HIGH COURT BAR ASSOCIATION ALLAHABAD vs THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH, 2024
Case Title and Citation High Court Bar Association, Allahabad v. The State of Uttar Pradesh 2024 INSC 150 (29 February 2024)
Factual Background
The present matter arose from concerns regarding directions issued in the 2018 Supreme Court judgment, Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency v. Central Bureau of Investigation. While addressing whether High Courts could entertain a challenge to an order framing charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the three-judge bench in Asian Resurfacing issued sweeping, general directions. These directions mandated that all interim stay orders granted by High Courts in pending civil or criminal trials would automatically lapse after a maximum period of six months, unless the stay was extended by a specific, reasoned “speaking order”. If the stay expired automatically, the Trial Court was directed to resume proceedings without further notice. Subsequent to these directions, doubts arose among judges concerning the correctness and broad formulation of this automatic vacation principle. Consequently, the matter was referred to a Constitution Bench (five judges) for reconsideration.
Issue(s)
- Can the Supreme Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution, order that all interim orders of High Courts staying proceedings automatically expire after a specified period?
- Can the Supreme Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 142, direct High Courts to decide all pending cases where interim stay orders are operating on a day-to-day basis and within a fixed time frame?
Decision of the Supreme Court
The Constitution Bench unanimously held that a direction mandating the automatic expiration of interim orders after a fixed period of six months is impermissible. The Court also ruled that issuing blanket directions requiring High Courts to hear cases with interim stays on a daily basis and conclude them within a stipulated time frame was beyond the powers vested in the Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution. The Constitution Bench answered both questions in the negative.
Reason for the decision
- Violation of Principles of Natural Justice: An order rescinding or modifying an interim stay must be passed only after hearing the affected parties, which is a requirement of the elementary principles of natural justice. An interim order lawfully passed by a court should not become ineffective solely due to the lapse of time, especially when the litigant is not responsible for the delay. Allowing a stay to automatically expire without judicial application of mind causes the litigant to suffer for no fault of their own, violating the basic tenets of justice.
- Exceeding the Scope of Article 142: The power under Article 142 is reserved for extraordinary situations to do complete justice between the parties before the Court. The blanket directions issued in Asian Resurfacing concerning the duration of interim orders in various proceedings did not specifically arise for consideration in that case. Furthermore, Article 142 cannot be used to nullify benefits derived by a large number of litigants who are not parties to the proceedings, nor can it ignore the substantive rights of litigants, such as the right to be heard before an adverse order is passed.
- Encroachment on High Court Jurisdiction: The High Court is a constitutional court and is not judicially subordinate to the Supreme Court. The power of the High Court to grant interim relief under Article 226 and judicial superintendence under Article 227 forms part of the basic structure of the Constitution. Imposing blanket restrictions on the High Court’s power to grant interim relief impermissibly encroaches upon these constitutional powers.
- Impermissible Judicial Legislation: Directions providing for automatic vacation of stay orders and mandating day-to-day hearings for cases amount to judicial legislation, which is beyond the constitutional mandate of the Court. Fixing strict deadlines for case disposal should only be done in exceptional circumstances, as the concerned courts are best placed to decide prioritization based on their own patterns of pendency and disposal.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court overruled the blanket directions from the Asian Resurfacing judgment. It was held that an interim order of stay granted by a High Court cannot automatically expire merely due to the lapse of a fixed period of time. Constitutional Courts should ordinarily refrain from fixing time-bound schedules for the disposal of cases pending before other courts, leaving the issue of prioritization to the discretion of the court where the case is pending. However, the Court clarified that where trials have already concluded based solely on the automatic vacation of stay resulting from the Asian Resurfacing decision, those orders of automatic vacation shall remain valid. A reasoned stay order, unless specified to be time-bound, remains in operation until the main matter is decided or until an application is successfully moved to vacate, modify, or extend it by a speaking order adhering to natural justice principles. the disposal of cases pending before other courts, leaving the issue of prioritization to the discretion of the court where the case is pending. However, the Court clarified that where trials have already concluded based solely on the automatic vacation of stay resulting from the Asian Resurfacing decision, those orders of automatic vacation shall remain valid. A reasoned stay order, unless specified to be time-bound, remains in operation until the main matter is decided or until an application is successfully moved to vacate, modify, or extend it by a speaking order adhering to natural justice principles.
