SC Constitution bench overturns 2018 ruling, strikes down ‘automatic vacation of stay after expiry of 6 months’

The bench also comprised Justices Abhay S Oka, J B Pardiwala, Pankaj Mithal, and Manoj Misra.

Reading out the operative part, Justice Oka said, “We have held that we don’t agree with the view” propounded by the three-judge bench in the case Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt Ltd & Anr vs. Central Bureau of Investigation.”

Writing for the CJI and Justices Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, Justice Oka said, “We framed two questions. Whether this court in exercises of its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution can order automatic vacation of all interim orders of the High Courts of staying civil and criminal cases on the expiry of certain period, whether this court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 142 can direct the High Courts to decide the pending cases in which interim orders of stay of proceedings has been granted on a day-to-day basis and within a fixed period?”

The bench said, “Constitutional courts should not normally fix a time-bound schedule for disposal of cases pending in any court. The pattern of pendency of various category of cases pending in every court including High Court is different. The situation at grass root level is better known to the judges of the concerned courts.”

It added that “the issue of giving out of turn priority to certain cases should be best left to the concerned courts” and “orders fixing the outer limit for the disposal of cases should be passed only in exceptional circumstances to meet extraordinary situations.”

The bench said it is “unable to concur with the directions issued in paragraphs 36 and 37 of the Asian Resurfacing judgement.”

In para 36 of the 2018 ruling, the SC while dealing with the issue of delay in trials had said, “In all pending matters before the High Courts or other courts relating to PC Act or all other civil or criminal cases, where stay of proceedings in a pending trial is operating, stay will automatically lapse after six months from today unless extended by a speaking order on above parameters. Same course may also be adopted by civil and criminal appellate/revisional courts under the jurisdiction of the High Courts. The trial courts may, on expiry of above period, resume the proceedings without waiting for any other intimation unless express order extending stay is produced.”

In para 37, it said, “the High Courts may also issue instructions to this effect and monitor the same so that civil or criminal proceedings do not remain pending for unduly period at the trial stage.”

Overruling these observations, the Constitution bench Thursday said, “a direction that all interim orders of stay of proceedings passed by every High Court automatically expires only by reason of lapse of time cannot be issued in exercise of jurisdiction of this court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.”

The bench also issued certain guidelines for the exercise of powers under Article 142.

It said, “Constitutional courts and ordinary courts should refrain from fixing a time-bound schedule for the disposal of cases pending before any other courts.”

“The constitutional courts may issue directions for the time-bound disposal of cases only in exceptional circumstances,” it said and added that “the issue of prioritising the disposal of cases should be best left to the decision of the concerned courts where the cases are pending.”

In a separate concurring opinion, Justice Mithal said, “It is in the interest of justice to provide that a reasoned stay order once granted in a civil or criminal proceedings, if not specified to be time bound would remain in operation till the decision of the main matter or until and unless an application is moved for its vacation and a speaking order is passed adhering to the principles of natural justice either extending, modifying, varying or vacating the same.”