Copyright infringement not intended

Picture Courtesy: corporate.cyrilamarchandblogs.com

Context: The Supreme Court is reevaluating a 2018 ruling establishing a six-month limit on stay orders, considering potential miscarriages of justice due to automatic vacation of stays despite trial delays caused by reasons beyond the involved parties' control.

Details

• In 2018, the Supreme Court passed a judgment in the 'Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency' case. The judgment, authored by Justices Adarsh Goel and Navin Sinha (with agreement from Justice RF Nariman), aimed to address the issue of long delays in court trials caused by stay orders operating indefinitely.

Key Provision of the 2018 Judgment

• The 2018 judgment directed that in all pending cases where a stay against the proceedings of a civil or criminal trial is in effect, the stay would automatically end on the expiry of six months unless, in exceptional cases, the High Court extends the stay through a speaking order.
• The intention behind this provision was to expedite legal proceedings by preventing stay orders from causing indefinite delays.

Challenges and Concerns Raised

• The recent development suggests that there are concerns about the practical implications of the automatic vacation of stay orders after six months.
• The bench, led by the Chief Justice of India, expressed reservations about the directive, arguing that it could lead to a "serious miscarriage of justice" in some cases.

Arguments Presented by the Senior Advocate

• Advocate representing the Allahabad High Court Bar Association argued that the 2018 case primarily focused on whether the order on framing charges was an interim order subject to challenge before the High Court. They contended that the specific issue of imposing an expiry period on stay orders was not extensively discussed during the 2018 case.

Bench's Response and Concerns

• The bench acknowledged that delays in court proceedings are not always attributable to the parties involved and can be due to various reasons, such as cases not being listed for hearing for a variety of reasons.
• The bench expressed serious reservations about the automatic vacation of stay orders after six months and questioned its potential impact on justice, emphasizing the need for flexibility.

Referral to a Five-Judge Bench

• The bench, recognizing the importance of the matter, decided that the correctness of the 2018 judgment should be referred to a five-judge bench for further consideration. This implies that the issue of whether an expiry period should be affixed on stay orders will be reexamined at a higher judicial level.

Conclusion

• The recent development highlights the judiciary's recognition of the complexities and potential injustices that may arise from a strict application of the six-month expiry period for stay orders. The decision to refer the matter to a five-judge bench indicates a commitment to thoroughly examine and possibly reconsider the provisions of the 2018 judgment.

PRACTICE QUESTION Q. What are some of the key challenges faced by the Indian judicial system in ensuring timely and effective justice delivery, and what reforms are being considered or implemented to address these issues?