Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Supreme Court in the matter of High Court Bar Association Allahabad v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., has overturned the 2018 Asian Resurfacing judgment and set aside the automatic stay vacation rule.

• The Supreme Court also issued crucial guidelines on the exercise of its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI).

What was the Background of High Court Bar Association Allahabad v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. Case?

• In the case of Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Private Limited & Anr. v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2018), the Supreme Court had held that the stay order granted in pending civil and criminal cases would automatically be vacated (would cease to exist) after six months.
• On 1^st December 2023, a Bench of three judges of Supreme Court expressed a view that a decision of this Court in this case requires reconsideration by a larger Bench.
• Thereafter a five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court led by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud unanimously held that stay orders granted in pending cases do not automatically lapse. The Bench also held that the Court did not have the discretionary power under Article 142 to declare automatic vacation of stay orders.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The constitution bench comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justices Abhay S Oka, JB Pardiwala, Pankaj Mithal, and Manoj Misra set aside the automatic stay vacation rule and noted its potential adverse impact on litigants.
• The important parameters given by the Court for exercising the jurisdiction under Article 142 of the COI can be summarized as follows:
  • 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 favor who are not parties to the proceedings before this Court.
  • Article 142 does not empower this Court to ignore the substantive rights of the litigants.
  • While exercising the jurisdiction under Article 142 of the COI 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. 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.
  • 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.
  • 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 prioritizing the disposal of cases should be best left to the decision of the concerned Courts where the cases are pending.

What is Article 142 of the COI?

• About:
  • Article 142 of the COI provides discretionary power of the Supreme Court.
  • It deals with the enforcement of decrees and orders of Supreme Court and orders as to discovery, etc. It states that -

(1) The Supreme Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it, and any decree so passed or order so made shall be enforceable throughout the territory of India in such manner as may be prescribed by or under any law made by Parliament and, until provision in that behalf is so made, in such manner as the President may by order prescribe.

(2) Subject to the provisions of any law made in this behalf by Parliament, the Supreme Court shall, as respects the whole of the territory of India, have all and every power to make any order for the purpose of securing the attendance of any person, the discovery or production of any documents, or the investigation or punishment of any contempt of itself.

• Objectives:
  • Article 142 of the COI provides a unique power to the Supreme Court, to do complete justice between the parties, where, at times, the law or statute may not provide a remedy.
  • In those situations, the Court can extend itself to put an end to a dispute in a manner that would fit the facts of the case.
• Case Laws:
  • Union Carbide Corporation v. Union of India Case (1991), the Supreme Court placed itself above the laws made by the Parliament or the legislatures of the States by saying that, to do complete justice, it could even override the laws made by Parliament.
  • Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India (1998), the Supreme Court stated that Article 142 of the COI could not be used to supplant the existing law, but only to supplement the law.