Summary of Recent judgment

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.