The Supreme Court on Thursday (Nov 27) issued a strong and cautionary note against an emerging pattern it described as both “troubling” and “dangerous” to the integrity of India’s judicial system. According to the Court, an increasing number of litigants have been approaching differently constituted benches of the apex court to reopen or overturn judgments that were previously settled, regardless of the time that has passed or the composition of the bench that originally delivered the ruling.
The warning came from a bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and AG Masih, which was hearing a plea seeking modification of a bail condition imposed in a 2019 murder case. The judges used the occasion to reflect on a broader and growing institutional concern: that successive benches are being urged to revisit matters that should have attained finality under the Constitution.
During the hearing, the bench made clear that judicial legitimacy does not rest solely on arriving at what litigants believe to be “perfect” judgments. Instead, it stressed that the strength of the judiciary lies in certainty, consistency, and finality, all of which are compromised when settled matters are casually reopened.
The Court noted that a troubling tendency has emerged where litigants seek a fresh interpretation or outcome simply because another bench might have a “better view.” This, the judges said, defeats the basic purpose of adjudication and could erode public faith in the judiciary if left unchecked.
“Once a verdict is pronounced, the controversy must come to an end,” the bench observed, underscoring that reopening cases based on bench composition changes risks setting a dangerous precedent.
Reiterating the force of Article 141 of the Constitution, which mandates that the law declared by the Supreme Court is binding on all courts across the country, the bench asserted that the authority of the Court’s pronouncements must not be diluted by repeated attempts to challenge them.
The judges expressed particular concern over what they described as “bench hunting,” the practice of deliberately seeking a differently constituted bench in the hope of securing a new or favourable verdict. Such practices not only compromise judicial consistency, they warned, but also threaten the integrity of the judicial institution itself.
If litigants begin believing that a new bench may disregard a previous view simply because of personal judicial preference, the Court noted, the entire system of precedent and stability collapses.
In light of these concerns, the bench dismissed the plea seeking modification of the bail condition in the 2019 murder case, observing that entertaining such a request would amount to overriding a prior order of the Court. Doing so, it warned, would send an improper message that the Court is willing to dilute the principle of finality whenever pressed.
Comments