In High Court Bar Association, Allahabad Vs State of U.P & Ors., [Criminal Appeal No. 3589 of 2023], the full bench of the Supreme Court of India held that the Bench was unable to concur with the earlier direction issued in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Private Limited & Anr., Vs Central Bureau of Investigation [(2018) 16 SCC 299] with respect to automatic vacation of stay granted by the High Court and that they do not approve the direction issued to decide all the cases in which an interim stay of granted on a day-to-day basis within a time frame and that such blanket orders cannot be issued in exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.
CASE SUMMARY
The Full bench of the Supreme Court of India summarised their conclusions as follows:
A. A direction that all the interim orders of stay of proceedings passed by every High Court automatically expire only by reason of lapse of time cannot be issued in the exercise of the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India;
B. Important parameters for the exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India which are relevant for deciding the reference are as follows:
(i) The jurisdiction can be exercised to do complete justice between the parties before the Court. It cannot be exercised to nullify the benefits derived by a large number of litigants based on judicial orders validly passed in their favour who are not parties to the proceedings before the Supreme Court;
(ii) Article 142 does not empower the Supreme Court to ignore the substantive rights of the litigants;
(iii) While exercising the jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, the Supreme Court can always issue procedural directions to the Courts for streamlining procedural aspects and ironing out the creases in the procedural laws to ensure expeditious and timely disposal of cases. However, while doing so, this Court cannot affect the substantive rights of those litigants who are not parties to the case before it. The right to be heard before an adverse order is passed is not a matter of procedure but a substantive right; and
(iv) The power of the Supreme Court under Article 142 cannot be exercised to defeat the principles of natural justice, which are an integral part of our jurisprudence.
C. Constitutional Courts, in the ordinary course, should refrain from fixing a time-bound schedule for the disposal of cases pending before any other Courts. Constitutional Courts may issue directions for the time-bound disposal of cases only in exceptional circumstances. The issue of prioritising the disposal of cases should be best left to the decision of the Courts concerned where the cases are pending; and
D. While dealing with the prayers for the grant of interim relief, the High Courts should take into consideration the guidelines incorporated in paragraphs 34 and 35 of the order. That is, (i) While dealing with the prayer for grant of interim relief, the order must give sufficient indication of the application of mind of the relevant factors; (ii) The High Court is expected to take up petitions for vacating stay on priority basis.
CERTAIN IMPORTANT PRINCIPLES DISCUSSED:
While arriving at the above conclusions, the Supreme Court referred to a few principles relating to the jurisdiction of Supreme Court and the High Courts. Some of them include:
- A High Court is not judicially sub ordinate to the Supreme Court;
- The High Court exercises power of superintendence over all sub ordinate Courts and Tribunals under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. No such power is vested with the Supreme Court;
- The Supreme Court of India and the High Courts are courts of record;
- The High Courts have larger jurisdiction than the Supreme Court but still the Supreme Court remains the elder brother [Thirupati Balaji Developers (P) Ltd & Ors., Vs State of Bihar & Ors., (2004) 5 SCC 1];
- A High Court is constitutionally independent of the Supreme Court of India;
- Power vested in the High Courts to exercise judicial superintendence over the decisions of all Courts and tribunals within their respective jurisdictions is also part of the basic structure of the Constitution [L. Chandra Kumar Vs Union of India & Ors., (1997) 3 SCC 261].
- By a blanket direction in exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, the Supreme Court cannot limit the jurisdiction of High Courts to grant interim reliefs and cause dent on the powers vested under Article 226 of the Constitution, which is a basic structure.
- It is inexpedient for the Supreme Court to delve into problems which do not arise and express opinion thereon [Sanjeev Coke Manufacturing Company Vs M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited & Anr., (1983) 1 SCC 147]
- In All India Judges Association & Ors., Vs Union of India & Ors., [(2002) 4 SCC 247], the Supreme Court passed an order directing that the judge – to – population ration within twenty years should be 50 per million. Even as of today, we are not able to reach the ratio of even 25 per million.
- It is neither advisable not feasible to draw or prescribe an outer time limit for conclusion of all criminal proceedings [Abdul Rehman Antulay & Ors., Vs R.S. Nayak & Anr., (1992) 1 SCC 225]
- Grant of interim stay order ought to be ordinarily by a speaking order and therefore as a natural corollary, a stay order once granted cannot be vacated otherwise than by a speaking order [Justice Pankaj Mithal in his separate order while concurring with his brother judges in the full bench]
Date of the Judgment: 29.02.2024
Coram:
CJI Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud
Justice Abhay S. Oka
Justice J.B. Pardiwala
Justice Pankaj Mithal
Justice Manoj Misra
(This is a case summary and not an opinion piece.)
Comments