Interim order

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

The term interim order refers to an order passed by a court during the pendency of the litigation. It is generally passed by the Court to ensure Status quo. The rationale for such orders to be passed by the Courts lie are best explained by Latin legal maxim "Actus curiae neminem gravabit" which translated to (English) stand for "an act of the court shall prejudice no one". Therefore to ensure that none of the interests of the parties to the litigation are harmed, the court may pass an interim order.

Interim orders passed by the court may be of various courts. The nature of the order essentially depends on the direction passed by the Court and on these basis they may be classified as under;

  • Restraining order (also called Injunction), which are passed to stop either party from acting in a particular manner during the pendency of the civil action. These are essential passed by the court to prevent situations in which either party may suffer a harm because the other party did/continued an act which was the matter in issue and
  • Directive order, which are passed to direct either part to continue to act in a particular manner till the conclusion of the trial or till further orders. These may be passed if the non-continuation of the act would cause harm to the other party.

In public international law, the "rough equivalent"[1] of an interim order is a provisional measure of protection, which can be "indicated" by the International Court of Justice.[1]

Requirement for Interim order[edit]

The manner and exercise of powers by the courts are prescribed under the laws of most nations. These may be either enacted by legislation in the form of procedural laws of the country (as done by, for example, the United Kingdom under the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 or are left by the legislature for the courts to determine for themselves (for example the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure). It is under these procedural laws that the power to issue interim orders may be conferred on the courts.

India[edit]

In India, interim orders may be passed by civil courts in matters before them. Such orders can be passed either under the Specific Relief Act passed by the Parliament of India in 1963 or in terms of Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code of 1908, which recognises and retains some inherent powers with the civil courts. However the latter provision is usually seldom exercised. In terms of the 1963 Act,[2] an interim order may be passed by the court only if the following conditions are satisfied;

  1. Where there is a prima facie case in favour of the party seeking the order,
  2. Irreparable damage may be caused to the party if the order is not passed and such damage may not be ascertained in terms or money and payable as damages, and
  3. Where the balance of convenience lies with the party requesting for the order.

European Court of Human Rights[edit]

The European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, France, may grant interim measures to prevent a state from carrying out an action that could cause irreparable harm before the court has had an opportunity to hear and/or decide a case. The most common circumstance for when interim measures are granted is in cases of extradition or deportation where there is valid evidence that the detainee or asylum seeker would be at risk of torture or the death penalty. Under the court's case law, sending someone to a country where it is reasonable to believe he or she would be tortured amounts to a violation of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which prohibits torture. Interim measures are temporary and expire once the court has made a final decision. They are also sometimes referred to as precautionary or preliminary measures.[3]

See also[edit]

References[edit]

  1. ^ a b Rosenne, Shabtai; Terry D. Gill (1989). The World Court: What it is and how it works. Leiden: Brill Publishers. p. 320. ISBN 978-90-247-3772-7. , see page 95
  2. ^ "Section 36, Specific Relief Act, 1963". 
  3. ^ Doebbler, Curtis Francis (2004). International Human Rights Law: Cases and Materials. CD Pub.