In a momentous turn of events, the Supreme Court, on December 1, expressed reservations about its 2018 decision in the case of Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency P. Ltd. Director v. Central Bureau of Investigation. This landmark ruling stated that interim stay orders issued by High Courts and other courts in civil and criminal cases would automatically lapse after six months unless explicitly extended.
Citing concerns that the automatic vacation of stay orders could lead to a miscarriage of justice in certain situations, a three-judge bench, comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra, referred the matter to a larger bench for reconsideration. This move was prompted by the fact that the Asian Resurfacing decision was also rendered by a coordinate bench of three judges.
The bench was deliberating an appeal filed by the High Court Bar Association Allahabad, which had received a Certificate of Appeal from the Allahabad High Court. The appeal raised doubts about the Asian Resurfacing judgment, with the Allahabad High Court framing ten questions for the Supreme Court’s consideration regarding the automatic vacation of stay.
Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, representing the High Court Bar Association, argued that the Asian Resurfacing judgment posed several challenges. He emphasized that the directions related to automatic stay vacation were essentially obiter, as the original bench was addressing a different legal issue.
The CJI-led bench concurred with some of Dwivedi’s concerns. The order stated, “While there is no gainsaying that stays of indefinite nature will result in prolonging the civil or criminal proceedings unduly, at the same time, it needs to be factored in that the delay is not always on account of the conduct of the parties involved.”
The bench acknowledged that Asian Resurfacing’s focus was on whether an order framing charges was interlocutory and whether the High Court had the authority to stay such orders. However, in addressing these issues, the Asian Resurfacing bench also issued directions regarding the automatic vacation of stay orders in civil and criminal trials.
Expressing reservations about the broad formulation of these principles, the bench observed, “We are of the view that the principle laid down in the above decision, to the effect that a stay shall automatically stand vacated, is liable to result in a miscarriage of justice.”
Referring the matter to a larger bench of five judges, the Court sought the assistance of either the Attorney General for India or the Solicitor General of India. The CJI mentioned that the matter would be listed on an early date, expressing the intent to reconsider Asian Resurfacing. The Court noted that a review was pending in Asian Resurfacing itself.
In a related development, a bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and PK Mishra had previously expressed oral observations that the Asian Resurfacing judgment was causing difficulties. The Supreme Court, in August 2019, had clarified that the six-month cap on interim stay orders would not apply to Supreme Court orders.
The case in question is titled HIGH COURT BAR ASSOCIATION ALLAHABAD v. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ORS (Crl.A. No. 3589/2023).
