Supreme Court Flags Alarming Trend of Overturning Its Own Rulings

The Supreme Court of India has raised serious institutional concerns over what it described as a “growing trend” of reopening and overturning its own judgments before differently constituted benches. The remarks came during the hearing of a plea in a 2019 West Bengal murder case, and the Court warned that repeated reversals threaten judicial discipline, legal certainty, and the constitutional principle of finality in decision-making.

---

Case Background: Plea by Anisur Rahman

The observations were made while hearing a plea filed by Anisur Rahman, an accused in a 2019 murder case in West Bengal.
Rahman sought modification of a bail condition that prohibited him from leaving Kolkata.

A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and A.G. Masih refused to modify the earlier bail order passed in January, noting that the new application was filed shortly after the judge heading the earlier bench had demitted office. The Court viewed this timing as an attempt to obtain a favorable outcome due to the changed bench composition.

---

Supreme Court’s Warning on Undermining Finality

The Court stated that a litigant’s attempt to reopen cases simply because a new bench might take a “better view” undermines the Court’s authority. It highlighted that certainty and closure are essential components of the rule of law, and continuous re-litigation weakens the justice system.

The bench invoked the famous words of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson:
“We are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible only because we are final.”

This quotation was used to emphasize that the Supreme Court’s legitimacy flows not merely from correctness, but from the certainty and finality of its judgments.

---

Judicial Discipline and Limits on Reopening Final Judgments

The bench reaffirmed that judicial discipline requires a later bench to respect and follow earlier bench decisions unless:

• There is a clear error on the face of the record

• The earlier ruling is palpably wrong

• Review or curative jurisdiction is properly invoked under established constitutional mechanisms

Without these conditions, reopening cases compromises legal stability.

---

Recent High-Profile Instances of Supreme Court Reversals

The Court’s warning gains significance against the backdrop of several high-impact reversals undertaken in the past few months:

1. Tamil Nadu Governor-Assent Dispute (November 20)

A five-judge bench nullified the April 8 ruling that imposed strict timelines for gubernatorial assent decisions and introduced “deemed assent.”

2. Vanshakti Environmental Clearance Case (November 18)

A newly constituted bench (2–1 majority) reversed its May 15 ruling prohibiting retrospective environmental clearances.
Justice Ujjal Bhuyan dissented strongly, calling the reversal a “transgression.”

3. Bhushan Power & Steel / JSW Steel Case (July 31)

The Supreme Court recalled its May 2 order directing liquidation, citing incorrect recording of submissions. The recall was justified as essential to prevent economic disruption.

These reversals have sparked concerns regarding judicial predictability and triggered debates within legal circles about litigants waiting for more favorable bench compositions.

---

Constitutional Principle: Binding Nature of Supreme Court Judgments

The bench reiterated that Article 141 of the Constitution is central to judicial stability.
Article 141 mandates:

“The law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts within the territory of India.”

The judgment observed that if Supreme Court decisions are routinely reopened:

• The purpose of Article 141 is defeated

• Finality in adjudication collapses

• Judicial authority is weakened

• Strategic litigation increases

The Court emphasized that correctness of law is essential, but certainty is equally indispensable for the administration of justice.

---

Why Finality Matters: Impact on Rule of Law

The Supreme Court underscored that:

• A justice system must offer closure

• Litigants should be able to rely on final verdicts

• Endless reconsideration destroys predictability

• Judicial hierarchy and constitutional structure depend on finality

Without this, the legal system becomes unstable, inconsistent, and vulnerable to manipulation.

---

Statutes, Constitutional Provisions, and Judicial Precedents

Relevant Constitutional Provisions

• Article 141 – Binding nature of Supreme Court’s law declarations

• Article 142 – Supreme Court’s power to do complete justice, used sparingly in recall situations

• Article 136 – Special Leave Jurisdiction

• Article 32 & 226 – Writ jurisdiction affected by stability of judgments

• Rule of Law Principles – Derived from Preamble and basic structure doctrine

Procedural Safeguards Against Excessive Reopening

• Order XLVII (Supreme Court Rules, 2013) – Review petitions

• Curative Petition Jurisprudence – Developed in Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra (2002)

Key Judicial Precedents on Finality

1. Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra (2002)
   Established curative petitions, but stressed they are to be used only in rarest cases.

2. Triveniben v. State of Gujarat (1989)
   Emphasized the importance of finality in judicial proceedings.

3. Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (2016)
   Reiterated that judicial discipline requires adherence to earlier bench decisions.

4. Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community (2005)
   Held that a smaller bench cannot overrule a larger bench; must refer to a larger bench.

5. Union of India v. Raghubir Singh (1989)
   Stated that certainty and continuity are essential for a robust legal system.

6. Shanti Fragrances (2018)
   Warned against frequent reconsideration, as it weakens judicial credibility.

These principles collectively restrict arbitrary reopening or overruling of judgments.

---

Conclusion: Finality Is Indispensable to Judicial Authority

The Supreme Court’s strong remarks send a clear message:
Unrestrained reversals, driven by changes in bench composition or litigant strategies, pose a serious threat to judicial integrity.

Finality, stability, and judicial discipline are constitutional values.
Review and curative jurisdiction exist, but they are exceptional remedies—not instruments to circumvent earlier verdicts.

If not checked, this trend could dilute the authority of the Supreme Court itself, destabilize legal systems, and undermine public confidence in justice.

---