High Court Bar Association, Allahabad v. State of U.P.

In a historic unanimous 5-Judge Constitution Bench ruling, the Supreme Court overruled its previous 2018 verdict in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency (P) Ltd. v. CBI, definitively holding that constitutional courts cannot mandate the automatic vacation of interim stay orders by lapse of time without judicial application of mind. The Court held that Article 142 cannot be used to make judicial legislation or circumscribe the high constitutional powers of High Courts under Article 226. An interim stay granted after hearing parties remains in force until specifically modified, vacated, or finalized after a hearing.

• Overruling Asian Resurfacing (2018): Striking down the 6-month automatic stay vacation rule as unconstitutional, arbitrary, and an impermissible judicial usurpation of legislative power.
• Limits of Article 142: Inherent powers under Article 142 cannot be exercised to bypass natural justice, ignore statutory provisions, or prejudice litigants without a hearing.
• Autonomy of High Courts: Reaffirming that High Courts are independent constitutional courts of plenary jurisdiction and are not administratively subordinate to the Supreme Court.
• Preservation of Judicial Discretion: Emphasizing that stay orders can only be vacated through a reasoned judicial order passed after hearing the affected parties on merits.
• Deference to Subordinate Courts: Subordinate trial courts cannot ignore High Court stay orders based on mechanical time limitations.

The legal controversy originated from directions issued by a 3-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency (P) Ltd. v. CBI (2018) 13 SCC 10, wherein the Court mandated that in all pending civil and criminal matters where a stay of proceedings had been granted, such stay would automatically stand vacated after six months unless specifically extended by a reasoned, speaking order.

Following the 2018 ruling, trial courts across India began mechanically treating High Court stay orders as expired upon the completion of 180 days, proceeding with trials and framing charges even while quashing petitions under Section 482 CrPC were awaiting hearing before High Courts.

The High Court Bar Association, Allahabad filed an appeal highlighting the grave crisis generated in High Courts with heavy dockets, where litigants who had established a prima facie case of abuse of process were stripped of protection without any hearing simply due to infrastructural listing delays.

Recognizing the fundamental constitutional friction between Article 142 powers and the plenary jurisdiction of High Courts under Articles 226 and 227, a 3-Judge Bench on 1 December 2023 referred the matter to a 5-Judge Constitution Bench for definitive authoritative resolution.

The jurisdiction of this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution cannot be exercised to make judicial legislation. The jurisdiction under Article 142 is supplementary and cannot supplant substantive statutory provisions or basic constitutional tenets. A direction that all interim orders granted by all High Courts in pending civil and criminal cases shall automatically stand vacated on expiry of a particular period without any application of judicial mind by the concerned Court is impermissible. Such a direction amounts to an indirect exercise of legislative power. An order granting interim relief is an exercise of judicial discretion based on the prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury. Once an interim order of stay is granted by a Court of competent jurisdiction after hearing the parties or ex parte subject to notice, it can be vacated or modified only by an order passed by the Court after applying its mind. An order of stay cannot become non est or extinguish automatically by operation of a sunset clause imposed by a judicial decree without hearing the party who enjoys the benefit of such stay. High Courts are constitutional courts having plenary powers under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution. A High Court is not a court subordinate to this Court. The powers under Article 226 cannot be circumscribed or whittled down by directions issued under Article 142 of the Constitution. Therefore, the directions issued in paragraphs 36 and 37 of Asian Resurfacing cannot be sustained and are hereby overruled.

• Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency (P) Ltd. v. CBI (2018) 13 SCC 10: Expressly overruled by the 5-Judge Constitution Bench.
• CBI v. Kapil Wadhawan (2024) 3 SCC 734: Cited regarding the primacy of statutory procedural safeguards over judicial expediency.
• Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2024) 8 SCC 117: Followed regarding the absolute necessity of procedural due process prior to depriving citizens of statutory or constitutional protections.