In the heart of New Delhi, a quintet of jurists, spearheaded by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud, overturned a 2018 edict of the apex court. This directive previously stipulated that any stay order in a civil or criminal trial should endure no longer than half a year. The apex court now underscored that an automatic vacation of stay after this temporal span is not a viable prescription.
The panel, led by CJI Chandrachud and comprised of Justices Abhay S Oka, J B Pardiwala, Pankaj Mithal, and Manoj Misra, had meticulously reserved their judgment last December, responding to petitions filed by the High Court Bar Association Allahabad and others.
Justice Oka, the voice of this judicious pronouncement, articulated the bench’s divergence from the tenets laid out in Asian Resurfacing. He emphasized that an edict mandating the automatic expiration of all interim orders by high courts within a stipulated time frame cannot be judiciously invoked under the mantle of Article 142 of the Constitution.
The panel asserted that constitutional tribunals should abstain from dictating time-bound frameworks for cases pending in other courts. It further affirmed that the backlog scenario differs across all courts, including high courts. Granting preferential treatment to specific cases is deemed best left to the discernment of the presiding judge, cognizant of the ground-level reality.
Justice Misra penned a separate but concurring judgment, with detailed insights expected to be unveiled later in the day.
In the annals of 2018, the apex court had posited that stays granted by lower or higher courts in both civil and criminal proceedings would inherently lapse after six months unless explicitly extended.
During the judgment’s reservation phase, the bench opined that automatic stay vacation could adversely affect litigants irrespective of their conduct. This observation was part of the deliberation over a plea urging a reconsideration of the 2018 verdict.
Senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, representing the High Court Bar Association of Allahabad, vociferously opposed the automatic vacation of stay orders. He underscored the potential intrusion into the constitutional fabric, particularly Article 226, perceiving it as judicial legislation. Dwivedi advocated for the establishment of distinct benches to deliberate on extensions, stressing the importance of a nuanced approach based on case-specific nuances. He cited procedural delays, particularly in select High Courts like Allahabad and Patna.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta illuminated instances of judges facing contempt charges for not resuming trials as dictated by Asian Resurfacing, particularly in states like Punjab and Haryana.
On December 1, the Supreme Court expressed reservations about its 2018 pronouncement in the ‘Asian Resurfacing case.’ This edict mandated the automatic lifting of stays in all civil and criminal matters upon the expiration of a six-month timeline.
The precedent set by the ‘Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Vs CBI’ case, delivered on March 28, 2018, by a bench of Justices Adarsh Kumar Goel, R F Nariman, and Navin Sinha, was thereby revisited.