‘Should stay orders automatically expire after six months?’ SC refers it to Constitution Bench

Satya Prakash

New Delhi, December 1

Should stay orders in criminal or civil proceedings be vacated automatically after six months, unless specifically extended?

Expressing reservations over a 2018 verdict of the Supreme Court on the legal issue, a three-judge Bench led by CJI DY Chandrachud on Friday referred the matter to a five-judge Constitution Bench.

In its verdict in ‘Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency P Ltd Director versus CBI’, a three-judge Bench had on March 28, 2018 directed “that in all pending cases where stay against proceedings of a civil or criminal trial is operating, the same will come to an end on expiry of six months from today unless in an exceptional case by a speaking order such stay is extended. In cases where stay is granted in future, the same will end on expiry of six months from the date of such order unless similar extension is granted by a speaking order.

“The speaking order must show that the case was of such exceptional nature that continuing the stay was more important than having the trial finalized. The trial Court where order of stay of civil or criminal proceedings is produced, may fix a date not beyond six months of the order of stay so that on expiry of period of stay, proceedings can commence unless order of extension of stay is produced,” the top court had said.

“At times, proceedings are adjourned sine die on account of stay. Even after stay is vacated, intimation is not received and proceedings are not taken up,” it had noted.

However, on Friday, the CJI-led Bench decided refer the issue to a larger Bench of five judges after senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi contended on behalf of the Allahabad High Court Bar Association that the 2018 ruling took away the high courts’ powers under Article 226 of the Constitution with regard to enforcement of fundamental rights and statutory rights.

“We have reservations in regard to the correctness of the broad formulation of the principles in the above terms. We are of the view that the principle which has been laid down in the above decision to the effect that a stay shall be automatically stand vacated is liable to result in a miscarriage of justice,” said the Bench which also included Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra.