No automatic vacation of stay on orders after 6 months: Supreme Court

Latest News


The Supreme Court has ruled that stay orders granted by trial courts and high courts in civil and criminal matters should be automatically vacationed after six months. The decision was made by a five-member constitution bench led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud. The bench ruled that such a direction cannot be issued under Article 142 and that constitutional courts should refrain from setting time-bound schedules for cases pending before any other court.

The Supreme Court on Thursday set aside its 2018 ruling that called for automatic vacation of stay orders granted by trial courts and high courts in civil and criminal matters after six months.

A five-member constitution bench led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud set aside the 2018 ruling, which was given by a three-member bench of the top court in the Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency vs Central Bureau of Investigation case.

Pronouncing the order, the CJI said the bench “does not agree with Asian Resurfacing (judgment)”. A three-member bench of the court had in 2018 directed that all stay orders in criminal as well as civil proceedings be valid only for six months unless specifically extended.

The bench on Thursday said it was unable to concur with the directions issued in the Asian Resurfacing case. “A direction that stay of all interim orders passed by high courts will automatically expire on the lapse of time is something which cannot be issued under Article 142. Constitutional courts should refrain from laying down time-bound schedules for cases pending before any other court,” the bench held.


Such directions for time-bound decisions should be issued only in exceptional circumstances, it said.

The bench ruled that the pattern of pendency of cases in every court including high courts is different and hence any out-of-turn priority for certain cases is best left to the concerned court. “Constitutional courts should not lay down time-bound manner to decide cases since grassroot issues are known to concerned courts and such orders should be passed only in exceptional circumstances,” the bench ruled.

SC had last December referred the 2018 ruling to a five-member bench. A bench headed by CJI Chandrachud had last December expressed reservations about the 2018 judgment.

Source Link

Leave a Reply