Judgments shouldn't be revisited solely because judges have changed: Justice Nagarathna

New Delhi: In a veiled reference to the practice of judgments being overturned by succeeding benches, Supreme Court judge B V Nagarathna said on Saturday that the apex court's verdicts should not be "tossed out" merely because the judges who authored those have changed.

Speaking at the International Convention on the Independence of the Judiciary at the OP Jindal Global University in Haryana's Sonipat, Justice Nagarathna said an evolved understanding of judicial independence warrants the "assurance by our system of laws" that a judgment once rendered by a judge will hold its anchor in time for it is written in "ink and not in sand".

"It is a duty of the many participants of the legal fraternity and governance framework to respect a judgment for what it is, raise objections only in accordance with traditions embedded in law and not attempt to toss it out solely because the faces have changed," Justice Nagarathna said.

She said the judiciary is an institution integral to the governance of the country.

"With liberalised rules of standing, wide powers and a range of remedies, the court is frequently called upon to decide a whole spectrum of questions concerning the future of Indians.

"Today, the judiciary is seen as having a duty to ensure the rule of law, whenever infractions may occur," she added.

Justice Nagarathna pointed out that the independence of the judiciary is protected not only through the judgments judges write, but also through their personal conduct.

A judge's behaviour must be perceived as beyond suspicion, she said, adding that political insularity is essential for an impartial judicial system.

On November 26, the Supreme Court expressed concern over a "growing trend" in the apex court of judgments being overturned by succeeding benches or specially-constituted benches at the behest of parties aggrieved by the previous verdicts.

A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih said by upholding the finality of verdicts, not only is endless litigation prevented but public confidence in the judiciary is also maintained.