Interim Orders and High Court Timeline

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

The bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and Prasanna B. Varale in the case of Giriraj & Ors. v. Mohd. Amir & Ors. (2025) directed the Allahabad High Court to dispose of a pending application for vacating an interim order, emphasizing compliance with Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI).  

What was the Background of Giriraj & Ors. v. Mohd. Amir & Ors. (2025) Case? 

• The Allahabad High Court had passed an interim order of status quo in a writ petition. 
• The petitioners filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court challenging this interim order. 
• An application for vacating the interim order had been filed before the High Court in January 2025. 
• Despite the passage of time, the application remained pending without disposal as of January 16, 2026. 
• The matter was listed before the High Court for hearing on January 19, 2026. 
• The petitioners approached the Supreme Court seeking relief against the continuing interim order. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• The Supreme Court condoned the delay in filing the Special Leave Petition. 
• The Court heard submissions from learned advocates appearing for both parties. 
• The bench highlighted Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India, which contains a specific mandate regarding disposal of applications for vacating interim orders. 
• The Court noted that Article 226(3) requires the High Court to dispose of such applications within a period of two weeks from the date of filing. 
• The Court emphasized that despite this constitutional provision, the application had been pending since January 2025 without disposal. 
• Taking note of the submissions that the matter was already listed before the High Court on January 19, 2026, the Supreme Court requested the High Court to take up the application and dispose of it on its own merits. 
• The Court expressly clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the rival submissions made by the parties. 
• The Supreme Court disposed of the Special Leave Petition in view of the directions issued to the High Court. 
• All pending applications before the Supreme Court were also disposed of accordingly. 

What is Article 226 of the COI?  

About:  

• Article 226 is enshrined under Part V of the Constitution which puts power in the hand of the High Court to issue the writs. 
• Article 226(1) of the COI states that every High Court shall have powers to issue orders or writs including habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, and certiorari, to any person or any government for the enforcement of fundamental rights and for other purpose. 
• Article 226(2) states that the High Court has the power to issue writs or orders to any person, or government, or authority -  
• Located within its jurisdiction or 
• Outside its local jurisdiction if the circumstances of the cause of action arises either wholly or partly within its territorial jurisdiction. 
• Article 226(3) states that when an interim order is passed by a High Court by way of injunction, stay, or by other means against a party then that party may apply to the court for the vacation of such an order and such an application should be disposed of by the court within the period of two weeks.  
• Article 226(4) says that the power granted by this article to a high court should not diminish the authority granted to the Supreme Court by Clause (2) of Article 32. 
• This Article can be issued against any person or authority, including the government. 
• This is merely a constitutional right and not a fundamental right and cannot be suspended even during an emergency. 
• Article 226 is of mandatory nature in case of fundamental rights and discretionary nature when it is issued for “any other purpose”. 
•  It enforces not only fundamental rights, but also other legal rights. 

Writs available under Article 226:  

• Writ of Habeas Corpus:  
  • It is a Latin phrase which means ‘to have a body or to produce a body’.  
  • This is the most often used writ.  
  • When a person is wrongfully held by the government, that person, or his family or friends, can file a writ of Habeas Corpus to have that person released. 
• Writ of Mandamus:  
  • It is a Latin phrase that translates to ‘we command.’ 
  • Mandamus is a judicial command issued to all public authorities to perform public duty.  
  • It is used to execute public duties by constitutional, statutory, non-statutory, universities, courts, and other bodies.  
  • The only requirement for using this writ is that there should be a public duty.
• Writ of Certiorari: 
  • It is a Latin phrase that means ‘to be informed.’   
  • It is a command or order issued by the Superior Court to the inferior court.  
  • It is issued when the inferior courts violate the principles of natural justice.  
  • The Superior Court can quash the order given by the inferior court, if it finds any error. 
• Writ of prohibition:   
  • It simply means ‘to stop’. 
  • This writ is issued against the inferior court (i.e., subordinate courts, tribunals, quasi-judicial bodies) by the Superior Court.
• Writ of Quo warranto:  
  • The term Quo warranto means ‘by what authority’. 
  • It is issued against a private person by what authority he is holding the office on which he has no right.  
  • By this writ, the Court can control the public official appointment, and protect a citizen from being deprived of a public office to which he may be entitled.

Case Laws:  

• In Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. the Union of India (1984), the Supreme Court held that Article 226 has a much broader scope than Article 32 as Article 226 can be issued to safeguard legal rights as well.  
• In Common Cause v. Union of India (2018), the Supreme Court held that the writ under Article 226 can also be issued for the enforcement of public responsibilities by public authorities.