In a significant development, the Supreme Court on Friday (December 1) expressed reservations about its 2018 judgment in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency P. Ltd. Director V. Central Bureau of Investigation as per which interim orders of stay granted by High Courts and other courts in civil and criminal cases will automatically expire after a period of six months unless the orders are specifically extended.
In Asian Resurfacing, the Court further stated that the trial courts may, on expiry of the period of six months, can resume the proceedings without waiting for any other intimation unless express order extending stay is produced.
Observing that automatic vacation of stay can result in miscarriage of justice in some cases, 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 was in view of the fact that Asian Resurfacing was also rendered by a coordinate bench of three judges.
The bench was considering an appeal filed by the High Court Bar Association Allahabad based on a Certificate of Appeal granted by the Allahabad High Cigh Court which raised a set of doubts regarding the Asian Resurfacing judgment. In its judgment delivered on November 3, a 3-judge bench of the Allahabad High Court framed ten questions for the deliberation of the Supreme Court in relation to the dictum of automatic vacation of stay.
Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, appearing for the High Court Bar Association, submitted that the judgment was creating several difficulties. He pointe out that in Asian Resurfacing, the bench was considering another legal issue and the directions relating to automatic stay vacation were in fact in the nature of obiter. The bench led by the CJI expressed agreement with some of the concerns raised by Dwivedi.
While there is no gainsaying that stays off 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. Delay may also be occasioned by the inability of the courts to take up the proceedings expeditiously,” the bench observed in the order.
The bench also noted that in Asian Resurfacing, the actual issue was whether an order framing charges was an interlocutory order and whether the High Court had the power to stay an order framing charges. However, while answering these issues, the bench in Asian Resurfacing proceeded to issue directions regarding the automatic vacation of stay orders passed by High Courts and other Courts in relation to civil and criminal trials.
+ There are no comments
Add yours