An FIR was registered against Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd (“Appellant”) and certain officials of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (“MCD”) under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code (“IPC”) and the Prevention of Corruption Act (“PCA”). Following an investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation (“CBI”), a chargesheet was filed before the Special Judge, CBI in November 2002. Subsequently, the Special Judge framed charges against the accused.

Legal Proceedings in Asian Resurfacing Case

The Appellant in Asian Resurfacing Case filed a Criminal Revision petition before the Delhi High Court (“HC”) challenging the order framing charges. The primary issue was whether the order framing charges, being an interlocutory order, could be challenged under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, given the express bar on revision petitions in terms of Section 19(3)(c) of the PCA.

High Court’s Decision in Asian Resurfacing Case

The Learned Single Judge of the Delhi HC concluded in Asian Resurfacing Case that entertaining petitions under Article 227 against orders framing charges would defeat the legislative intent of Section 19(3)(c) of the PCA. However, considering conflicting judgments in Dharambir Khattar v. CBI and R.C. Sabharwal v. CBI, the Single Judge referred the matter to a larger bench.

Division Bench Considerations

The Division Bench framed key questions in Asian Resurfacing Case:

1. Whether an order framing charges under the PCA is an interlocutory order, thus barring the High Court’s revisional powers.
2. Whether such an order can be challenged under Article 227 of the Constitution.

The Division Bench held that the order framing charges was indeed an interlocutory order and thus not subject to revision. However, it noted that the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is part of the Constitution’s basic structure and cannot be entirely barred, although courts should exercise caution in overriding the legislative intent of Section 19(3)(c) of the PCA.

Supreme Court’s Decision (Asian Resurfacing Judgement)

The decision of the Division Bench was challenged before the Supreme Court. In the Asian Resurfacing Judgment, the Supreme Court ruled:

To uphold the legislative policy and ensure speedy justice in criminal cases, any stay granted should lead to day-to-day hearings and be concluded within two to three months. If the case remains pending beyond six months, the stay order will be vacated automatically unless extended by a specific, reasoned order showing extraordinary circumstances.

Five-Judge Bench Considerations in Asian Resurfacing Case

A larger bench of five judges considered whether the Supreme Court, under Article 142, could order the automatic vacation of all interim orders from High Courts after a certain period. The key contentions and findings in Asian Resurfacing Case were:

Contentions of the Parties

• The Appellant argued that automatic vacation of interim orders amounts to judicial legislation and is beyond judicial powers.
• Article 226 is part of the Constitution’s basic structure and cannot be diluted by Article 142.
• The decision to vacate interim relief must involve application of judicial mind, not automatic vacation.

The Learned Solicitor General supported these submissions, emphasising the principles of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury, arguing that an interim order, once granted, should not automatically lapse due to the passage of time.

Findings of the Supreme Court in Asian Resurfacing Case

1. Automatic Vacation of Interim Orders: Interim orders can end either by disposal of the main case or by a judicial order after hearing the parties. The automatic vacation of interim orders without judicial application of mind violates natural justice.
2. Exercise of Powers under Article 142: The Supreme Court in Asian Resurfacing Case noted that the questions in Asian Resurfacing were specific to the interlocutory nature of the order framing charges and the High Court’s revisional power. Article 142 cannot be used to issue blanket orders affecting a large number of interim orders without hearing the concerned parties.
3. High Courts’ Power under Articles 226/227: High Courts’ power to exercise judicial superintendence is part of the Constitution’s basic structure, as established in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India. This power includes the ability to stay proceedings and the Supreme Court cannot interfere through blanket orders under Article 142.
4. Granting Orders of Stay: The directions in Asian Resurfacing on automatic vacation of stays were seen as judicial overreach. The court emphasised non-intervention in the day-to-day functioning of lower courts and stressed that any ad-interim relief can only be vacated after judicial consideration.

Current Status: Supreme Court Overruled ‘Asian Resurfacing’ Judgment: No Automatic Vacation of Stay Orders

In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court’s five-judge Constitution Bench in High Court Bar Association Allahabad v. State Of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. ruled against the automatic vacation of stay orders passed by High Courts. The Court determined that exercising jurisdiction under Article 142 should only aim to achieve complete justice, not to issue blanket orders affecting numerous interim orders lawfully passed by High Courts.

This decision overturns the 2018 judgment in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. v. Central Bureau of Investigation, which mandated that interim orders in civil and criminal trials automatically expire after six months unless explicitly extended. The Supreme Court emphasised the necessity of judicial application of mind and procedural fairness in dealing with interim orders, reinforcing the constitutional framework’s integrity.