An FIR was registered against one Asian, company as well as certain officials of the MCD under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act). Thereafter, a chargesheet was filed by CBI and subsequently, an order was passed framing charges under PC Act, 1988.A criminal revision petition was sought before High Court against said order. The High Court held that an order framing charges under the PC Act was interlocutory and could be challenged under section 482 Cr.P.C. or Article 227.The Supreme Court held that order of framing charge was neither an interlocutory nor a final order. Therefore, it was held that the High Court had jurisdiction in appropriate cases to consider a challenge to an order of framing charge. Furthermore, the High Court had jurisdiction to grant a stay of the trial proceedings. However, it was held that the stay granted by the High Court automatically expires, unless an extension was granted for good reasons, the Trial Court, on expiry of a period of six months, must set a date for trial and go ahead with the same.

On appeal before the larger bench of Supreme Court challenging impugned order on ground that the principle which has been laid down to the effect that the stay shall automatically stand vacated (which would mean an automatic vacation of stay without application of judicial mind to whether the stay should or should not be extended further) was liable to result in a serious miscarriage of justice. Larger Bench of the Hourable Supreme court held that, the power of High Court under article 227 to have judicial superintendence over all Courts within its jurisdiction will include power to stay proceedings before such Courts and, thus, Supreme Court cannot interfere with said jurisdiction by passing blanket direction in exercise of power under article 142 and limiting High Court’s jurisdiction to pass interim orders valid only for six months at a time.  Directions of Supreme Court that provided for automatic vacation of order of stay and disposal of all cases in which a stay had been granted on a day-to-day basis would virtually amount to judicial legislation and jurisdiction of Supreme Court cannot be exercised to make such a judicial legislation.  Constitutional Courts, in ordinary course, should refrain from fixing a time-bound schedule for disposal of cases pending before any other Courts and directions for time-bound disposal of cases could be issued only in exceptional circumstances, thus, issue of prioritising disposal of cases should be best left to decision of concerned Courts where cases were pending.A reasoned stay order once granted in any civil or criminal proceedings, if not specified to be time-bound, would remain in operation till decision of main matter or until and unless an application is moved for its vacation and a speaking order is passed adhering to principles of natural justice either extending, modifying, varying or vacating same. It is held that there cannot be automatic vacation of stay granted by the High Court. 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 could not be approved. Such blanket directions cannot be issued in the exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.

Main conclusions are summarised as follows :

• A direction that all the interim orders of stay of proceedings passed by every High Court automatically expire only by reason of lapse of time cannot be issued in the exercise of the jurisdiction of this Court under article 142 of the Constitution of India;
• Important parameters for the exercise of the jurisdiction under article 142 of the Constitution of India which are relevant for deciding the reference are 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 favour 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 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. 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; and
• 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.

1. 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 prioritising the disposal of cases should be best left to the decision of the concerned Courts where the cases are pending; and
2. While dealing with the prayers for the grant of interim relief, the High Courts should take into consideration the guidelines incorporated in paragraphs 34 and 35 above.

However, 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 (supra), the orders of automatic vacation of stay shall remain valid.