Latest revision as of 07:00, 13 December 2024

[edit] Supreme Court orders

[edit] 2018, 20: Stay on proceedings must not exceed 6 months

October 17, 2020: The Times of India

The Supreme Court has ordered that any stay on criminal and civil proceedings will not continue beyond six months and the trial court can proceed in the case without waiting for approval from higher courts if the stay is not extended.

A bench headed by Justice R F Nariman said the SC’s 2018 verdict in which it had ruled that a stay on proceedings must not exceed six months must be implemented in its true spirit.

In a bid to ensure speedy justice and discourage delaying tactics adopted by the accused, the SC had ruled lower courts could proceed after a six-month period, preventing accused from dragging on the trial.

Referring to a trial court order directing a complainant to get approval from the HC, which had stayed proceedings in a criminal case, the SC said “this kind of orders fly in the face of our judgment. We expect that magistrates all over the country will follow our order in letter and spirit”. TNN

[edit] 2024: SC reverses 2018 ruling on automatic vacation of stays

Dhananjay Mahapatra, March 1, 2024: The Times of India

New Delhi: A five-judge Supreme Court bench reversed a three-judge bench’s 2018 verdict mandating automatic vacation of high court-ordered stays on proceedings in civil and criminal cases after six months if the interim order was not reiterated within that span. 
In a unanimous decision, a bench of Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and Justices Abhay S Oka, J B Pardiwala, Pankaj Mithal and Manoj Misra said HCs were not subordinate to SC and that the apex court could not exercise its omnibus power under Article 142 to fix time schedule for disposal of cases, which were diverse in nature. The 2018 judgment was given in the Asian Resurfacing case by Justices A K Goel, R F Nariman and Navin Sinha.
 Constitutional courts could specify time limits for disposal of cases only in exceptional circumstances and to meet extraordinary situations, said Justice Oka, whose decision on behalf of the other judges was supported by Justice Mithal’s concurring opinion. 
The bench said a poor litigant who got a stay from HC could not afford to run to a higher appellate court if the stay order got automatically vacated without getting an opportunity to be heard by HC. It would violate the basic principle of natural justice, SC said.

[edit] Details

SC: 6-month constraint akin to making dent on HC jurisdiction

Writing the main judgment, Justice Oka said, “Constitutional courts should not normally fix a time-bound schedule for disposal of cases pending in any court. The pattern of pendency of various categories of cases pending in every court, including HCs, is different. The situation at the grassroots level is better known to judges of the courts concerned. Therefore, the issue of giving out-of-turn priority to certain cases should be best left to the courts concerned.”


While reminding all constitutional court judges that hierarchical superiority does not give them licence to interfere with the functioning of other courts, the bench frowned at SC’s 2018 direction to HCs to expeditiously decide those petitions on which stay orders have been granted. “Why should a certain type of case be heard out of turn when lakhs of litigants are waiting for years in the long queue for justice?” it asked. 
 “An HC is constitutionally independent of the SC and is not subordinate to this court. This court is not superior to HCs in the judicial hierarchy. Therefore, HC judges should be allowed to set their priorities on a rational basis. Thus, as far as setting the outer limit is concerned, it should be best left to the courts concerned unless there are very extraordinary circumstances,” the CJI-led bench said.


The bench said an interim order lawfully passed by an HC, after hearing all contesting parties, was not rendered illegal only due to passage of six months. “If an HC concludes after hearing concerned parties that a case was made out for the grant of stay of proceedings of a civil or criminal case, the order of stay cannot stand automatically set aside on expiry of the period of six months only on the ground that HC could not hear the main case. No litigant should be allowed to suffer due to the fault of the court,” it said.


“By a blanket direction in the exercise of power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, the SC cannot interfere with the jurisdiction conferred on the HC of granting interim relief by limiting its jurisdiction to pass interim orders valid only for six months at a time. Putting such constraints… will also amount to making a dent on the jurisdiction of HCs under Article 226, which is an essential feature that forms part of the basic structure of the Constitution,” the bench said, a remark that would restore constitutionally conferred confidence in HC judges.


SC said directions for automatic vacation of stays and disposal of all cases in which a stay have been granted by conducting hearing on a day-to-day basis amounted to judicial legislation. “The jurisdiction of the SC cannot be exercised to make such a judicial legislation. Only the legislature can provide that cases of a particular category should be decided within a specific time,” it said.

[edit] ‘Stay and forget causes hardship to litigants, sad state in the judiciary’ SC, 2024

Dec 7, 2024: The Times of India

New Delhi : Supreme Court took exception to the trend of ‘grant stay and forget listing the case for hearing’ in high courts and said this caused immense hardship to litigants, especially in disputes relating to matrimony and child custody.
“This is a sad state of affairs in the judiciary. This pricks our conscience,” a bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan said while reviving the Oct 1, 2019 order of a single judge of Allahabad HC asking the Bulandshahr district judge to look into the suitability of the woman’s home for the child’s upbringing.


The husband had gone in appeal, and an HC division bench stayed the single judge’s order on Oct 18, 2019. It was vacated in Nov 5 this year, during which time the child has turned nearly 12.

SC: Division bench should have binned plea at the threshold

Ezaz Ahmed married Nazish Parveen in Feb 2011, and they had a son in Jan 2013. The woman alleged that she was thrown out of her matrimonial home in 2018 over dowry demands and barred from meeting her son. She moved a habeas corpus petition in Allahabad high court demanding custody of her five-year-old child.


The single judge of HC, referring to Muslim personal law, said the mother was entitled to custody of her male child till the age of seven and girl child till she attained puberty. The judge directed the Bulandshahr district judge to inquire in which parent’s custody the child’s welfare would be best met.


Frowning at the casual manner in which the stay on this order was granted and its vacation after five years, Justices Kant and Bhuyan said, “It is unfortunate that the division bench entertained the appeal, which should have been thrown out at the threshold.” Ordering revival of the single judge’s 2019 order, the bench said, “We hope the cause of action of the mother still survives. The boy has been with the father for the past five years and he would have been tutored completely by now.” It asked the Bulandshahr district judge to inquire into the issue of the child’s welfare expeditiously and submit a report to SC in three weeks.