In a noteworthy reversal, the Supreme Court revisited its 2018 judgment in the Asian Resurfacing case, emphasizing the limitations on Constitutional Courts to set specific timelines for case resolutions. The recent decision delves into two key questions: firstly, whether the court can automatically vacate interim orders by High Courts after a certain period, and secondly, if it can direct High Courts to decide pending cases with stay orders within a fixed timeframe.The five-judge Constitution bench, led by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, concluded that automatic vacation without judicial scrutiny could result in a ‘serious miscarriage of justice.’ The judgment, prompted by an appeal from the High Court Bar Association Allahabad, acknowledges the need for a nuanced approach in exercising powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, representing the High Court Bar Association of Allahabad, argued against the automatic vacation mechanism, asserting its potential interference with the High Courts’ authority under Article 226. The bench, including justices Abhay S Oka, JB Pardiwala, Pankaj Mithal, and Manoj Misra, highlighted the importance of upholding the autonomy of High Courts.This decision carries implications for cases related to the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and civil or criminal matters where stay orders are in effect. It signifies a shift towards a more judicious and case-specific approach, steering away from a blanket application of automatic vacation. The intricate judgment acknowledges the complex nature of legal proceedings and the necessity of preserving the fundamental principles of justice.