Introduction
In a significant decision in High Court Bar Association, Allahabad v. State of U.P. & Ors.[i], a five-judge constitutional bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India (‘SC’) has overruled its decision in the Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Private Limited & Anr. v. Central Bureau of Investigation[ii] case. The SC held that orders for the automatic vacation of stay, solely on the basis of time elapsed, cannot be issued under the exercise of jurisdiction granted by a. 142 of the Constitution of India (‘Constitution’).
Brief Facts
In 2018, a three-judge bench of the SC ruled in the case of Asian resurfacing (supra) that orders granting interim stay by any of the High Courts (‘HCs’) in the country, in any civil or criminal proceedings, would automatically be vacated upon the expiry of six months, unless extended by a speaking order.
The decision from this case was subsequently referred by a three-judge bench of the SC for reconsideration to a five-judge constitutional bench.
The constitutional bench then reconsidered the matter and analyzed potential issues that could arise if an interim stay, granted by the HC after thorough deliberation and consideration, were to be automatically vacated by the lapse of time, under the exercise of its jurisdiction under a. 142 of the Constitution.
Held
The SC in its adjudication held that automatic vacation of stay orders issued by the HCs cannot stand, making several critical observations:
i. The SC noted that issuing directives for the automatic vacation of stay orders upon the expiry of a specific time period constitutes judicial legislation, which is beyond the SC's purview.
ii. It was emphasized that a. 142 of the Constitution cannot be invoked to issue blanket orders that override judicially considered and merit-based decisions of the HCs.
iii. The SC opined that mandates for the speedy resolution of cases within a stipulated period should not be imposed uniformly. Such directives should be reserved for extraordinary circumstances and remain within the discretion of the court handling the specific matter.
iv. The SC clarified that any ad-interim relief granted by the HCs can only be vacated after careful consideration and application of mind by the concerned court, and not merely through the exercise of powers under a. 142 of the Constitution.
Our Analysis
The decision by the SC is indicative of its steadfast commitment to uphold the basic principles of natural justice, separation of powers, and fairness, as enshrined in the Constitution. The SC clearly articulated that the powers under a. 142 of the Constitution should not be used to undermine the principles of natural justice nor usurp the legislative process, thereby affecting the substantive rights of litigants. An order that has been thoughtfully considered and passed based on a detailed analysis should not be vacated merely because a specific period has elapsed. The right of any individual to seek a judicial remedy is fundamental, and such rights should not be interfered with except in extraordinary circumstances.
End Notes
[i] 2024 SCC OnLine SC 207
[ii] (2018) 16 SCC 299
Authored by Aditya Gupta, Advocate at Metalegal Advocates. The views expressed are personal and do not constitute legal opinion.
More Insights
24-07-2026
10
min read
‘Shylockian’ Lending is ‘Squeezing of Blood’: NCLT Moves Beyond Debt & Default to Reject a Section 7 Application
In a rare departure from the conventional debt-and-default enquiry under section 7 of the IBC, the NCLT, Kochi Bench rejected the financial creditors' petition after characterizing the underlying arrangement as a ‘Shylockian system’ of lending. This court ruling discusses Shylockian lending and examines the strength of the Tribunal's focus on the economic substance of the transaction against established legal principles governing admission under section 7 of the IBC.
10-07-2026
7
min read
Faceless Reassessment after S. 147A: What the Supreme Court Did – and Did Not – Decide
The Supreme Court's decision in Tej Pratap Singh does not settle the JAO–FAO controversy. Following Parliament's retrospective insertion of s. 147A, it remands the issue to the High Courts for fresh consideration. Faceless reassessment was never merely about moving tax files from paper to portal; it fundamentally changed the statutory authority responsible for communicating with the taxpayer, examining the record, drafting the order and completing the assessment. The real question now is how far a retrospective legislative clarification can go.
22-06-2026
8
min read
Claim Admission is not Debt Acknowledgement: Supreme Court on RP’s Role & Limitation under the IBC
Can admission of a claim by a Resolution Professional extend limitation under section 18 of the Limitation Act? In Shankar Khandelwal v. Omkara Asset Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd., the Supreme Court answered this question in the negative, holding that claim admission during CIRP is merely a statutory claim-verification process and not an acknowledgement of debt. The ruling clarifies the RP’s non-adjudicatory role and reinforces important principles governing limitation under the IBC.