A Constitution bench on Thursday set aside a 2018 decision of the Supreme Court, which had directed that every order of stay in a civil or criminal trial must only last for six months.

The five-judge bench, headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, held that there cannot be a generic direction for vacation of stay in all types of cases after six months and that it should be best left to the wisdom of the courts concerned to prioritise certain cases.

The bench also comprised justices AS Oka, JB Pardiwala, Pankaj Mithal and Manoj Misra.

Allowing an appeal filed by the High Court Bar Association of Allahabad, the top court reviewed its 2018 judgment in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency vs CBI by a bench of three judges, who felt that limiting the life of a stay order could be an effective method of cutting long delays in trials.

The 2018 judgment had held: “In cases where stay is granted in future, the same will end on expiry of six months from the date of such order unless similar extension is granted by a speaking order.” Such a speaking order was required to show that the case was of such “exceptional nature” that continuing stay was more important than having the trial finalised.

Overruling this judgment, the five-judge bench on Wednesday noted that Constitutional courts should not fix a timeline for disposal of cases by other courts and the issue of out-of-turn priority be also left to the courts concerned.

It added that the directions to district courts for deciding a case within an outer time limit ought to be passed in extraordinary circumstances. “Constitutional courts should refrain from laying down timelines to decide cases. The pattern of pendency of cases in every court, including high courts, is different. Thus, out-of-turn prioritsation of certain cases should be best left to the concerned court,” said justice Oka, reading out the operating part of the judgment. Justice Mithal authored a separate but concurring judgment.

On December 1, the top court agreed to refer the 2018 ruling to a Constitution bench for reconsideration on a plea by the lawyer’s body. Their appeal was directed against a November 3 Allahabad high court decision which dismissed applications extending stay, citing the 2018 decision of the Supreme Court.

While agreeing to revisit its own order, the court noted that the plea raised important questions of law whether such an order amounts to “judicial legislation” as no timeline can be set for deciding any case.

During the arguments of the case on December 13, senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, who represented the Allahabad HC Bar Association, contended that such an order also affected the jurisdiction of high courts, which are not subordinate to Supreme Court, but are vested with constitutional powers under Article 226 of Constitution, recognised to be part of basic structure of Constitution.

Solicitor general Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, supported the bar body, pointing out that the 2018 judgment curtailed the judicial discretion of high courts.