Definition
Temporary relief.
Interim order granted until final hearing.
Etymology & Origin
From Latin 'ad' (for, towards, until) and 'interim' (in the meantime, meanwhile). The phrase means 'for the time being' or 'in the meantime.' It has been used in English legal practice since at least the seventeenth century to describe orders that are temporary in nature, intended to hold the position until a full hearing or final determination. Indian courts — both civil and constitutional — use the phrase to describe temporary orders granted before the main matter is heard on merits.
Full Legal Analysis
Ad interim refers to relief or an order granted temporarily — 'in the meantime' — before the court hears the full merits of a case. In Indian civil practice, an ad interim injunction is one of the most powerful preventive remedies available: it restrains the defendant from doing a specific act before the plaintiff's case has been heard and decided, purely on the basis of a prima facie assessment. If granted improperly, it can cause as much damage to the defendant as the wrong it is meant to prevent.
Ad interim orders have their roots in English Chancery jurisdiction, where the Court of Equity would grant temporary injunctions to preserve the status quo while the rights of parties were being determined on merits. Indian courts inherited this jurisdiction through the Code of Civil Procedure and the Supreme Court Rules. The power to grant an ad interim injunction ex parte — without hearing the other side — is one of the most extraordinary powers vested in civil courts, and it is deliberately circumscribed by strict procedural requirements including mandatory reasons in writing.
Three conditions must be satisfied before a court grants an ad interim injunction: (1) a prima facie case — not proof, but a triable issue with reasonable prospects; (2) balance of convenience must favour the applicant — the harm of refusing must outweigh the harm of granting; and (3) irreparable harm — damages would not adequately compensate the applicant if the act is not restrained and the plaintiff later succeeds at trial.
The Supreme Court held that for an ad interim mandatory injunction — commanding a positive act rather than merely restraining — the test is stricter. The applicant must establish a clear and strong prima facie case, show that the balance of convenience is overwhelmingly in their favour, and demonstrate that irreparable harm will result if the mandatory direction is not issued immediately, pending final hearing.
In constitutional litigation under Articles 226 and 32, ad interim stays are routinely granted against government orders, notifications, and statutory provisions. Courts apply the same three tests — prima facie case, balance of convenience, irreparable harm — with greater flexibility in public law cases involving fundamental rights, recognising that irreparable harm to constitutional rights may be difficult to quantify in money terms.
Advocates seeking ad interim relief must come to court with full and frank disclosure of all material facts, including those unfavourable to the applicant. Concealment of material facts — even if innocent — is sufficient ground for the court to vacate the ad interim order and may attract exemplary costs. The duty of full and frank disclosure is particularly strict in ex parte applications since the court hears only one side.
This Term in Indian Statutes
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, 1908
"Where it is made to appear to the Court that the object of granting the injunction would be defeated by the delay caused by giving notice of the application to the opposite party, the Court may grant the injunction ex parte and shall record the reasons for such grant."
Statutory basis for ex parte ad interim injunction — requires recorded reasons; injunction is temporary until the opposite party is heard
