Supreme Court Says Later Bench Cannot Sit In Appeal Over Interim Order Passed By Earlier Bench

 

The Supreme Court addressed a procedural dispute arising from conflicting interim orders passed by different benches of a High Court in a writ petition challenging an investigation. The petitioner had approached the Bombay High Court seeking an interim stay on the investigation in his writ petition, and the first bench that heard the matter refused to grant the requested relief. That earlier bench issued an interim order directing the petitioner to cooperate with the investigation, join the process, and provide necessary information, and also restrained coercive action against him during that period, subject to proper notice being issued if incriminating material emerged. When the matter was subsequently listed before a different bench due to roster changes, the new bench passed an interim order granting stay on the investigation without recording reasons explaining the basis for the relief. The Supreme Court observed that such a practice was improper because it effectively had the effect of sitting in appeal over the earlier bench’s interim order without engaging with the merits or respecting the procedural course laid down by the first bench. The top court emphasised that the later bench ought to have recognised that the earlier bench had clearly indicated the need to finally hear the writ petition at the admission stage and had passed a detailed interim order, and that it was not appropriate for the subsequent judges merely to admit the petition and grant interim relief without reasons or reference to the earlier order.

The Supreme Court cited precedent discouraging courts from issuing blanket, non-speaking interim orders, noting that reasons must be given when staying investigations or injunctions, and that high standards of judicial discipline and propriety apply when different benches of the same court handle the same matter. It remarked that the order passed by the later bench fell short of these standards because it lacked reasons explaining why the investigation was stayed. In re-emphasising the need for reasoned orders, the Court underscored that lower courts should avoid overturning or sitting in appeal over interim directions of a coordinate bench simply because judicial rosters have changed. The Supreme Court directed the petitioner to approach the High Court for appropriate relief by seeking to reopen the issue before the same court that had passed the initial interim order rather than relying on the subsequent bench’s order, underscoring that proper procedural steps must be followed when confronting conflicting interim orders passed by different benches.

WhatsApp Group Invite

Join WhatsApp Community