. We have been called upon to decide the correctness of the view taken in paragraphs 36 and 37 of the said dec
(1) An interim order lawfully passed by a Court after hearing all contesting parties is not rendered illegal only due to long passage of time – If a High Court concludes after hearing all concerned p....
Interim orders extended in the presence of parties cannot be vacated automatically under Article 226(3) without a hearing on merit.
The mandatory nature of Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India and the need to prevent abuse of interim orders.
The proviso to Section 2(1) of the Chhattisgarh High Court Act bars appeals against interlocutory orders unless they determine rights significantly or have finality.
The Court cannot grant interim relief after a certificate for appeal has been issued, as it lacks jurisdiction to modify dismissed orders.
Point of law : Jurisdiction of High Court is not barred irrespective of label of a petition, be it under Section 397 or 482 Cr.P.C. or Article 227 of Constitution.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
