Supreme Court overturns Asian Resurfacing judgment; no automatic vacation of stay orders after six months

A Constitution bench of the Supreme Court on Thursday set aside a 2018 ruling of the apex court that had limited the life of interim stay orders granted by courts in civil and criminal cases to six months [High Court Bar Association Allahabad vs State of Uttar Pradesh and ors]..A bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud with Justices Abhay S Oka, JB Pardiwala, Pankaj Mithal, and Manoj Misra said that there cannot be automatic vacation of stay orders after six months as laid down in its 2018 judgment in Asian Resurfacing Of Road Agency v. Central Bureau Of Investigation."We have held we do not agree with Asian resurfacing....There cannot be automatic vacation of stay," the Court held.The Court, therefore, set aside the directions in the 2018 judgment in the Asian Resurfacing case in which a three-judge bench of the top court had directed that all stay orders in criminal as well as civil proceedings would be valid only for six months unless specifically extended.The Court said that it is unable to concur with the directions issued in paragraphs 36 and 37 of the decision in the Asian Resurfacing case."A direction (that) stay of all interim orders passed by the High Court automatically expires with lapse is something which cannot be issued under Article 142. Constitutional courts should refrain from laying down time bound schedules for cases pending before any other courts," the Supreme Court said.Such directions for timebound decisions should be issued only in exceptional circumstances, the Constitution bench further said.The bench had reserved its judgment in the case on December 13, 2023. Notably, none of the counsel who appeared in the matter supported the automatic vacation of stay orders..The Supreme Court too had expressed reservations about the Asian Resurfacing judgment, although it had acknowledged the drawbacks of prolonging stay orders.The bench had then requested Attorney General R Venkataramani or Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta to assist it in the matter.Solicitor General Mehta had contended that a continuing judicial mandamus (from the Supreme Court) cannot be used to curtail the discretion of High Courts.Senior Advocates Rakesh Dwivedi and Vijay Hansaria also appeared in the matter..In its judgment today, the Court said that the pattern of pendency of cases in every court including High Courts is different and hence, any out-of-turn priority for certain cases is best left to the concerned court."Constitutional Courts should not normally fix a time-bound schedule for disposal of cases pending in any Court ... The orders fixing the outer limit for the disposal of cases should be passed only in exceptional circumstances to meet extraordinary situations," the judgment said..The bench stressed that 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 the litigant is not responsible for the delay. An interim order lawfully passed by a Court after hearing all contesting parties is not rendered illegal only due to the long passage of time ... If such an approach is adopted, it will be completely contrary to the concept of fairness." No litigant should be allowed to suffer due to the Court's fault, which is duty-bound to rectify its mistakes including the directions in Asian Resurfacing that virtually amounted to judicial legislation. "Only the legislature can provide that cases of a particular category should be decided within a specific time ... Ideally, the cases in which the stay of proceedings of the civil/criminal trials is granted should be disposed of expeditiously by the High Courts. However, we do not live in an ideal world."The 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 others, it was underscored.The top court stressed that more well-off litigants cannot be allowed to take advantage of constitutional courts, or have High Courts decide their cases in a fixed timeline."Not every litigant can easily afford to file proceedings in the constitutional Courts. Those litigants who can afford to approach the constitutional Courts cannot be allowed to take undue advantage by getting an order directing out-of-turn disposal of their cases while all other litigants patiently wait in the queue for their turn to come. The Courts, superior in the judicial hierarchy, cannot interfere with the day-to-day functioning of the 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 the other."The apex court is is not superior to the High Courts in the judicial hierarchy, it added."The Judges of the High Courts should be allowed to set their priorities on a rational basis. Thus, as far as setting the outer limit is concerned, it should be best left to the concerned Courts unless there are very extraordinary circumstances."All the same, applications for vacating interim reliefs cannot be kept pending for too long by keeping it pending with the main case, it was made clear. "If an ad-interim order continues for a long time, the affected party can always apply for vacating ad-interim relief. The 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, the same must be taken up at the earliest."In conclusion, the apex court clarified that in the cases in which trials have been concluded as a result of the automatic vacation of stay, the same shall remain valid..[Read judgment]