The Supreme Court
on Thursday held that there cannot be an automatic vacation of stay orders
granted by a lower court or high court in civil and criminal cases after six
months.
A five-judge
Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud did not agree with
its 2018 judgement which had held that there should be automatic vacation of
stay orders of the courts below unless they are extended specifically.
Laying down
guidelines, the judgement also said the constitutional courts, the Supreme
Court and the high courts should refrain from fixing a timeline for disposal of
cases and it can be done only in exceptional circumstances.
The bench
pronounced two separate but concurring judgements.
"The
constitutional courts should not lay down a timeline to decide cases since
grassroot issues are known to concerned courts only and such orders can be
passed in exceptional circumstances only," said Justice A S Oka.
"There
cannot be an automatic vacation of stay," said Justice Oka, who wrote the
judgement for himself, the CJI and justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra.
Justice Pankaj
Mithal wrote a separate but concurring judgement in the case.
The top court had
on December 13, 2023 reserved its judgement in the case after hearing senior
advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, who appeared for the High Court Bar Association of
Allahabad, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and other lawyers on the issue.
The top court had
on December 1 last year referred to a five-judge bench its 2018 judgement for
reconsideration.
The previous
judgement said the stay granted by a lower court or high court in civil and
criminal cases will automatically expire after six months unless extended
specifically.
In its 2018
verdict in the case of Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency P Ltd Director Vs CBI,
a three-judge bench had held that the interim order of stay granted by courts,
including high courts, will stand vacated automatically unless they are
specifically extended.
Consequently, no
trial or proceedings can remain stayed after six months. However, the top court
had later clarified that the judgement would not be applicable if the stay
order was passed by it.