Introduction:

In the recent case of High Court Bar Association Allahabad v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2023), the Supreme Court of India addressed the issue of whether the court, in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, can automatically vacate all interim or stay orders passed by the High Courts in civil and criminal cases after a certain period. The Supreme Court overruled its earlier 2018 judgment in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. v. Central Bureau of Investigation and held that such automatic vacation of interim orders is not permissible, emphasizing that Article 142 must be invoked to do complete justice and not to set aside lawful orders of High Courts.

Facts of the Case:

The case stemmed from a dispute regarding the automatic vacation of interim orders passed by High Courts in civil and criminal cases. In Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2018), the Supreme Court had ruled that any interim or stay order passed by the High Courts would automatically expire after six months unless explicitly extended by a court order. This decision was made to promote speedy disposal of cases, particularly criminal trials.

The appellant, Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd., was facing criminal charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act. During the legal proceedings, various interim orders had been passed by the Delhi High Court, including stay orders. In the Asian Resurfacing case, the Court had prescribed a six-month limit for the validity of such orders, which could be extended only through a speaking order by the High Court. This decision had significant implications, as it implied that interim reliefs could be revoked merely due to the passage of time, without regard to the merits of the case or the parties' positions.

Issues:

The primary issues that the Supreme Court had to address were:

1. Whether the automatic vacation of interim orders after a fixed period, as prescribed in the Asian Resurfacing judgment, is legally valid?

2. Can the Supreme Court exercise its jurisdiction under Article 142 to pass blanket orders that vacate all interim orders passed by the High Courts, even when those orders were granted after due application of judicial mind?

3. What is the scope of judicial discretion for High Courts in granting interim reliefs under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution?

Contentions of the Parties:

1. Appellant’s Arguments:

• • The appellant contended that the automatic vacation of interim orders was an overreach into judicial powers and amounted to "judicial legislation," which is outside the scope of the judiciary's role.
• • They argued that the exercise of powers under Article 142 should not invalidate interim orders passed by High Courts, as this would violate the principles of natural justice and the basic structure of the Constitution.
• • It was also emphasized that interim orders are granted after considering the prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable harm. Hence, these orders should not automatically be vacated without a hearing.

2. State of Uttar Pradesh’s Argument:

• • The State of Uttar Pradesh supported the Asian Resurfacing judgment, asserting that interim orders are granted after considering key factors like the prima facie case and the balance of convenience. Therefore, the automatic expiration of these orders after six months without hearing the parties would be unjust.
• • They further argued that the six-month period prescribed in Asian Resurfacing was meant to ensure the timely resolution of cases, not to undermine the power of the High Courts.

Observations of the Court:

1. On Automatic Expiry of Interim Orders:

• • The Supreme Court observed that interim orders do not automatically expire after a set period. Instead, they can only be vacated through a judicial order made after hearing the parties involved. The Court emphasized that the principles of natural justice must be followed when deciding whether to vacate an interim order.

2. On Article 142 Jurisdiction:

• • The Court held that the power under Article 142 cannot be used to issue blanket orders that nullify interim orders passed by the High Courts. The Supreme Court clarified that Article 142 should only be invoked in extraordinary situations where complete justice is required, and it cannot be used to affect the substantive rights of litigants who are not before the Court.

3. On Judicial Superintendence of High Courts:

• • The Court reiterated that High Courts have constitutional powers under Articles 226 and 227 to grant interim reliefs, and these powers are part of the basic structure of the Constitution. The Court emphasized that the Supreme Court should not interfere with this power through blanket orders, particularly when it comes to interim orders passed by the High Courts.

4. On Judicial Overreach and Legislative Function:

• • The Court criticized the Asian Resurfacing judgment for judicial overreach, particularly the imposition of a time limit on the validity of interim orders. The Court cautioned against judicial legislation and emphasized that the role of courts is to interpret and apply the law, not to legislate.

Implications:

• • The judgment upholds the autonomy of the High Courts in exercising their judicial discretion while granting interim orders. It ensures that such orders are not arbitrarily vacated, recognizing the need for due process and a fair hearing before any order can be modified or set aside.
• • The ruling establishes clear limitations on the exercise of the Supreme Court’s power under Article 142, reinforcing that it cannot be used to override interim orders passed by High Courts, especially when such orders have been passed after due consideration of the parties involved.
• • While the decision respects judicial autonomy, it does not resolve the issue of case backlog and delays. The Court refrained from issuing time-bound directives on case disposal, leaving this matter to the discretion of the concerned courts. The ruling ensures that the principles of justice and due process take precedence over the expedient resolution of cases.

In conclusion, this judgment has significant implications for the way interim orders are handled in India. It signifies a critical stance against judicial overreach and emphasizes the importance of upholding natural justice, judicial discretion, and the constitutional powers of the High Courts.