Validity of Automatic Vacation of Stay Orders

scobserver.in/cases/validity-of-automatic-vacation-of-stay-orders-high-court-bar-association-allahabad-v-the-state-of-
uttar-pradesh/

Home > Cases > Validity of Automatic Vacation of Stay Orders

High Court Bar Association Allahabad v The State of Uttar Pradesh

Citation: 2024 INSC 150

The Court decided that Constitutional Courts should not typically impose a time limit to
dispose a case pending in any Court. A stay order granted in civil and criminal cases will
remain in operation till the case is decided, unless it is expressly timebound.

Decided

1/8
Read Judgment

2/8
D.Y. Chandrachud CJI

A.S. Oka J

3/8
J.B. Pardiwala J

4/8
Pankaj Mithal J

5/8
Manoj Misra J

Parties
Appellant: High Court Bar Association Allahabad

Lawyers: Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, Sr. Adv.; Mr. Vk Shukla, Sr. Adv.; Mr. Kavin Gulati, Sr. Adv

Respondent: The State Of Uttar Pradesh

Lawyers: Mr. Tushar Mehta, SG; Mr. Ajay Kumar Misra, Adv.Gen., Sr. Adv.; Mr. Tanmaya
Agarwal, AOR; Mr. Mahfooz Ahsan Nazki, AOR

6/8
Case Details
Case Number: Crl. A No. 3589/2023

Next Hearing:

Last Updated: February 29, 2024

TAGS: Constitution Bench, Five Judge, Stay Order

Key Issues
1
Can the Court order the automatic vacation of all interim orders of High Courts on staying
criminal and civil cases after a certain period of time?

2
Whether the Supreme Court can direct High Courts to decide pending cases where interim
orders of stay has been granted within a fixed period?

Case Description
A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt Ltd and
Another v Central Bureau of Investigation (2018) ruled that in all pending cases where a stay
order is operating against civil and criminal trial proceedings, the stay would be automatically
vacated at the end of six months unless it is extended by a speaking order. The judgement
also had a prospective application, which meant that all the future stay orders granted by the
court would also have a deadline of six months. The Court ruled that to extend a stay, the
party seeking it should show that the case was of such an exceptional nature that continuing
the stay was more important than finalising the trial.

However, on 1 December 2023, a three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising Chief
Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra expressed
reservations about the conclusions in Asian Resurfacing. It referred it to a five-judge
Constitution Bench for reconsideration.

On 13 December 2023, a Constitution Bench of the Court heard unopposed arguments

against the Asian Resurfacing judgement for a day. During the arguments, Senior Advocate
Rakesh Dwivedi informed the Bench that the primary issue in Asian Resurfacing concerned
the nature of interim orders and whether they were amenable to challenge before the High
Court’. Despite this, the Bench ruled on the automatic vacation of stay.

7/8
During the hearing, CJI D. Y Chandrachud observed two issues that arose out of the 2018
judgement. First, it prejudiced the litigant irrespective of their conduct. In Asian Resurfacing,
the Court had ruled for a vacation of stays in an attempt to reduce the delays in court trial.
However, the Bench noted that delays in the court proceedings are not always in the control
of the parties and that delays may be due to the sheer volume of cases that often make it
impossible for the court to deal with them promptly. And so, an automatic vacation of stay will
not be fair on the litigants, the Court observed. The Court also noted that the vacation of stay
order is a judicial act and not an administrative act.

After one day of arguments on 13 December 2023, the Bench reserved judgement in the
case. On 29 February 2024, the Court delivered judgement, and declared that a stay order
granted in civil and criminal cases will remain in operation till the case is decided, unless it is
expressly timebound. Justice A.S. Oka wrote the majority opinion, with a concurring opinion
by Justice Pankaj Mithal.

8/8