The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line on courtroom discipline, cautioning High Courts against allowing a later bench to effectively undo or override an interim order passed by an earlier bench in the same matter.
The Court also took issue with the routine use of broad, unexplained directions such as “no coercive steps,” stressing that such relief cannot be granted mechanically or without recorded reasons.
The case arose from a writ petition filed before the Bombay High Court, where the petitioner sought a stay on an ongoing investigation. The first bench to hear the matter declined to halt the probe. Instead, it issued a detailed interim order directing the petitioner to cooperate with the investigation and supply all required information. As a safeguard, the bench clarified that no coercive action would be taken during this period and that, if incriminating material surfaced, the police were to issue a notice under Section 41A of the Criminal Procedure Code rather than proceed with arrest.
Following a change in roster, the matter landed before a different bench, which granted interim relief and stayed the investigation. Crucially, the order did not explain why the earlier refusal was being departed from or why the investigation deserved to be paused.
A Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kumar and Alok Aradhe found this approach problematic. The judges noted that the later order offered no reasoning for staying the investigation and ignored the detailed directions already in place. Referring to the precedent in Niharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, the Court reiterated that blanket and non-speaking orders—particularly those merely stating that no coercive steps should be taken—fall short of judicial standards.
The Court further observed that the first bench had clearly signalled that the matter required final consideration at the admission stage. In that backdrop, it was improper for the later bench to virtually sit in appeal over the earlier interim order and admit the writ petitions without even fixing a clear next date of hearing.
Holding that the High Court’s subsequent order did not meet the required threshold of judicial reasoning or propriety, the Supreme Court directed the petitioner to return to the High Court by filing an appropriate application to have the issue reconsidered.
The ruling reinforces a simple but significant principle: roster changes do not reopen settled interim directions, and judicial continuity must be respected unless there are compelling, clearly stated reasons to do otherwise.
