Sub judice means that a matter is pending before a court and has not yet been finally decided. When an order, a newspaper or a minister says “the matter is sub judice”, it means a court is still considering it. No Indian statute we have found defines the phrase, but the official texts use it in this sense: the Rules of Procedure of the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha describe such a matter as one “under adjudication by a court of law having jurisdiction in any part of India” and as a “matter of fact on which a judicial decision is pending”.
A sub judice matter can still be mentioned and reported. The label has three practical effects in Indian law: a civil court will not try a later suit on the same matter while an earlier suit between the same parties is pending (Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, “res sub judice”); members of Parliament may not raise it in questions, motions or speeches; and a publication that prejudices the pending case can be criminal contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, although fair and accurate reporting is expressly protected.
Sub judice at a glance
- Meaning: a matter pending before a court for decision; the parliamentary rules call it a matter “under adjudication by a court of law”.
- Res sub judice (Section 10 CPC): “No Court shall proceed with the trial of any suit” whose matter in issue is also directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit between the same parties pending in a competent court.
- Res judicata (Section 11 CPC): the earlier case has been “heard and finally decided”, so the same matter cannot be tried again; sub judice is about a case still pending.
- Parliament: a member while speaking shall not “refer to any matter of fact on which a judicial decision is pending” (Lok Sabha Rule 352(i); Rajya Sabha Rule 238(i)).
- Contempt: publishing anything that “prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with, the due course of any judicial proceeding” is criminal contempt (Section 2(c)(ii), Contempt of Courts Act, 1971).
- What is allowed: a fair and accurate report of a judicial proceeding (Section 4) and fair comment on a case “which has been heard and finally decided” (Section 5).
- When a criminal case becomes pending (Section 3): when the charge-sheet or challan is filed, or the court issues summons or warrant against the accused (Explanation to Section 3) – not when the FIR is registered.
- Not a stay by itself: an appeal does not stay proceedings unless the appellate court orders (Order XLI Rule 5(1) CPC); a revision does not stay the suit unless the High Court stays it (Section 115(3) CPC).
Reviewed and updated by Century Law Firm, Delhi – October 2026. Statutory references are to the Acts as in force on that date. The CPC (as on 10 January 2026), the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (as on 30 July 2025, with its official Hindi text), the BNS and BNSS (as on 6 October 2025), the Hindu Marriage Act (as on 15 April 2026) and the Constitution are quoted from India Code; the Lok Sabha Rules (17th edition, May 2024) and Rajya Sabha Rules (Ninth Edition, August 2016; reprint February 2024) from sansad.in; and the judgments from the Supreme Court’s own copies.
What does sub judice mean in law?
In law, sub judice (also spelt subjudice or sub-judice) describes a case or question that a court is still deciding. It is not the same as “sub judge”, a judicial officer’s title. The words come from Latin, but no Indian statute we have found defines them or gives an official translation, so the guide is how Indian official texts use them. The Lok Sabha’s Committee on Ethics “shall not take up any matter which is sub-judice” (Lok Sabha Rule 233A(10)), and the Rajya Sabha rule on complaints to its ethics committee says the same (Rule 295(9)). In 2012 the Supreme Court asked the parties before it to apply for orders “with regard to reporting of matters, which are sub-judice” (order of 10 February 2012, quoted in Sahara India Real Estate Corp. Ltd. v. SEBI, 11 September 2012). Each time, the phrase means a matter pending before a court for decision.
“The matter is sub judice”: what it means in practice
“The matter is sub judice” usually means that a court will decide the question, so the speaker will not pre-empt it or comment. The statement has no legal force of its own. What has force is a specific rule: Section 10 CPC for parallel suits, the House rules for Parliament, a statute or court order for publication, and the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for interference with justice. A typical sentence: “The minister declined to answer because the matter is sub judice.”
From when, and until when, is a case “pending”?
The Act answers this for the purposes of Section 3, which protects publications made when a case was not pending or not known to be pending. Under the Explanation to Section 3 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, a civil proceeding is pending “when it is instituted by the filing of a plaint or otherwise”. A criminal proceeding relating to an offence is pending “when the charge-sheet or challan is filed, or when the court issues summons or warrant, as the case may be, against the accused”, and any other criminal proceeding “when the court takes cognizance of the matter to which the proceeding relates”. The Explanation still refers to the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, but it also says “or any other law”; on their plain words these cover criminal proceedings under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 as well. The registration of an FIR is not one of the listed events. So a publication made before any of these events cannot be punished as contempt for interfering with that case (Section 3(2)), but other laws still apply from the start – for example Section 72 BNS (formerly Section 228A(1) and (2) IPC) on revealing the identity of victims of sexual offences – and scandalising a court does not depend on pendency (Section 2(c)(i)).
It stays pending “until it is heard and finally decided”, including any appeal or revision or the time allowed for one; execution proceedings do not keep a decided case pending. Under Section 3(2), publishing matter that interferes with the course of justice about a proceeding which is not pending at the time “shall not be deemed to constitute contempt of court”.
Prepared by Century Law Firm from the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Sections 10, 115(3), Order XLI Rule 5), the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (Sections 2–5), the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha Rules of Procedure, and the Supreme Court’s judgments in Sahara India Real Estate Corp. v. SEBI (2012) and Aspi Jal v. Khushroo Rustom Dadyburjor (2013) (official texts).
Res sub judice: Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure
The statutory rule closest to the maxim is Section 10 CPC, headed “Stay of suit”: “No Court shall proceed with the trial of any suit in which the matter in issue is also directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit between the same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim litigating under the same title where such suit is pending in the same or any other Court in India have jurisdiction to grant the relief claimed, or in any Court beyond the limits of India established or continued by the Central Government and having like jurisdiction, or before the Supreme Court.” The Explanation adds that “The pendency of a suit in a foreign Court does not preclude the Courts in India from trying a suit founded on the same cause of action.”
Lawyers call this res sub judice (a matter under judgment), as distinct from res judicata (a matter already judged). It applies when there are two suits, the earlier one still pending; the matter in issue in the later suit is “directly and substantially in issue” in the earlier one; the parties are the same or claim under them, litigating under the same title; and the court of the earlier suit can grant the relief claimed. What is stayed is “the trial” of the later suit: it is not dismissed, it waits.
The Supreme Court explained the section in Aspi Jal v. Khushroo Rustom Dadyburjor (5 April 2013), where a landlord had filed three eviction suits against the same tenant in the Court of Small Causes, Mumbai. The Court said the negative words make the provision “mandatory”, and that its aim is “to pin down the plaintiff to one litigation so as to avoid the possibility of contradictory verdicts”. Its test is whether the decision in the earlier suit would operate as res judicata in the later one; put differently, “can the plaintiff get the same relief in the subsequent suit, if the earlier suit has been dismissed?” If the answer is yes, the later suit should not be stayed. It held that “the entire subject-matter of the two suits must be the same”; the third suit, based on non-use of the flat in a later six-month period, rested on a different cause, so the stay was set aside. The Court also repeated, from National Institute of Mental Health & Neuro Sciences v. C. Parameshwara (2005), that Section 10 “cannot apply to proceedings of other nature instituted under any other statute”. The related maxim lis alibi pendens (a suit pending elsewhere) names the same concern.
Sub judice and res judicata: the difference
Section 11 CPC (“Res judicata”) deals with the stage after a decision: “No Court shall try any suit or issue in which the matter directly and substantially in issue has been directly and substantially in issue in a former suit between the same parties … and has been heard and finally decided by such Court.” Section 10 stops a parallel trial while the first case is pending; Section 11 stops a fresh trial once it has been decided.
| Point | Res sub judice (Section 10 CPC) | Res judicata (Section 11 CPC) |
|---|---|---|
| Earlier case | Previously instituted and still pending | Heard and finally decided |
| What the court must not do | Proceed with the trial of the later suit | Try the later suit or issue |
| Effect on the later suit | Trial stayed; the suit survives | The suit or issue is barred |
| Common conditions | Same matter directly and substantially in issue; same parties or those claiming under them, under the same title | The same, and a court competent to try the later suit |
| Foreign court | A suit pending abroad does not bar a suit in India (Explanation) | Foreign judgments: Sections 13 and 14 |
An appeal or revision is not a stay
A pending appeal or revision does not by itself stop anything. “An appeal shall not operate as a stay of proceedings under a decree or order appealed from except so far as the Appellate Court may order” (Order XLI Rule 5(1) CPC), and “A revision shall not operate as a stay of suit or other proceeding before the Court except where such suit or other proceeding is stayed by the High Court” (Section 115(3) CPC). So a trial court need not stop merely because a revision or an appeal is pending in the High Court; it stops when the High Court passes a stay order, or where another rule, such as Section 10 CPC, itself requires it. See the firm’s note on review, revision and appeal in CPC and CrPC.
The sub judice rule in Parliament
Each House of Parliament makes its own rules of procedure under Article 118(1) of the Constitution (State Legislatures under Article 208(1)), and freedom of speech in Parliament is “subject to the provisions of this Constitution and to the rules and standing orders regulating the procedure of Parliament” (Article 105(1)). The sub judice rule is written into those rules. Lok Sabha Rule 352 says a member while speaking shall not “(i) refer to any matter of fact on which a judicial decision is pending”; Rajya Sabha Rule 238(i) is identical. A question “shall not ask for information on matter which is under adjudication by a court of law having jurisdiction in any part of India” (Lok Sabha Rule 41(2)(xviii)), and the same bar applies to adjournment motions, resolutions, motions and cut motions.
| Business | Lok Sabha Rule | Rajya Sabha Rule |
|---|---|---|
| Speeches in debate | 352(i) | 238(i) |
| Questions | 41(2)(xviii) | 47(2)(xix) |
| Adjournment motions | 58(vii) | No such rule found |
| Resolutions | 173(v) | 157(v) |
| Motions on matters of public interest | 186(viii) | 169(viii) |
| Cut motions / special mentions | 210(viii) (cut motions) | 180B(vi) (special mentions) |
| Ethics committee complaints | 233A(10) | 295(9) |
Matters before statutory tribunals and commissions are treated more flexibly: questions and adjournment motions may touch procedure, subject or stage of enquiry if “not likely to prejudice” its consideration (Lok Sabha Rules 41(2)(xxiii) and 59). The rules quoted above contain no exception for matters of public importance. Separately, Article 121 bars discussion in Parliament of the conduct of a Supreme Court or High Court Judge in the discharge of his duties except on a motion for removal, and Article 211 bars it in State Legislatures.
Media, the public and contempt of court
The legal limit on public comment about a pending case is the law of criminal contempt. Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 includes in criminal contempt “the publication (whether by words, spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representations, or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever” which “(ii) prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with, the due course of any judicial proceeding”. The Constitution permits reasonable restrictions on speech “in relation to contempt of court” (Article 19(2)) and gives the Supreme Court and every High Court “the power to punish for contempt of itself” (Articles 129 and 215).
The Act also protects a good deal of speech. There is no contempt where the publisher “had no reasonable grounds for believing that the proceeding was pending” (Section 3(1)); for “a fair and accurate report of a judicial proceeding or any stage thereof” (Section 4, subject to Section 7 on hearings in chambers or in camera); or for “fair comment on the merits of any case which has been heard and finally decided” (Section 5). Punishment is limited to “simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees, or with both”, and an apology to the court’s satisfaction can lead to discharge (Section 12(1)). No sentence may be imposed unless the contempt “substantially interferes, or tends substantially to interfere with the due course of justice” (Section 13(a)), and no proceedings may begin more than one year after the alleged contempt (Section 20).
In Sahara India Real Estate Corp. Ltd. v. Securities & Exchange Board of India (11 September 2012), a bench of five judges held that the High Courts and the Supreme Court, as courts of record, may postpone publication of reports. Such orders may be passed only where there is a “real and substantial risk of prejudice to fairness of the trial or to the proper administration of justice”, “for a limited duration and without disturbing the content of the publication”, and only if alternatives such as change of venue or postponement of trial will not remove the risk. The Court applied the “twin tests of necessity and proportionality” and said the media may challenge such orders.
In some cases a statute forbids publication outright. Every proceeding under the Hindu Marriage Act “shall be conducted in camera and it shall not be lawful for any person to print or publish any matter in relation to any such proceeding”, except a High Court or Supreme Court judgment published with permission, on pain of a fine of up to ₹1,000 (Section 22; see the firm’s guide to matrimonial cases). For in-camera trials of rape and other offences listed in Section 366(2) BNSS (formerly Section 327 CrPC), “it shall not be lawful for any person to print or publish any matter in relation to any such proceedings except with the previous permission of the Court” (Section 366(3)). Separately, printing or publishing any matter about a court proceeding concerning an offence under Sections 64 to 71 BNS without the court’s previous permission is punishable with up to two years’ imprisonment and fine (Section 73 BNS, formerly Section 228A(3) IPC).
Does “sub judice” stop the government or other authorities from acting?
Not by itself. No provision opened for this post makes the mere pendency of a case a bar on an authority’s decision. What binds an authority is a court’s order: civil contempt is “wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court or wilful breach of an undertaking given to a court” (Section 2(b), Contempt of Courts Act), so without a stay, injunction or undertaking there is no order to disobey. The CPC rules on appeals and revisions point the same way. A party who wants an authority to stop must ask the court for a stay.
Related maxims about cases that are still running include lis pendens (property transferred while a suit about it is pending) and pendente lite (“while the litigation is pending”); others are collected in the firm’s legal maxims explained.
सब ज्यूडिस (Sub Judice) का हिंदी में अर्थ – न्यायालय में विचाराधीन (Summary in Hindi)
“सब ज्यूडिस” (sub judice) का अर्थ है ऐसा मामला जो किसी न्यायालय में लंबित है और जिस पर अभी अंतिम निर्णय नहीं हुआ है। सरल हिंदी में इसे “न्यायालय में विचाराधीन” या “न्यायाधीन” मामला कहा जा सकता है; ये सरल अनुवाद हैं, किसी अधिनियम की आधिकारिक परिभाषा नहीं। हमें ऐसा कोई भारतीय कानून नहीं मिला जो इस शब्द की परिभाषा देता हो।
धारा 10 सीपीसी: सिविल प्रक्रिया संहिता, 1908 की धारा 10 का आधिकारिक हिंदी शीर्षक “वाद का रोक दिया जाना” है। यदि वही विषय, उन्हीं पक्षकारों के बीच, पूर्वतन संस्थित (पहले से दायर) और सक्षम न्यायालय में लंबित वाद में प्रत्यक्षतः और सारतः विवाद्य है, तो न्यायालय बाद वाले वाद का विचारण आगे नहीं बढ़ाएगा। सर्वोच्च न्यायालय ने आस्पी जाल बनाम खुशरू रुस्तम दादीबुर्जोर (2013) में कहा कि यह तभी लागू होती है जब दोनों वादों की पूरी विषय-वस्तु एक हो। धारा 11 का आधिकारिक हिंदी शीर्षक “पूर्व-न्याय” है: तय हो चुका मामला फिर से नहीं चलाया जा सकता। केवल अपील या पुनरीक्षण दायर होने से कार्यवाही नहीं रुकती, जब तक न्यायालय रोक का आदेश न दे (आदेश 41 नियम 5(1), धारा 115(3))।
संसद: लोक सभा के नियम 352 और राज्य सभा के नियम 238 के अनुसार कोई सदस्य बोलते समय ऐसे तथ्य का उल्लेख नहीं करेगा जिस पर न्यायिक निर्णय लंबित है। ऐसे विषय पर प्रश्न और संकल्प भी ग्राह्य नहीं होते, और लोक सभा में स्थगन प्रस्ताव भी नहीं।
मीडिया और न्यायालय अवमान: इस विषय का कानून न्यायालय अवमान अधिनियम, 1971 है। इसकी धारा 2(ग) “आपराधिक अवमान” की परिभाषा देती है; उपखंड (ii) का आधिकारिक हिंदी पाठ ऐसे प्रकाशन या कार्य की बात करता है “जो किसी न्यायिक कार्यवाही के सम्यक् अनुक्रम पर प्रतिकूल प्रभाव डालता है, या उसमें हस्तक्षेप करता है या जिसकी प्रवृत्ति उसमें हस्तक्षेप करने की है”। आपराधिक मामला तब “लम्बित” माना जाता है जब आरोप-पत्र या चालान दाखिल हो या न्यायालय अभियुक्त के विरुद्ध समन या वारंट जारी करे; केवल एफआईआर दर्ज होना इसमें शामिल नहीं है (धारा 3 के प्रयोजनों के लिए – धारा 3 का स्पष्टीकरण)। धारा 4 (“न्यायिक कार्यवाही की उचित और सही रिपोर्ट का अवमान न होना”) और धारा 5 (“न्यायिक कार्य की उचित आलोचना का अवमान न होना”) के अनुसार कार्यवाही की उचित और सही रिपोर्ट, और अंतिम रूप से तय मामले पर उचित टिप्पणी, अवमान नहीं है। दंड छह मास तक का सादा कारावास या दो हजार रुपये तक का जुर्माना या दोनों है (धारा 12)। हिंदू विवाह अधिनियम की धारा 22 के अनुसार उसकी कार्यवाही से संबंधित कोई बात छापना या प्रकाशित करना विधिसम्मत नहीं है।
Frequently asked questions
Sub judice (also written subjudice or sub-judice) means a matter pending before a court that has not yet been finally decided. No Indian statute we have found defines it, but official texts use it in this sense: the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha Rules of Procedure speak of a matter “under adjudication by a court of law having jurisdiction in any part of India”, and their ethics committees shall not take up “any matter which is sub-judice” (Lok Sabha Rule 233A(10)) or “sub judice” (Rajya Sabha Rule 295(9)).
It means a court is still deciding the matter, so the speaker will not pre-empt or comment on the decision. The statement has no legal force of its own; what has force is a specific rule such as Section 10 CPC, the parliamentary rules, a statute or court order restricting publication, or the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
In plain Hindi, a sub judice matter is “न्यायालय में विचाराधीन” or “न्यायाधीन” – pending before a court and not yet decided. These are plain renderings, not a statutory definition. The official Hindi text of the Contempt of Courts Act (न्यायालय अवमान अधिनियम, 1971) uses “लम्बित” for a pending proceeding, and the official Hindi text of the CPC heads Section 10 “वाद का रोक दिया जाना” (stay of suit).
It is the common name for the rules that limit action on a matter pending in court. In Parliament it is written into the Rules of Procedure: a member while speaking shall not “refer to any matter of fact on which a judicial decision is pending” (Lok Sabha Rule 352(i); Rajya Sabha Rule 238(i)), and questions, motions and resolutions on such matters are inadmissible. For the media and the public, the limit is the law of criminal contempt (Section 2(c)(ii), Contempt of Courts Act, 1971).
It is the rule in Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: “No Court shall proceed with the trial of any suit in which the matter in issue is also directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit between the same parties”, pending in a court competent to grant the relief. The later suit’s trial is stayed, not dismissed. In Aspi Jal v. Khushroo Rustom Dadyburjor (2013) the Supreme Court held that the entire subject-matter of the two suits must be the same.
Res sub judice (Section 10 CPC) applies while the earlier suit is still pending: the trial of the later suit on the same matter is stayed. Res judicata (Section 11 CPC) applies after the earlier suit has been “heard and finally decided”: the same matter cannot be tried again between the same parties.
As a rule, no. Under the Lok Sabha Rules a question “shall not ask for information on matter which is under adjudication by a court of law” (Rule 41(2)(xviii)), an adjournment motion shall not deal with such a matter (Rule 58(vii)), resolutions and motions shall not relate to it (Rules 173(v), 186(viii)), and a member while speaking shall not refer to a matter of fact on which a judicial decision is pending (Rule 352(i)). Rajya Sabha Rules 47, 157, 169 and 238 are to the same effect.
Yes. A fair and accurate report of a judicial proceeding or any stage of it is not contempt (Section 4, Contempt of Courts Act, 1971), subject to Section 7 for hearings in chambers or in camera. What is barred is a publication that prejudices or interferes with the due course of the proceeding (Section 2(c)(ii)). In Sahara India Real Estate Corp. v. SEBI (2012) the Supreme Court held that the High Courts and the Supreme Court may postpone reporting for a limited period where there is a real and substantial risk of prejudice.
For the purposes of Section 3 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (which protects publications about cases not yet pending), its Explanation says a criminal proceeding relating to an offence is pending “when the charge-sheet or challan is filed, or when the court issues summons or warrant, as the case may be, against the accused”; in other cases, when the court takes cognizance. The registration of an FIR is not one of the listed events. Other laws, such as Section 72 BNS on victims’ identity, apply even before that.
For the purposes of Section 3 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, a proceeding stays pending “until it is heard and finally decided”: where an appeal or revision is possible, until it is decided or, if none is filed, until the limitation period for filing it has expired (Explanation to Section 3, Contempt of Courts Act, 1971). Pending execution proceedings do not keep a decided case pending. After that, fair comment on the merits is protected (Section 5).
Only if the comment prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with, the due course of the proceeding (Section 2(c)(ii), Contempt of Courts Act, 1971), and no sentence may be imposed unless it substantially interferes or tends substantially to interfere with the due course of justice (Section 13(a)). The punishment is simple imprisonment up to six months, a fine up to ₹2,000, or both; an apology to the court’s satisfaction can lead to discharge (Section 12(1)).
Not by itself, as far as the general law goes. No provision opened for this post makes the mere pendency of a case a general bar on a government decision. What binds an authority is a court order such as a stay or injunction, and civil contempt is “wilful disobedience” of a court’s order or “wilful breach of an undertaking” (Section 2(b), Contempt of Courts Act, 1971). An appeal is not a stay unless the appellate court orders one (Order XLI Rule 5(1) CPC). A party who wants an authority to stop must ask the court for a stay. Specific laws or rules can still say otherwise for particular bodies.
Only if the law requires it or the High Court orders it. A revision “shall not operate as a stay of suit or other proceeding before the Court except where such suit or other proceeding is stayed by the High Court” (Section 115(3) CPC), and an appeal does not stay proceedings unless the appellate court orders (Order XLI Rule 5(1)).
A fair and accurate report is usually lawful (Section 4, Contempt of Courts Act, 1971), but some laws forbid publication. Hindu Marriage Act proceedings are held in camera and nothing about them may be printed or published, except a High Court or Supreme Court judgment published with the court’s permission; the fine is up to ₹1,000 (Section 22). Matter about in-camera trials of rape and similar offences may be published only with the court’s permission (Section 366(3) BNSS, formerly Section 327 CrPC; for offences under Sections 64 to 71 BNS, see also Section 73 BNS, formerly Section 228A(3) IPC), and revealing the identity of a victim of those BNS offences is itself an offence (Section 72 BNS, formerly Section 228A(1) and (2) IPC). A court may also prohibit publication.
Sub judice describes the status of a case: it is pending before a court. To prejudice a proceeding is to harm its fairness. The two meet in the contempt law: a publication is criminal contempt when it “prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with, the due course of any judicial proceeding” (Section 2(c)(ii), Contempt of Courts Act, 1971), and Section 3(2) says that publishing such matter about a proceeding not pending at the time “shall not be deemed to constitute contempt of court”.
The form is asking whether the same grievance is already pending before a court (some forms also ask about other forums, such as a tribunal) for decision. Answer “yes” if a case on the same subject is pending and give its details. What happens next depends on the rules of the body receiving the complaint, which this post does not cover.
Conclusion
Sub judice simply means “pending before a court”. Its legal effect comes from specific rules: Section 10 CPC stays the trial of a later suit on the same matter between the same parties; the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha Rules keep matters under adjudication out of questions, motions and speeches; and the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 forbids publications that prejudice a pending case while protecting fair and accurate reporting and, after the decision, fair comment. The phrase is not a stay order: apart from specific rules such as Section 10 CPC and the House rules, an appeal, a revision or a pending case stops proceedings or action only when a court orders a stay.
Sources used for this post: the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Sections 10, 11, 13, 14 and 115(3) and Order XLI Rule 5(1) (India Code, a1908-05.pdf, as on 10 January 2026, https://indiacode.gov.in/server/api/core/bitstreams/fc9dad3f-97a9-4216-843b-934665693468/content; Hindi headings of Sections 10 and 11 from the official Hindi text h19085.pdf); the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (Act 70 of 1971), Sections 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 12, 13 and 20 (India Code, a1971-70.pdf, as on 30 July 2025, https://indiacode.gov.in/server/api/core/bitstreams/e55c1687-83f4-406b-82a4-265ea2bf451f/content; Hindi terms from the official Hindi text hH1971-70.pdf); the Constitution of India, Articles 19(2), 105(1), 118(1), 121, 129, 208(1), 211 and 215 (India Code); the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 22 (India Code, as on 15 April 2026); the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Sections 72 and 73, and the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, Section 366 (India Code, as on 6 October 2025, with the firm’s IPC–BNS and CrPC–BNSS mapping checked against the Gazette text); the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha, Seventeenth Edition, May 2024, Rules 41, 58, 59, 173, 186, 210, 233A and 352 (https://sansad.in/uploads/Rules_of_Procedures_E_9d8fd0f4c3.pdf); the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Council of States (Rajya Sabha), Ninth Edition, August 2016 (reprint, February 2024), Rules 47, 157, 169, 180B, 238, 290 and 295 (https://sansad.in/uploads/English_2052022english_3092021rules_pro_8efbe8ead1.pdf); and the Supreme Court’s own copies of Sahara India Real Estate Corp. Ltd. v. Securities & Exchange Board of India (five judges, 11 September 2012, https://api.sci.gov.in/jonew/judis/39544.pdf) and Aspi Jal v. Khushroo Rustom Dadyburjor (5 April 2013, https://api.sci.gov.in/jonew/judis/40239.pdf, quoting National Institute of Mental Health & Neuro Sciences v. C. Parameshwara, (2005) 2 SCC 256).
