Case: High Court bar Association Allahabad v State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
Date of Order / Judgment: 9th September, 2024
The Matter Heard by Bench: CJI. Dr Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, Justice Abhay S. Oka, Justice, J. B. Pardiwala, Justice
Pankaj Mithal, Justice Manoj Misra
Background
In the landmark case of High Court Bar Association Allahabad v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., a five-
judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court of India addressed a significant legal question
regarding the scope of jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Indian Constitution. Specifically, the
Court examined whether it could, under Article 142, mandate the automatic vacation of all interim
or stay orders issued by High Courts in both civil and criminal cases upon the expiry of a certain
period.
This case arose in the context of the Supreme Court's earlier decision in Asian Resurfacing of Road
Agency Pvt. Ltd. v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2018), which had established that interim orders
issued by High Courts would automatically expire after six months unless extended by an explicit
order.
Issues
- 1. Whether the Supreme Court, in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 142, can order
the automatic vacation of all interim or stay orders of High Courts upon the expiry of a
specified period.
- 2. Whether the principles of natural justice and the requirement of judicial application of mind
are necessary for the vacation of interim orders.
Observation
-
1. The Supreme Court observed that the previous decision in Asian Resurfacing amounted to
judicial legislation, as it set a blanket rule regarding the automatic expiry of interim orders.
The Court noted that such an approach overstepped judicial boundaries and intruded into
legislative functions.
- 2. It was emphasized that Article 142 of the Constitution, which allows the Supreme Court to
pass orders to do complete justice, should not be used to invalidate a large number of
lawfully passed interim orders of High Courts. The Court highlighted that the principles of
natural justice and the application of judicial mind are essential prerequisites for vacating
interim orders, which should not be undermined by automatic expiration rules.
- 3. The Court reiterated that interim orders granted by High Courts remain valid until either the
main case is disposed of or a judicial order vacating the interim relief is issued after hearing
the parties involved. The automatic expiration of such orders, as mandated by Asian
Resurfacing, was deemed inappropriate.
Decision
The Supreme Court overruled its decision in Asian Resurfacing, holding that the automatic vacation
of interim orders on the expiry of a certain period is not permissible. The Court clarified that interim
orders should only be vacated or affirmed based on a judicial examination and the principles of
natural justice. The decision in Asian Resurfacing was deemed to have improperly encroached upon
the legislative domain and imposed an undue procedural burden on the judicial process. Hence, the
Supreme Court reaffirmed that the High Courts’ interim orders should be reviewed and vacated
through appropriate judicial procedures, rather than through automatic expiration.