J U D G M E N T

ABHAY S. OKA, J.

Table of Contents ..............................................

A. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 2 .................................

I. Directions in Asian Resurfacing 2 ...........................

II. Order of reference to Larger Bench 7 .............................................................

B. SUBMISSIONS 8 ..................................................................

C. ANALYSIS 14 Signature Not Verified ..............................

I. Object of passing interim orders 14 Digitally signed by CHETAN KUMAR Date: 2024.02.29

15:24:19 IST Reason: II. High Court’s power to vacate or modify interim relief ..................................................................................

Criminal Appeal No.3589 of 2023 etc. Page 1 of 47 III. Whether an interim order can come to an end automatically only due to the lapse of time ................ 17 IV. Scope of exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution ............................................................... 21 V. Position of High Courts and its power of superintendence ......................................................... 29 VI. Whether the Court should deal with an issue not arising for consideration ............................................. 32 VII. Clause (3) of Article 226 of the Constitution ......... 33 VIII. Directions issued by the constitutional Courts to decide pending cases in a time-bound manner ............ 34 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 ................... 43 D. CONCLUSIONS ........................................................... 44 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 requires reconsideration by a larger Bench.

I. Directions in Asian Resurfacing

1. In Asian Resurfacing1, 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 (2018) 16 SCC 299 Criminal Appeal No.3589 of 2023 etc. Page 2 of 47 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 Gujarat2 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:

“30. It is well accepted that delay in a criminal trial, particularly in the PC Act cases, has deleterious effect on the administration of justice in which the society has a vital interest. Delay in trials affects the faith in Rule of Law and efficacy of the legal system. It affects social welfare and development. Even in civil or tax cases it has been laid down that power to grant stay has to be exercised with restraint. Mere prima facie case is not enough. Party seeking stay must be put to terms and stay should not be an incentive to delay. The AIR 1968 SC 733 Criminal Appeal No.3589 of 2023 etc. Page 3 of 47 order granting stay must show applicat