High Court Bar Association, Allahabad v. State of U.P & Ors.

High Court Bar Association, Allahabad v. State of U.P. & Ors. 950 [2024] 2 S.C.R. orders. [Para 26] Per Pankaj Mithal, J. (concurring) It is noticeable that u/Art. 226(3) of the Constitution of India, the automatic vacation of the stay order envisages making of an application to the High Court for the vacation of the interim stay order – Therefore, filing of an application for vacating the stay order is a sine qua non for triggering the automatic vacation of the stay order u/Art. 226(3) if such an application is not decided within the time prescribed of two weeks. [Para 6] Directions by Supreme Court – Effect of directions issued by the Constitutional Courts to decide pending cases in a time- bound manner – The three Judges Bench of the Supreme Court issued various directions in Asian Resurfacing – The net effect of the directions issued in paragraphs 36 and 37 of Asian Resurfacing is that the petition in which the High Court has granted a stay of the proceedings of the trial, must be decided within a maximum period of six months – If it is not decided within six months, the interim stay will be vacated automatically, virtually making the pending case infructuous: Held: (Per Abhay S. Oka, J. for himself and Dr.

Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, CJI., J.B. Pardiwala, Manoj Misra, JJ.) The Constitution Benches of the Supreme Court have considered the issue of fixing timelines for the disposal of cases in the cases of Abdul Rehman Antulay and P. Ramachandra Rao – The principles laid down in the decision will apply even to civil cases before the trial courts – The same principles will also apply to a direction issued to the High Courts to decide cases on a day-to-day basis or within a specific time – Thus, the directions of the Court that provide for automatic vacation of the order of stay and the disposal of all cases in which a stay has been granted on a day-to-day basis virtually amount to judicial legislation – The jurisdiction of this Court cannot be exercised to make such a judicial legislation – Only the 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 – A judicial notice will have to be taken of the fact that in all the High Courts of larger strength having jurisdiction over larger States, the daily cause lists of individual Benches of the cases of the aforesaid categories are of more than a hundred matters – Therefore, once a case is entertained by the High Court and the stay is granted, the case has a long life – The High Courts cannot be expected to Digital Supreme Court Reports [2024] 2 S.C.R. 951 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 – Therefore, constitutional Courts should not normally fix a time-bound schedule for disposal of cases pending in any Court – The pattern of pendency of various categories of cases pending in every Court, including High Courts, is different – The situation at the grassroots level is better known to the judges of the concerned Courts – Therefore, the issue of giving out-of turn priority to certain cases should be best left to the concerned Courts – The orders fixing the outer limit for the disposal of cases should be passed only in exceptional circumstances to meet extraordinary situations. [Paras 28, 29, 30, 32, 33] Constitution of India – Interim Orders – (i) Whether the Supreme Court, in the exercise of its jurisdiction u/Art.

142 of the Constitution of India, can order automatic vacation of all interim orders of the High Courts of staying proceedings of Civil and Criminal cases on the expiry of a certain period; (ii) Whether the Supreme Court, in the exercise of its jurisdiction u/Art. 142 of the Constitution of India, can direct the 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: Held: (Per Abhay S. Oka, J. for himself and Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, CJI., J.B. Pardiwala, Manoj Misra, JJ.) The three Judges Bench of the Supreme Court decided the case of Asian Resurfacing and issued directions in paragraphs 36 and 37 – The direction issued in paragraph 36 was regarding automatic vacation of stay and direction in paragragh 37 was for conducting day-to-day hearing within a time frame – The present Bench of the Judges does not concur with the three judges Bench which decided the case of Asian Resurfacing and issued directions in paragraphs 36 and 37 – Both directions were issued in the exercise of jurisdiction u/Art.142 of the Constitution – There cannot be automatic vacation of stay granted by the High Court – The direction issued (in the case of Asian Resurfacing) to decide all the cases in which an interim stay has been granted on a day-to-day basis within a time frame is also not approved – Blanket directions cannot be issued in the exercise of the jurisdiction u/Art.

142 of the Constitution of India – Both the questions framed above are answered in the negative. [Paras 12, 36] High Court Bar Association, Allahabad v. State of U.P. & Ors. 952 [2024] 2 S.C.R. Interim Orders – Stay order cannot be automatically vacated: Held: Per Pankaj Mithal, J. (concurring): The stay order granted in any proceedings would not automatically stand vacated on the expiry of a particular period until and unless an application to that effect has been filed by the other side and is decided following the principles of natural justice by a speaking order – It is expedient in the interest of justice to provide that a reasoned stay order once granted in any 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. [Paras 7 and 8] Practice and Procedure – Procedure to be adopted by High Courts while passing interim order of stay of proceedings and for dealing with the applications for vacating interim stay: Held: (Per Abhay S. Oka, J. for himself and Dr.

Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, CJI., J.B. Pardiwala, Manoj Misra, JJ.) To avoid any prejudice to the opposite parties, while granting ex-parte ad- interim relief without hearing the affected parties, the High Courts should normally grant ad-interim relief for a limited duration – After hearing the contesting parties, the Court may or may not confirm the earlier ad-interim order – Ad-interim relief, once granted, can be vacated or affirmed only after application of mind by the concerned Court – Hence, the Courts must give necessary priority to the hearing of the prayer for interim relief where adinterim relief has been granted – Though the High Court is not expected to record detailed reasons while dealing with the prayer for the grant of stay or interim relief, the order must give sufficient indication of the application of mind to the relevant factors – An interim order passed after hearing the contesting parties cannot be vacated by the High Court without giving sufficient opportunity of being heard to the party whose prayer for interim relief has been granted – Even if interim relief is granted after hearing both sides, as observed earlier, the aggrieved party is not precluded from applying for vacating the same on the available grounds – In such a case, the High Court must give necessary priority to the hearing of applications for vacating the stay, if the main case cannot be immediately taken up for hearing – Applications for vacating interim reliefs cannot be kept pending for an inordinately long time. [Paras 34 and 35] Digital Supreme Court Reports [2024] 2 S.C.R. 953 Case Law Cited Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Private Limited & Anr. v.

Central Bureau of Investigation, [2018] 2 SCR 1045 : (2018) 16 SCC 299 – Reconsidered. Prem Chand Garg & Anr. v. The Excise Commissioner, U.P. and Ors., [1963] Suppl. 1 SCR 885 : (1962) SCC Online SC 37; Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India & Anr., [1998] 2 SCR 795 : (1998) 4 SCC 409; L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India & Ors., [1997] 2 SCR 1186 : (1997) 3 SCC 261; Sanjeev Coke Manufacturing Company v. M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. & Anr, [1983] 1 SCR 1000 : (1983) 1 SCC 147; Abdul Rehman Antulay & Ors. v. R.S. Nayak & Anr, [1991] Suppl. 3 SCR 325 : (1992) 1 SCC 225; P. Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka, [2002] 3 SCR 60 : (2002) 4 SCC 578 – followed.