The Supreme Court on Wednesday directed the Delhi High Court not to grant interim stays on trials in cases related to the coal block allocation scam and asked it to decide pending petitions filed by accused persons within four weeks. The direction was issued to balance the need for speedy trials with the legal rights of accused who may face prejudice if proceedings continue while their challenges remain pending.
A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana passed the order after being informed that accused persons in different coal scam cases had approached both the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court seeking relief against proceedings before special courts.
The bench clarified that the Delhi High Court should not grant an interim stay on the trials. At the same time, it acknowledged that allowing proceedings to continue indefinitely while petitions remain undecided could affect the rights of the accused. The high court was therefore directed to take up such petitions and decide them, preferably within four weeks.
The Supreme Court also made it clear that its latest order should not be interpreted as an expression of opinion on the merits of any individual case. The direction is aimed primarily at ensuring that legal challenges are dealt with expeditiously without allowing the trial process to be stalled for prolonged periods.
The order comes against the backdrop of the Supreme Court’s earlier restrictions on appeals arising from coal block allocation scam cases. In 2014, the court had quashed 214 coal block allocations made by the Centre between 1993 and 2010 after considering public interest litigation petitions challenging the allocation process. It subsequently directed that cases arising from the alleged irregularities be tried by a designated special judge.
The apex court had also directed that appeals and petitions challenging certain orders passed by the special court, including matters involving framing of charges, quashing of proceedings and bail, should be brought before the Supreme Court rather than the Delhi High Court. The restriction was intended to prevent accused persons from approaching different judicial forums in a manner that could delay the trials.
However, several accused later challenged the restriction, arguing that being denied access to one appellate forum could adversely affect their legal rights. The issue remained under consideration for several years, with petitions seeking modification of the earlier directions.
In December 2024, the Supreme Court indicated that it would examine pleas seeking modification of its earlier orders that prevented high courts from entertaining appeals against trial court orders in cases concerning alleged illegal coal block allocations.
The apex court subsequently relaxed its earlier position last month, allowing both the prosecution and accused to approach the Delhi High Court against acquittals or convictions recorded by special judges in coal block allocation cases. The latest direction is intended to ensure that the availability of the high court as an appellate forum does not result in prolonged interruptions to ongoing trials.
The coal allocation investigation has generated a large number of criminal cases. The Central Bureau of Investigation registered 57 cases in connection with the alleged irregularities in coal block allocations. Several related money laundering investigations were also initiated by enforcement authorities based on allegations arising from the underlying cases.
The Supreme Court’s latest direction effectively seeks to maintain a balance between two competing considerations: preventing unnecessary delays in trials and ensuring that accused persons have timely access to judicial remedies. By requiring the Delhi High Court to decide pending petitions within a defined period, the court has sought to avoid a situation where proceedings remain suspended for an extended period because of unresolved challenges.
The order also reinforces the principle that appellate remedies should not become a mechanism for indefinite postponement of criminal trials. At the same time, the four-week timeline provides accused persons with an opportunity to have their petitions considered promptly rather than allowing their challenges to remain pending while the trial continues. The Supreme Court has left the merits of individual cases open for determination by the appropriate courts.
About the author — Suvedita Nath is a science student with a growing interest in cybercrime and digital safety. She writes on online activity, cyber threats, and technology-driven risks. Her work focuses on clarity, accuracy, and public awareness.
