Constitution bench overturns six-month stay limit, courts granted discretion in landmark verdict

In a significant development, Constitution bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud overturned a 2018 Supreme Court decision that mandated a six-month limit on stay orders in civil or criminal trials. The five-judge bench emphasized that a blanket directive for the vacation of stay in all cases after six months is inappropriate, asserting that such decisions should be left to the discretion of the respective courts.

The bench, including Justices AS Oka, JB Pardiwala, Pankaj Mithal, and Manoj Misra, held that imposing a time limit on stay orders is not within the purview of Constitutional courts. The judgment challenged the idea of fixing timelines for case disposal, arguing that the pattern of pending cases varies across different courts, making it essential to allow individual courts to prioritize cases based on their unique circumstances.

The verdict stemmed from an appeal filed by the High Court Bar Association of Allahabad, challenging the 2018 ruling in the case of Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency vs CBI. The previous judgment suggested that stay orders would automatically expire after six months unless extended by a speaking order, highlighting the exceptional nature of the case.

Overruling the 2018 decision, the Constitution bench emphasized that Constitutional courts should refrain from prescribing timelines for case resolution by other courts. Justice AS Oka, delivering the key points of the judgment, stressed that out-of-turn prioritization of certain cases should be at the discretion of the concerned court, echoing the sentiment that extraordinary circumstances may warrant directions to district courts for time-bound resolutions.

This development follows the Supreme Court's decision on December 1 to refer the 2018 ruling to a Constitution bench, prompted by an appeal from the Allahabad High Court Bar Association. The association contested a November 3 decision by the Allahabad High Court, which relied on the 2018 Supreme Court directive to deny applications seeking an extension of stay.

During the arguments on December 13, senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, representing the Allahabad HC Bar Association, contended that the 2018 order impinged upon the jurisdiction of high courts, which hold constitutional powers under Article 226. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre, supported the bar body's stance, highlighting that the 2018 judgment restricted the judicial discretion of high courts.