CJI EQUAL TO OTHER JUDGES, LACKS POWER TO REVIEW ORDERS OF OTHER BENCHES: JUSTICE BR GAVAI:

On August 12, the Supreme Court questioned the Union Government over its application to recall the 2023 judgment in Ritu Chhabaria v. Union of India, which held that an accused’s right to seek default bail is not extinguished by the filing of an incomplete chargesheet. A bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai, Justice K Vinod Chandran, and Justice NV Anjaria also emphasised that the CJI’s bench cannot vary or review orders passed by other benches of equal strength.

The Ritu Chhabaria judgment, delivered by Justices Krishna Murari and CT Ravikumar, had been effectively suspended when a bench led by then CJI DY Chandrachud directed that default bail applications based on the ruling be deferred. This order arose from a Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED). Last week, the Court dismissed the CBI’s review petition against the judgment. The ED’s recall application was listed for hearing today.

At the outset, CJI Gavai questioned the maintainability of the recall application once the review had been dismissed, noting that the Court had repeatedly stated that review petitions should not be entertained under the guise of miscellaneous applications. He observed that permitting such a practice would amount to an abuse of process. The CJI also posed a fundamental question—whether the first court, presided over by the CJI, could exercise appellate powers over another bench of equal strength. He remarked that if such a practice were allowed, parties dissatisfied with an order could repeatedly approach other benches to seek a different outcome.

Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Union, said that independent of the maintainability issue, the CJI should be aware of the practical fallout of the *Ritu Chhabaria* ruling. He explained that following the judgment, thousands of default bail applications were filed across the country. He outlined the origins of the case, where the accused’s wife had initially sought permission to provide home-cooked food in prison, but later, before the first hearing, filed an interlocutory application (IA) for default bail.

The SG pointed out that the division bench in Ritu Chhabaria had held that investigation must be completed before a chargesheet or complaint is filed within the statutory period, and that a supplementary chargesheet under Section 173(8) CrPC could only follow a completed main chargesheet. The Court had stated that filing a supplementary chargesheet while investigation was pending could not be used to defeat the statutory right of default bail. According to the SG, this approach contradicted multiple larger bench judgments and had prompted accused persons nationwide to seek bail whenever a chargesheet mentioned further investigation.

He urged the Court to first decide the SLP in Directorate of Enforcement v. Manpreet Singh Talwar to settle the law. While clarifying that he was not contesting the maintainability of the recall application, he stressed that the real issue lay in treating chargesheets as incomplete merely because further investigation was noted under Section 173(8) CrPC.

CJI Gavai responded that this legal question could be examined, but asked where the scope existed to recall the judgment. The Court ultimately agreed to list the matter before a three-judge bench.