A five-judge constitution bench declared on Thursday that interim stay orders issued by high courts nationwide in both civil and criminal cases would remain valid indefinitely until the matter is conclusively resolved by the trial court.

This ruling overturned a 2018 Supreme Court decision that limited the validity of stay orders to six months. It holds significant implications, establishing that interim stays granted by high courts will persist until specifically lifted. Prior practices where stay orders automatically lapsed within six months are now obsolete.

Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud, leading the bench, emphasised that even the Supreme Court, under its extraordinary plenary powers, cannot compel high courts to expedite the resolution of cases where interim stays are in place.

"We assert that stays granted by high courts cannot be automatically vacated. Blanket directives mandating day-to-day adjudication of cases with interim stays cannot be sanctioned under Article 142 of the Constitution," the bench, also having Justice Abhay S. Oka, Justice J.B. Pardiwala, Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Pankaj Mithal, stated.

While Justice Oka authored the primary judgment, Justice Mithal issued a separate but concurring opinion on the matter.

The five-judge panel rendered its decision following a reference made by a three-judge bench on December 1, 2023, questioning the 2018 ruling in the case of "Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Private Limited & Anr. vs Central Bureau of Investigation".

Justice Oka emphasised that high courts may grant stay orders if a prima facie case is established, and failure to stay proceedings could render the remedy futile. He stressed that while such orders should not be routine, they need not be exceptional.

However, Justice Oka cautioned high courts to exercise prudence, especially in cases involving serious offences. He highlighted that granting stays could prevent remands and unnecessary delays, thereby reducing litigation costs.

The bench criticised the 2018 Supreme Court judgment, arguing that vacating interim relief without hearing the affected party contradicts the principles of justice. They contended that time constraints on stay orders infringe upon the fundamental jurisdiction of high courts under Article 226 of the Constitution.

"By a blanket direction in the exercise of power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, this 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,” the bench said.

"Such constraints would effectively legislate judicially, a domain reserved for the legislature," the bench declared. "Only the legislature can mandate specific timeframes for case resolution."

In conclusion, the bench's ruling establishes a new precedent, ensuring the sustained validity of interim stay orders until resolved by the trial court, thereby upholding principles of fairness and judicial autonomy.