No Automatic Vacation of High Court Stay Orders After Six Months: Constitution Bench Revisits Asian Resurfacing

In Asian Resurfacing a three-Judge Bench held that an order framing charge under the Prevention of Corruption Act is neither interlocutory nor final, and directed that stays of civil and criminal trials would lapse after six months unless extended by a speaking order (Oka J., paras 1-2). A later order of 15 October 2020 required trial courts to proceed once the six months expired (Oka J., para 3). On 1 December 2023 a three-Judge Bench warned that automatic vacation without application of judicial mind could cause a serious miscarriage of justice, and referred the issue (Oka J., opening paragraph, para 4). The appellant Bar Association contended that automatic vacation was judicial legislation (Oka J., para 6).

The automatic-vacation direction was issued under Article 142 and ends a stay without hearing the litigant who obtained it (Oka J., para 12). An interim order passed after hearing the parties is not rendered illegal by the passage of time, and vacating it without application of mind offends natural justice and the maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit (Oka J., para 16). Article 142 serves complete justice between the parties before the Court; it cannot nullify orders validly passed for litigants not before it, and the right to be heard is a substantive right (Oka J., para 22). High Courts are not judicially subordinate to this Court, and limiting their interim orders to six months would dent their jurisdiction under Article 226 (Oka J., paras 23-24). Outer time limits for disposal should be fixed only in exceptional circumstances (Oka J., para 32). High Courts should grant ex-parte ad-interim relief for a limited duration and hear applications to vacate stays on priority (Oka J., paras 34-35). Mithal J. added that a reasoned stay order not limited in time lasts until the main matter ends or it is vacated by a speaking order on an application, after hearing (Mithal J., para 8).