SC Lays Down Important Parameters For Exercise Of Powers Under Article 142 While Overruling Asian Resurfacing Judgment
The Supreme Court while overruling its judgment in the case of Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Private Limited & Anr. v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2018) 16 SCC 299, has laid down some important parameters for exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution.
The Court also issued guidelines on the procedure to be adopted by High Courts in passing interim order of stay of proceedings and for dealing with the applications for vacating interim stay.
The five-Judge Constitution Bench comprising CJI D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice Abhay S. Oka, Justice J.B. Pardiwala, Justice Pankaj Mithal, and Justice Manoj Misra said, “It is very difficult to exhaustively lay down the parameters for the exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India due to the very nature of such powers.”
The Bench, therefore, laid down the following parameters for the same –
(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 this Court;
(ii) Article 142 does not empower this Court to ignore the substantive rights of the litigants; and
(iii) While exercising the jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, this 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. This is because, while exercising the jurisdiction under Article 142, this Court may not be bound by procedural requirements of law. 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.
(iv) The power of this Court under Article 142 cannot be exercised to defeat the principles of natural justice, which are an integral part of our jurisprudence.
Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi appeared for the appellant while Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appeared for the respondents.
In Asian Resurfacing case, the Supreme Court dealt with the scope of interference by the High Court with an order of framing charge passed by the Special Judge under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act). The issue was whether an order of framing charge was an interlocutory order and the High Court held that an order of framing charge under the PC Act was interlocutory. A two-Judge Bench by an order dated September 9, 2013, referred the case to a larger Bench to consider the issue of whether the case of Mohan Lal Magan Lal Thacker v. State of Gujarat AIR 1968 SC 733 was correctly decided.
A three-Judge Bench held that the order of framing charge was neither an interlocutory nor a final order. Therefore, it was held that the High Court has jurisdiction in appropriate cases to consider a challenge to an order of framing charge and furthermore, the High Court has jurisdiction to grant a stay of the trial proceedings. Thereafter, it proceeded to consider in which cases a stay of the proceedings ought to be granted. The Bench considered the question in the context of a criminal trial, particularly under the PC Act. The Constitution Bench was therefore, called upon to decide the correctness of the view taken in paragraphs 36 and 37 of the said decision.
The following two questions arose for consideration before the Supreme Court –
(a) Whether the Court, in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, can order automatic vacation of all interim orders of the High Courts of staying proceedings of Civil and Criminal cases on the expiry of a certain period?
(b) Whether the Court, in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, can direct the High Courts to decide pending cases in which interim orders of stay of proceedings has been granted on a day-to-day basis and within a fixed period?
The Court in view of the above questions noted, “The directions issued in Asian Resurfacing1 are obviously issued in the exercise of jurisdiction of this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution, which confers jurisdiction on this Court to pass such a decree or make such order necessary for doing complete justice in any case or matter pending before it. In Asian Resurfacing1, the first issue was, whether an order framing of charge in a case under the PC Act was in the nature of an interlocutory order. The second question was of the scope of powers of the High Court to stay proceedings of the trial under the PC Act while entertaining a challenge to an order of framing charge.”
The Court said that the question regarding the duration of the interim orders passed by the High Courts in various other proceedings did not specifically arise for consideration in the case of Asian Resurfacing and that the provisions of Article 142 of the Constitution are meant to further the cause of justice and to secure complete justice. It added by saying that the directions in the exercise of power under Article 142 cannot be issued to defeat justice.
“The jurisdiction under Article 142 cannot be invoked to pass blanket orders setting at naught a very large number of interim orders lawfully passed by all the High Courts, and that too, without hearing the contesting parties. The jurisdiction under Article 142 can be invoked only to deal with extraordinary situations for doing complete justice between the parties before the Court”, it held.
Furthermore, the Court observed that the power of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution to have judicial superintendence over all the Courts within its jurisdiction will include the power to stay the proceedings before such Courts. It said that by a blanket direction in the exercise of power under Article 142, the Court cannot interfere with the jurisdiction conferred on the High Court of granting interim relief by limiting its jurisdiction to pass interim orders valid only for six months at a time and putting such constraints on the power of the High Court will also amount to making a dent on the jurisdiction of the High Courts under Article 226, which is an essential feature that forms part of the basic structure of the Constitution.
The Court, therefore, concluded that there cannot be automatic vacation of stay granted by the High Court. The Court disapproved the direction issued to decide all the cases in which an interim stay has been granted on a day-to-day basis within a time frame. It also held that such blanket directions cannot be issued in the exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution.
The Court clarified that in the cases in which trials have been concluded as a result of the automatic vacation of stay based only on the decision in the case of Asian Resurfacing, the orders of automatic vacation of stay shall remain valid.
In his concurring opinion, Justice Pankaj Mithal said, “… filing of an application for vacating the stay order is a sine qua non for triggering the automatic vacation of the stay order under Article 226(3) if such an application is not decided within the time prescribed of two weeks. … the stay order granted in any proceedings would not automatically stand vacated on the expiry of a particular period until and unless an application to that effect has been filed by the other side and is decided following the principles of natural justice by a speaking order.”
He further observed that sometimes, in quest of justice we end up doing injustice and Asian Resurfacing is a clear example of the same.
Accordingly, the Apex Court answered the questions, issued necessary guidelines, and overruled its judgment.
Cause Title- High Court Bar Association, Allahabad v. State of U.P. & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 150)
Appearance:
Appellant: Senior Advocates Rakesh Dwivedi, VK Shukla, Kavin Gulati, S.G. Hasnain, Ravindra Singh, Dinesh Goswami, AOR Shantanu Krishna, Advocates Nitin Sharma, Nikhil Sharma, Eklavya Dwivedi, Shantanu Sagar, Anukul Raj, Ankit Mishra, Harmeet Singh Ruprah, Abhinav Shrivastava, Manu Yadav, Himanshu Tyagi, Kumar Ayush, Ronak Chaturvedi, Ram Kaushik, Syed Mohd Fazal, Archit Mandhyan, Raman Yadav, Prabhat Ranjan Raj, Sidharth Sarthi, Anil Kumar, Gunjesh Ranjan, Animesh Tripathi, Anant Prakash, Kanupriya Mishra, Amit Kumar Singh, Salil Srivastava, Shaurya Vardhan Singh, Ankit Dwivedi, Mukti Chowdhary, Gyanendra Kumar, Vijaya Singh, Shashwat Anand, Apoorv Mishra, Shashank Shukla, Ashutosh Thakur, Vaibhav Jain, Rituvendra Singh, Aniruddh Kumar, Rajrshi Gupta, Imran Ullah, Tarun Agarwal, Ankit Saran, Namit Srivastava, Rakesh Dubey, Swetashwa Agarwal, Javed H Khan, Praval Tripathi, Shariq Ahmed, Satwik Misra, Ishit Saharia, Ashish Singh, Amit Singh, Sanjay Kumar Singh, Piyush Kumar, Paritosh Kumar Singh, AOR Pai Amit, Advocates N. Ashwani Kumar, Pankhuri Bhardwaj, Bhavana Duhoon, Ranu Purohit, Abhiyudaya Vats, Vanshika Dubey, Kushal Dube, Tathagata Dutta, and P. Ashok.
Respondents: SG Tushar Mehta, Adv. Gen. (Sr. Adv.) Ajay Kumar Misra, Senior Advocate Vijay Hansaria, AOR Tanmaya Agarwal, Advocates Wrick Chatterjee, Aditi Agarwal, Vinayak Mohan, AOR Mahfooz Ahsan Nazki, Advocates Polanki Gowtham, Rajeswari Mukherjee, K.V. Girish Chowdary, T. Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy, Archita Nigam, Meeran Maqbool, Ruchi Guasain, AOR Fuzail Ahmad Ayyubi, Advocates Ibad Mushtaq, Akanksha Rai, AOR Anasuya Choudhury, Advocates Kavya Jhawar, Gaurav Mehrotra, AOR Talha Abdul Rahman, Advocates Nadeem Murtaza, Talha Abdul Rahman, Akber Ahmed, Abhinit Jaiswal, Harsh Vardhan Mehrotra, Maria Fatima, Alina Masoodi, M. Shaz Khan, and Adnan Yousuf Bhat.
