Supreme Court warns against ‘disturbing trend’ of benches undoing earlier orders

In an unusually sharp rebuke from within the judiciary, the Supreme Court on November 25 cautioned against what it described as a “growing trend” of parties seeking fresh hearings before newly constituted benches to overturn previously settled judgments — a practice it warned could weaken the institution itself.

A two-judge bench led by Justices Dipankar Datta and A G Masih expressed “painful concern” that verdicts of the top court — whether delivered recently, long ago, or by judges no longer in office — were increasingly being reopened before succeeding benches merely because a litigant preferred a different outcome.

“This Court is witnessing a disturbing pattern,” the bench observed. “Verdicts pronounced by judges, irrespective of time lapse or tenure, are being overturned by succeeding or specially constituted benches at the behest of parties aggrieved by the earlier orders. This, if permitted, would undermine this Court’s authority.”

Invoking Article 141 — which makes Supreme Court rulings binding law across India — the judges underlined that legal finality is not optional. “If a verdict is allowed to be reopened simply because a later interpretation appears preferable, the very purpose of Article 141 stands defeated,” the order stated.

The remarks came while dismissing a plea by West Bengal resident S K Md Anisur Rahaman, accused in a political murder case, who sought relaxation of bail conditions already rejected twice — including once by a bench led by Justice A S Oka (now retired).

The court noted that Rahaman’s latest request was filed “a couple of months” after Justice Oka demitted office, remarking that the motive was “not far to seek”.

“The prospect of reopening decisions before a differently constituted bench in the hope of a different outcome would erode judicial certainty,” the judges warned. “Overturning a prior verdict does not automatically mean justice is better served.”

The caution comes amid recent examples that have drawn scrutiny from within the legal fraternity. Earlier this month, a three-judge bench recalled a May 16 ruling that struck down a Union government notification allowing post-facto environmental clearances — effectively reversing a two-judge bench order. Similarly, in a contentious stray-dog matter, a newly formed three-judge bench departed from the directions issued on August 11 by another bench, triggering debate over judicial coherence.

Signalling that the Supreme Court must model consistency, the bench concluded with a pointed message: “With an overwhelming sense of dissatisfaction and remorse, we propose not to walk that path.”

The ruling underscores a growing institutional anxiety — that the legitimacy of the apex court rests not only on the wisdom of its judgments, but on the certainty that once pronounced, they cannot be casually reopened at will.