When a stay is sought on a court’s acquittal order

In the 2006 Mumbai train blast case, 12 individuals were acquitted by a two-judge bench of the Bombay High Court, which gave a detailed 667-page judgement.

- MR Shamshad

The Maharashtra government approached the Supreme Court seeking a stay on the high court's final judgement. It contended that the observations made in the verdict could potentially affect other ongoing criminal trials in the state. This line of reasoning, however, raises a fundamental question: Can the final judgment of acquittal of accused persons be stayed at the interim stage merely because other criminal trials will be affected? From a legal and procedural standpoint, the answer is a categorical no with a caveat about the extraordinary jurisdiction of the Supreme Court — it can pass any order.

It is a well-settled principle of criminal law that a judgement of acquittal carries the same legal force as a judgement of conviction. The mere fact that an acquittal might influence pending trials does not provide sufficient grounds for its stay. If the high court had convicted the accused in this case, was the convict equally free to argue that the judgment must be stayed because other trials might be affected? The court would have outrightly rejected this plea.

Our legal system gives great value to judicial precedents of constitutional courts. It ensures that, where circumstances are materially similar, past rulings — especially those of constitutional courts — guide future adjudication. Just as judgements affirming conviction are often relied upon to determine guilt in other cases, the verdict of acquittals, based on procedural or substantive infirmities, must be afforded equivalent authority.