Supreme Court flags growing trend of succeeding Benches reversing previously decided cases
Court expresses concern over undermining of judicial finality and authority due to frequent overruling of prior verdicts
The Supreme Court recently raised serious concerns about an increasing trend where subsequent Benches overturn decisions of prior Benches with different judge compositions. A Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and AG Masih emphasized that the finality and sanctity of judicial decisions are fundamental to the rule of law.
The Court observed that verdicts, regardless of the time elapsed or whether the delivering judges are still in office, should settle legal controversies conclusively under Article 141 of the Constitution and be binding on all courts. Reopening settled issues whenever a Bench changes risks eroding confidence in the judiciary and defeats the purpose of legal certainty.
The Court noted that revisiting matters not previously decided (res integra) may be warranted, but the practice of challenging prior rulings simply out of hope for a different composition undermines the judiciary’s credibility.
These observations came in a murder case where an earlier Bench granted bail with conditions, but a later Bench heard applications to modify and cancel bail after the original judge retired. The Court criticized attempts to revisit settled bail conditions without new grounds and underscored judicial discipline, propriety, and comity.
While acknowledging concerns about free movement rights, the Court held that restrictive bail conditions should only be altered with substantial justification. It rejected the bail condition modification, affirming the principle of finality except when faced with gross errors requiring review or curative petitions.
The case reflects the Court’s insistence on respecting precedent and discouraging tactical reopening of settled judicial decisions.