Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. v. Central Bureau of Investigation [Asian Resurfacing Case]
Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2018), commonly known as the Asian Resurfacing Case, is a landmark judgment by the Supreme Court of India that addresses the automatic vacation of stay orders in civil and criminal proceedings. Here's a detailed explanation of the case:
1. Facts of the Case
Background: An FIR was registered against Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. and certain officials of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) conducted an investigation and filed a chargesheet before the Special Judge, CBI, in November 2002. Subsequently, the Special Judge framed charges against the accused.
Legal Proceedings: The appellant filed a Criminal Revision petition before the Delhi High Court 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 Prevention of Corruption Act.
2. Legal Issues
The case primarily dealt with the following legal issues:
Maintainability of Revision Petitions: Whether an order framing charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act is an interlocutory order, thus barring the High Court’s revisional powers.
Supervisory Jurisdiction under Article 227: Whether such an order can be challenged under Article 227 of the Constitution, considering the legislative intent behind Section 19(3)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
3. Supreme Court's Observations and Judgment
Maintainability of Revision Petitions: The Supreme Court upheld the Division Bench's decision regarding the non-maintainability of revision petitions against interlocutory orders under Section 19(3)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. However, the Court emphasized the necessity for expeditious trials, holding that if a stay order is granted, the matter should be heard on a day-to-day basis and concluded within two to three months. If the trial is not concluded within six months of the stay, the stay order would automatically be vacated unless extended by a reasoned order demonstrating exceptional circumstances.
Supervisory Jurisdiction under Article 227: The Court acknowledged the broader supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227. While such jurisdiction should be exercised cautiously, it could not be entirely precluded by legislative provisions. The Court emphasized that the High Court's power to exercise judicial superintendence is part of the Constitution's basic structure and cannot be entirely barred.
4. Significance of the Judgment
Automatic Vacation of Stay Orders: The judgment introduced the principle that stay orders in civil and criminal proceedings would automatically lapse after six months unless extended by a speaking order demonstrating exceptional circumstances. This aimed to prevent undue delays in the judicial process and ensure timely justice.
Balancing Legislative Intent and Judicial Oversight: The Court balanced the legislative intent behind Section 19(3)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which bars revision petitions against interlocutory orders, with the constitutional mandate for expeditious justice under Article 21. The judgment underscored the need for a fair and speedy trial.
Reaffirmation of High Court's Supervisory Jurisdiction: The judgment reaffirmed the High Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, emphasizing that such jurisdiction is part of the Constitution's basic structure and cannot be entirely precluded by legislative provisions.
5. Subsequent Developments
Overruling by a Larger Bench: In a later case, the Supreme Court's five-judge Constitution Bench overruled the Asian Resurfacing judgment, holding that stay orders granted by High Courts do not automatically lapse after six months. The Bench emphasized that the Court did not have the discretionary power under Article 142 to declare automatic vacation of stay orders and that such orders should not be vacated without proper application of mind and hearing all affected parties.
6. Conclusion
The Asian Resurfacing case highlighted the tension between legislative provisions aimed at expediting trials and the constitutional guarantees of fair and timely justice. While the judgment introduced a mechanism to prevent delays caused by indefinite stay orders, subsequent developments have led to a reconsideration of the automatic vacation principle, emphasizing the need for a balanced approach that respects both legislative intent and constitutional rights.
RELATED Blog
0 comments