Summary
A High Court stay does not automatically lapse merely because time has passed. The Supreme Court disapproved blanket time limits and automatic-vacation directions issued under Article 142, while directing High Courts to manage interim applications and pending cases through case-specific, fair procedures.
Issues
- Whether the Supreme Court may direct under Article 142 that all High Court stays automatically expire after a fixed period or that stayed matters be decided within a blanket time frame.
- When Article 226(3) provides for automatic vacation of an interim order, and how High Courts should handle applications to vacate interim relief.
Provisions considered
- Articles 142, 226 and 227, Constitution of IndiaArticle 142 does not authorize a blanket direction automatically vacating High Court stays after a fixed period or imposing a uniform time-bound disposal schedule. High Courts retain jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 to grant, modify and vacate interim relief. Article 226(3) concerns specified ex parte interim orders and operates only when the affected party applies for vacation and the application is not disposed of within the stated period. (¶¶ 23, 24, 26, 36, 37)
Held
- A direction that every High Court stay automatically expires solely through lapse of time cannot be issued under Article 142. Such automatic vacation can affect litigants’ substantive rights and deny them a hearing; the directions in Asian Resurfacing requiring automatic vacation and day-to-day disposal within a fixed period were disapproved. (¶¶ 25, 27, 36, 37(a))
- Article 226(3) applies to an ex parte interim order made without serving the petition and supporting documents and without hearing the affected party. Automatic vacation under that clause is triggered only when the affected party applies for vacation and the High Court fails to decide the application within the constitutional period; it does not govern an interim order made after notice and hearing. (¶ 26)
- Constitutional courts should ordinarily leave case prioritisation to the court where the matter is pending. Time-bound directions may be made in exceptional circumstances. High Courts should decide applications to vacate interim relief promptly and avoid routinely deferring them until the main case is heard. (¶¶ 37(c), 34, 35)
Result
Reference answered; the blanket directions in Asian Resurfacing for automatic vacation of High Court stays and time-bound day-to-day disposal were not approved. The matter was directed to be placed before appropriate Benches for disposal.