Counsel for Respondent: Manan Kumar Mishra (Sr. Adv.), Guru Krishan Kumar (Sr. Adv.), Radhika Gautam (AOR), Anjul Dwivedi (Adv.), and a team of additional senior advocates and AORs listed in the order.
Issues / Allegations / Violations
The petition challenges the operation of paragraph 249 of an earlier impugned judgment, alleged to affect attendance matters (specifics of the allegation are not detailed in the order).
The petitioner seeks exemption from filing a copy/certificate of the impugned judgment and a stay on the operative effect of paragraph 249.
Findings & Observations
The Court observed that the operative effect of paragraph 249 should be stayed prospectively, meaning the stay will apply to future actions but not retrospectively.
The Court noted that High Courts dealing with similar pending attendance issues may proceed to give final decisions on merits without being constrained by the pendency of this petition.
Penalties / Settlements / Directions
No monetary penalties, fines, or settlements were ordered.
Directions:
Stay the operation of paragraph 249 of the impugned judgment, effective prospectively.
List the SLP(Crl) No. 9450/2026 for hearing on 21‑07‑2026.
List the writ petitions (W.P.(C) No. 31 & 32 of 2025) for hearing on 21‑07‑2026.
Corrective Actions & Future Obligations
High Courts are expressly permitted to take appropriate final decisions on attendance matters that are pending, independent of this petition.
The stay remains prospective; any actions taken before the stay date are not affected.
Final Ruling & Enforcement
The Supreme Court stayed paragraph 249 of the impugned judgment prospectively.
Both the SLP(Crl) and the writ petitions are scheduled for listing on 21 July 2026.
The order clarifies that the pendency of this petition shall not impede High Courts from deciding related matters on merits.