In a recent judgment in the matter of High Court Bar Association, Allahabad v. State of U.P., 2024 INSC 150, the hon’ble Supreme Court of India (Supreme Court) overruled its own judgment in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency v. CBI (2018) 16 SCC 299 to the extent of its dictum qua expiry of interm orders.
In Asian Resurfacing, the Supreme Court had held that interim orders passed by the High Courts for stay on trial in civil and criminal matters would expire automatically in six months unless the same was extended by the High Court through a speaking order. However, the Supreme Court held that an interim order passed by the High Courts, after duly hearing the parties, shall not be rendered illegal or set at naught merely due to the passage of time.
The Supreme Court stated that the object of passing interim orders has not been considered by the High Court. The Supreme Court noted that the interim relief is usually granted in the aid of the final relief sought in the case and the occasion for a party to seek stay orders arises when High Court is dealing with a challenge to interim or interlocutory order passed during the pendency of the main case.
It further opined that if the approach of automatic vacation of stay orders after six months is adopted, it will be completely contrary to the concept of fairness and if an interim stay is vacated without any fault on the part of the litigant only because High Court cannot hear the main case, the maxim ‘actus curiae neminem gravabit’ i.e., the act of the Court shall prejudice no-one, will apply.