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.