Stay Orders Cannot Be Automatically Vacated After 6 Months: Supreme Court of India

Read Time: 04 minutes

Synopsis

It has been held that constitutional courts should not lay down a time-bound manner to decide cases since grassroots issues are known to the courts concerned and such orders should be passed only in exceptional circumstances.

In a significant verdict, a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court today has held that a stay order granted in civil and criminal cases by the trial court and High Court does not automatically lapse after six months.

A bench of CJI DY Chandrachud, Justice Abhay S Oka, Justice JB Pardiwala, Justice Pankaj Mithal, and Justice Manoj Misra has reversed the 2018 judgment of Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency vs. Central Bureau of Investigation which had directed every order of stay in a civil or criminal trial would have a maximum life of six months.

Court was hearing a reference to its judgment from 2018 in Asian Resurfacing Of Road Agency v. Central Bureau Of Investigation to a Constitution bench.

Last year in December 2023, the Constitution Bench had reserved its verdict on the question whether interim stay orders granted by courts in civil and criminal cases can be vacated after six months unless specifically extended.

In said judgment a three-judge bench had directed that all stay orders would be vacated after six months unless specifically extended.

Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, appearing for the High Court Bar Association Allahabad, had argued against automatic vacation and acknowledged the delay in court proceedings, specifically in High Courts at Allahabad and Patna.

Court had while hearing the issue, also considered what course of action should be followed for stay orders issued by High Courts under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code in petitions filed for quashing of criminal cases.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta had highlighted instances where contempt cases were filed against judges, for not resuming trials, suggesting that the solution might be more severe than the underlying issue of delayed justice.

Case Title: High Court Bar Association Allahabad vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and ors