The High Court of Himachal Pradesh confirms that once the Supreme Court stays the operation of a judgment (here, the Satya Devi case), no relief based on that judgment can be granted in related matters until the apex court decides. The decision aligns future claims strictly with the outcome of the Supreme Court proceedings—preserving judicial discipline and clarifying the non-operative status of stayed precedents for all subordinate forums in Himachal Pradesh.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CWP/16249/2025 of VIDYA DEVI Vs THE STATE OF HP AND OTHERS |
| CNR | HPHC010592552025 |
| Date of Registration | 14-10-2025 |
| Decision Date | 17-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Disposed Off |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHARMA |
| Court | High Court of Himachal Pradesh |
| Bench | Single Judge |
| Precedent Value | Not binding—the requested relief is expressly made subject to the stay order of the Supreme Court. |
| Overrules / Affirms | Neither—petition disposed of in light of Supreme Court’s stay; leaves matter to apex court outcome. |
| Type of Law | Procedural/Constitutional—effect of Supreme Court stays on High Court precedents. |
| Questions of Law | Can a High Court grant relief under a judgment whose operation has been stayed by the Supreme Court? |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The High Court held that once the Supreme Court stays the operation of a judgment, the High Court cannot grant reliefs based on the stayed judgment. In such circumstances, any benefit that may flow from the stayed judgment must await the final adjudication by the Supreme Court. The petition was disposed with an express direction that the petitioner’s entitlement will abide by the outcome of the Supreme Court proceedings. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | Satya Devi v. State of H.P. (CWP No. 2274 of 2024, decided 28.05.2024) (operationally stayed); Inder Pal related SLPs. |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Supreme Court order dated 24.03.2025 staying operation of Satya Devi and connected matters. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Petitioner sought extension of the benefit accorded in Satya Devi; State objected citing Supreme Court stay on that judgment; High Court confirmed benefits granted, if any, would abide final outcome of Supreme Court’s consideration. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | Subordinate courts and authorities within Himachal Pradesh concerning stayed judgments. |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts dealing with requests for relief based on judgments stayed by the Supreme Court. |
| Follows | Explicitly follows the import of Supreme Court’s interim stay orders—and defers all related High Court relief thereto. |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Explicit clarification that when a Supreme Court stay is in force on a High Court judgment, no relief based on that judgment is grantable by the High Court.
- Petitions seeking benefit under such a judgment are to be disposed of with directions that any eventual benefit will depend on the Supreme Court’s final decision.
- Lawyers should advise clients that a stay by the Supreme Court suspends all operative effect of the judgment, regardless of the underlying merits.
- Subordinate forums must align their orders with the status of the judgment as determined by the Supreme Court’s stay.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The High Court considered the petitioner’s prayer for relief under the earlier Satya Devi judgment, which had provided certain benefits in similar circumstances.
- The State countered that the operation of Satya Devi had been stayed by the Supreme Court via orders in SLP (C) No. 20496/2024 and connected cases.
- The High Court produced the text of the apex court’s stay order and noted that all proceedings and reliefs under the Satya Devi precedent must abide by the Supreme Court outcome.
- The court thus disposed of the petition, specifying no relief could be given at the present time, and any eventual benefit would be subject to the result of the Supreme Court litigation.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner:
- Sought extension of the benefit granted in Satya Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh.
Respondent (State):
- Contended that Satya Devi’s judgment was not operative due to a Supreme Court stay order, and thus no benefit could be allowed in the instant case.
Factual Background
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking the same benefit as provided in the earlier Satya Devi case. During the proceedings, the State brought to the court’s attention that the Supreme Court, in pending Special Leave Petitions (including Inder Pal and other related matters), had expressly stayed the operation of the Satya Devi judgment. In light of this, the High Court was called upon to decide whether it could grant similar relief while the stay order of the Supreme Court was in effect.
Statutory Analysis
- The judgment discussed the practical and legal effect of an interim stay granted by the Supreme Court on a High Court judgment.
- The High Court interpreted the stay as suspending both the precedential and operative value of Satya Devi, thereby precluding the grant of corresponding relief in collateral matters at the High Court or subordinate level.
- No further statutory provisions were analyzed or interpreted.
Procedural Innovations
- The High Court adopted the practice of disposing of the petition on consent, with an express directive that any claim under the stayed judgment would be subject to the Supreme Court’s final outcome.
- No other procedural innovations specified.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Existing law regarding the effect of a Supreme Court stay was applied and enforced.