Why the Supreme Court overturned its 2018 decision, which set a time limit on courts’ stay orders
- March 1, 2024
- Posted by: OptimizeIAS Team
- Category: DPN Topics
No Comments
Why the Supreme Court overturned its 2018 decision, which set a time limit on courts’ stay orders
Subject: Polity
Section: Judiciary
Context:
The court held that an SC bench from 2018 did not have the power to set a six-month time limit for vacating stay order.
What is the Stay Order?
- A stay order is a temporary measure to halt or defer the use of a property or land until a verdict is reached.
- It serves as a protective action taken by the court or legal authorities in India to secure the rights of a citizen.
- This action may lead to the suspension of an entire case or the suspension of specific proceedings within an ongoing case.
- In certain instances, a judge may issue a stay order without formal prompting from the opposing party, emphasizing its importance in critical developments.
Nature of Stay Order:
- Stay orders can be classified into two types: ‘stay of proceedings’ and ‘stay of execution.’
- A stay of proceedings is issued when parallel proceedings may impact each other.
- On the other hand, a stay of execution involves a complete halt to the enforcement of a judgment, typically in cases where innocence is asserted, leading to a pardon.
- Stay orders can be conditional or absolute.
When a stay order is granted?
- The procedure for obtaining a stay order from the High Court is the same as for any lower Court.
- Every Court has inherent authority to stay proceedings in any action where the plaintiff is in default or has disobeyed any lawful order of the Court.
- Any other Court may issue a precept to the High Court, which is then ‘competent to execute such decree to attach any property belonging to the judgment-debtor and specified in the precept’.
What the 2018 bench ruled in the Asian Resurfacing case?
- In 2018, a three-judge bench comprising Justices Adarsh Goel, Navin Sinha and Rohinton Nariman were deciding a batch of cases involving the Prevention of Corruption Act.
- These batches of cases had one aspect in common, that the respective High Courts had granted a stay at some stage of trial.
- Stay orders are passed for a court to temporarily halt a judicial proceeding, to secure the rights of a citizen.
- Grant of stay invariably delays the trial, irrespective of which side benefits from it.
- To address the big problem plaguing the criminal justice system, of undue delays in trials, the SC held that interim orders of stay at the High Court and Civil Court level will be only valid for six months.
- At the end of this period, they will automatically be rescinded or “vacated”.
What was the impact of the 2018 ruling?
This ruling led to the various questions as follows:
- First, whether the SC, under Article 142 of the Constitution (which allows the Supreme Court to pass any order to secure “complete justice”) can order automatic vacation of all interim orders of the HC of staying proceedings of Civil and Criminal cases on the expiry of a certain period?
- Second, whether the SC, under Article 142 of the Constitution, can direct the HCs to decide pending cases in which interim orders of stay of proceedings have been granted on a day-to-day basis and within a fixed period?
On what grounds has the 2018 ruling been undone?
- The five-judge bench held that constitutional courts should refrain from laying down precise timelines for deciding cases, highlighting the discretion that should be afforded to lower courts which are more aware of “grassroots issues”.
- The SC also pointed out that courts often have different patterns when it comes to their pending caseload, and so the concerned court is best placed to decide which cases to prioritize.
- The court also held that the bench in Asian Resurfacing did not have the power to set a six-month time limit for vacating stay orders.
- The bench in Asian Resurfacing had invoked Article 142.
- The court held that automatically vacating a stay order after six months would in fact “defeat justice” by nullifying interim orders that had been lawfully passed without hearing the parties.
- The court said that the six-month time limit would amount to court-created legislation, which is impermissible.
- Only the legislature has the power to decide if a category of cases should be decided within a specific amount of time.
About Article 226(3):
- Justice Manoj Misra in his separate opinion drew attention to Article 226(3) of the Constitution, which already provides a two-week time limit for High Courts to consider an application for the vacation of an interim order.
- If the application is not disposed of within those two weeks, Article 226(3) provides that the interim order will be vacated.
- It is pointed out that this essentially provides a process for automatically vacating a stay order, so long as an application is filed in the first place.