The Supreme Court has stepped in to underline a constitutional deadline that, it said, cannot be left to drift.
While disposing of a Special Leave Petition arising from an interim “status quo” order passed by the Allahabad High Court, the Court reminded High Courts across the country that Article 226(3) of the Constitution leaves no room for delay. Once an application is filed seeking the vacation of an interim order, it must be decided within two weeks.
The petitioners told the Court that their request to lift the interim order had been lying unresolved since January 2025. Taking note of this submission, the Bench observed that Article 226(3) imposes a clear obligation: such applications are not meant to remain pending indefinitely.
The Court drew attention to the constitutional scheme, which provides a safeguard against prolonged ex-parte interim orders. Where one side secures interim relief without the other being heard, the affected party is entitled to seek its cancellation—and the High Court is required to rule on that request within a fortnight. If the application is not decided within that time, the interim order stands vacated by operation of law.
Since the matter was already listed before the High Court, the Supreme Court refrained from passing any substantive directions. Instead, it requested the High Court to take up the pending application and decide it on its own merits, without any influence from the Supreme Court’s observations.
The Bench made it clear that it was expressing no view on the merits of the dispute between the parties. With this clarification, the Special Leave Petition and all connected applications were closed.
