Trend Of One Supreme Court Bench Staying Judgment Of Another Bench Concerning : Senior Advocate CU Singh

Mr Singh referred to the instance of a bench of the Supreme Court effectively staying the judgment passed by another bench in the case Ritu Chhabaria v. Union of India (2023) which held that filing of an incomplete chargesheet will not deprive the accused of the right to default bail.

“ On 1st May, 2023, a mentioning was made before the Hon'ble CJI - coincidentally, he was sitting in a two-judge bench- by the Solicitor General (SG) and on the mentioning made, it was ordered that no court of this Country will decide matters based on Ritu Chabbria. The Union said they are in the process of challenging the Delhi High Court Order, so on an oral mentioning this order is passed. It was kept on 4th May… they bring this D.E. v. Manpreet Singh Talwar of the Delhi High Court, again on 6th May, a 3-judge bench continued the order that no country in the court can give default bail based on Ritu Chabbria... Now this a new norm in the Supreme Court where one bench stays the order of another bench where, de-jure or de facto or whatever, there is actually a stay on a judgement (of the SC) by another bench of the Supreme Court”

According to Mr Singh, the procedural approach of the Supreme Court should have been that the decision of Ritu Chabbria be referred to a Constitutional Bench to decide upon its merit and stay accordingly.

“ But this thing, that just on an oral mentioning staying the judgement…I think this has happened for the second or the third time I do not want to get into the details..but here is the thing…26th April (pronouncement of Ritu Chhabaria), 28th April (Delhi High Court's order relying on Ritu Chhabaria), 1st May…Bang! Ritu Chhabaria no longer exists.”

The senior advocate highlighted that the setting aside of judgment of a parallel bench by another bench within the Supreme Court appeared to be the latest trend.

“ The alacrity with which, the setting aside of judgements by benches of equal strength, seems to be the trend.”

Mr Singh gave the example of the decision of the Apex Court in Ram Kishor Arora,  in which one bench of the Supreme Court effectively diluted another bench's judgment in Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India which held that the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) must furnish the grounds of arrest to the accused in writing.

The RK Arora bench held that ED need not give the reasons for arrest in writing to the accused at the time of the arrest and that they need to be supplied only within 24 hours.

Elaborating further, Mr Singh explained how the decision held that Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act states that the accused must be informed of the grounds of arrest as soon as may be.

It held that the expression “as soon as may be” contained in Section 19 of PMLA is required to be construed as “as early as possible without avoidable delay” or “within reasonably convenient” or “reasonably requisite” period of time.

Mr Singh expressed concerns about the practicality of expecting arrested individuals to comprehend and remember the grounds for their arrest, if they are supplied orally. He underscored the anxiety and panic that often accompany arrests, further complicating the ability of individuals to recall the grounds shown to them. The practice of obtaining signatures or thumb impressions during the arrest process was also criticized, raising questions about the efficacy of such measures in ensuring informed consent.

“...when there is an absolutely salutary judgement, the SC rushes in - oh these are dangers to the society! Because we have done something good for the accused person, let's nip it in the bud.”

Also Read- A Critique Of Supreme Court's 'RK Arora' Judgment Giving ED 24 Hours To Furnish Written Reasons For Arrest

Lastly, he flagged the issue of High Courts staying their own bail orders despite finding that the accused was entitled to bail. He cited the examples of the orders passed by the Bombay High Court in the cases of Mahesh Raut and Gautam Navlakha, where, despite finding that they are entitled to bail in the Bhima Koregaon case, the High Court put on hold the implementation of the order to enable the NIA to appeal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court extended the High Court's stay on NIA's appeal.:

“ It is now horrifying. People who are granted bail after 4-5 years of incarceration…the High Courts have started this new thing of granting bail, after crossing the most horrendous obstacles...and you finally get bail and the High Court then stays the bail order for one week.”

Though Mahesh Raut got bail from the High Court on September 21 last year, Singh pointed out, he still remains incarcerated as the Supreme Court extended the stay and the NIA's appeal is pending hearing. Likewise, Navlakha, who got bail from High Court on December 19 last year, remains under house arrest, as the Top Court continued the stay.

The video of the event can be watched here.

While A Journalist Is Jailed For Doing His Duty, An Old & Ailing Man Unable To Even Sip Water Dies Behind Bars! What happened To Article 21? Justice Rekha Sharma

Media As Fourth Pillar Of Democracy Has Failed The Country: Justice Kurian Joseph

Master Of Roster System Is Unregulated And Requires Much More Transparency And Accountability: Senior Advocate Meenakshi Arora

 Permanent Constitution Bench & Specialised Divisions In Supreme Court Can Help Growth Of Consistent Jurisprudence : Gautam Bhatia