A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

This case discusses the scope of powers regarding interim orders, emphasizing their objectives, duration, and conditions for vacation or modification. It critically examines the directions given in the Asian Resurfacing case that allowed automatic vacation of interim orders and mandates day-to-day hearings within a stipulated timeframe. The Supreme Court addressed constitutional principles, including Articles 142, 226, and 227, the High Court’s superintendence powers, and procedural fairness, reiterating that automatic vacation of interim orders without application of judicial mind contravenes natural justice. The Court also explored the impact of procedural timelines on pending civil and criminal cases, emphasizing the necessity of balancing expediency with justice.

Keywords: Interim orders, Article 142, High Court superintendence, natural justice, procedural timelines.

B) CASE DETAILS

• i) Judgment Cause Title: High Court Bar Association, Allahabad v. State of U.P. & Ors.
• ii) Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 3589 of 2023.
• iii) Judgment Date: 29 February 2024.
• iv) Court: Supreme Court of India.
• v) Quorum: Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud (CJI), Abhay S. Oka, J.B. Pardiwala, Manoj Misra, and Pankaj Mithal, JJ.
• vi) Author: Abhay S. Oka, J.
• vii) Citation: [2024] 2 S.C.R. 946.
• viii) Legal Provisions Involved: Articles 142, 226, 227 of the Constitution of India; Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; Income Tax Act, 1961.
• ix) Judgments Overruled by the Case: None explicitly overruled, but the decision challenges directions in the Asian Resurfacing case.
• x) Case is Related to: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law, Procedural Law.

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGMENT

This case arises out of challenges to the automatic vacation of interim orders and mandated timelines for adjudication introduced in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Private Limited v. Central Bureau of Investigation. The reference to a larger bench was necessitated due to differing views on procedural fairness and the implications of automatic vacation of interim orders. At issue were the constitutional limits of Articles 142 and 226 in procedural mandates.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

The High Court Bar Association of Allahabad contested directions in Asian Resurfacing that allowed automatic vacation of stay orders after six months unless renewed by a “speaking order.” They argued that such directions undermine judicial discretion, affect the rights of litigants, and fail to consider delays caused by systemic inefficiencies rather than litigant conduct.

The case also questioned whether the Supreme Court could mandate High Courts to prioritize specific categories of cases over others, potentially breaching the judiciary’s independence under Article 227.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

1. Can the Supreme Court under Article 142 order automatic vacation of interim reliefs granted by High Courts after a specified period?
2. Can the Supreme Court direct High Courts to prioritize and adjudicate specific categories of cases on a day-to-day basis within a fixed timeframe?
3. What is the scope and limitation of High Courts’ powers under Articles 226 and 227 concerning interim reliefs and procedural directives?
4. Does automatic vacation of interim orders contravene the principle of natural justice?
5. Is judicial legislation permissible under the guise of procedural streamlining?

F) PETITIONER/APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

• Automatic vacation constitutes judicial overreach and amounts to legislation by the judiciary, violating constitutional principles.
• High Courts’ powers under Article 226 are part of the basic structure and cannot be diluted.
• Procedural timelines disproportionately affect litigants relying on interim relief, particularly when delays are due to institutional inefficiencies.
• Judicial discretion must not be curtailed by blanket directions, as they undermine natural justice and litigants’ substantive rights.
• Cases such as Abdul Rehman Antulay v. R.S. Nayak and P. Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka establish that courts cannot impose fixed timelines on judicial proceedings.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

• Directions in Asian Resurfacing aimed to reduce judicial backlog and prevent misuse of interim orders as tools for indefinite delay.
• Automatic vacation of stay orders ensures accountability and expedites justice.
• Article 142 empowers the Supreme Court to pass directives necessary for ensuring procedural fairness and justice delivery.
• Stay orders often obstruct trial courts from proceeding, defeating the purpose of expedient dispute resolution.

H) JUDGMENT

a. Ratio Decidendi

1. Interim Orders’ Objective: Interim relief aids final relief. Its premature vacation may infringe substantive justice.
2. Application of Judicial Mind: Automatic vacation violates natural justice and disregards the principle of actus curiae neminem gravabit (an act of the court shall prejudice no one).
3. Judicial Independence: High Courts retain supervisory powers under Articles 226 and 227. The Supreme Court cannot impose procedural constraints that undermine their autonomy.
4. Article 142: Directions under Article 142 must balance expediency and justice without overriding substantive rights.

b. Obiter Dicta

• Blanket directives, like automatic vacation of interim orders, risk overstepping constitutional bounds and undermining judicial equity.
• Prioritization of cases must be context-specific and determined by High Courts based on local circumstances.

c. Guidelines

1. High Courts should carefully assess prima facie merits, irreparable harm, and balance of convenience before granting stays.
2. Ex-parte interim orders should be limited in duration and subject to review upon notice to the affected party.
3. Applications for vacating stay orders must receive prompt consideration to avoid undue prejudice.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The judgment reinforces judicial independence and procedural fairness while addressing systemic inefficiencies. It emphasizes that expediency cannot override substantive justice, and procedural timelines should accommodate the complexities of individual cases.

J) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred

1. Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Private Limited v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2018) 16 SCC 299.
2. Prem Chand Garg v. Excise Commissioner, UP [1963] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 885.
3. Abdul Rehman Antulay v. R.S. Nayak (1992) 1 SCC 225.
4. Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (2021) 7 SCC 413.

b. Important Statutes Referred

1. Constitution of India: Articles 142, 226, 227.
2. Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
3. Income Tax Act, 1961.