<p class="bodytext">The Supreme Court’s criticism of a recent trend where a new bench overturns judgments delivered by a previous bench is timely and pertinent, as it could undermine the idea of judicial finality and continuity that the court represents. It could also hurt its credibility. Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine Masih last week described the practice as “painful” and detrimental to the judiciary's integrity and public trust. The court observed that allowing a prior verdict to be reopened simply because a later bench perceives a different view as “better” undermines the fundamental purpose of Article 141. Article 141, which makes the Supreme Court’s judgments binding on other courts, ensures consistency and finality in legal pronouncements. ‘Bench hunting’ for a different outcome would erode the Supreme Court's authority, and the value of its decisions. Justice B V Nagarathna has also voiced her concern over the trend and said verdicts should not be “tossed out” merely because the judges who authored them have changed or demitted office. </p>.<p class="bodytext">There have been some recent cases of a bench of the Supreme Court overturning an earlier ruling after one of the judges who authored the ruling retired. Last month, it recalled its earlier ruling that had barred retrospective environmental clearances for development projects. In October, a bench headed by Justice B R Gavai relaxed the ban on crackers in Delhi imposed earlier by a bench of Justice Oka and Justice Bhuyan. Last month, a special bench of the court revised an earlier ruling on stray dogs issued by another bench in August. Answering the presidential reference on the grant of assent to bills by governors, the apex court gave an opinion contradicting an order issued by a bench earlier this year. The government had made a presidential reference to the court instead of appealing the earlier ruling or seeking its review, which are the normal options available for reversal or modification of a judgment. </p>.The Prez reference order is a setback.<p class="bodytext">When the court pronounces a judgment on a matter, it should be the last word on it. That is why the Supreme Court is supreme. It is wrong for a different bench of the court to revise that judgment in a few months. The court has, under Article 137, the power of judicial review, which enables it to revisit earlier judgments. This is to rectify weaknesses in earlier judgments, or to review it in the light of new circumstances. For example, the 2017 Puttaswamy judgment, which recognised the right to privacy, corrected an earlier restricted view of the right. But the current trend is troubling, because it is emerging as a method to get around or reverse unfavourable judgments. If new judgments keep reversing past judgments, the Supreme Court’s authority will be eroded, and its decisions will be devalued.</p>
<p class="bodytext">The Supreme Court’s criticism of a recent trend where a new bench overturns judgments delivered by a previous bench is timely and pertinent, as it could undermine the idea of judicial finality and continuity that the court represents. It could also hurt its credibility. Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine Masih last week described the practice as “painful” and detrimental to the judiciary's integrity and public trust. The court observed that allowing a prior verdict to be reopened simply because a later bench perceives a different view as “better” undermines the fundamental purpose of Article 141. Article 141, which makes the Supreme Court’s judgments binding on other courts, ensures consistency and finality in legal pronouncements. ‘Bench hunting’ for a different outcome would erode the Supreme Court's authority, and the value of its decisions. Justice B V Nagarathna has also voiced her concern over the trend and said verdicts should not be “tossed out” merely because the judges who authored them have changed or demitted office. </p>.<p class="bodytext">There have been some recent cases of a bench of the Supreme Court overturning an earlier ruling after one of the judges who authored the ruling retired. Last month, it recalled its earlier ruling that had barred retrospective environmental clearances for development projects. In October, a bench headed by Justice B R Gavai relaxed the ban on crackers in Delhi imposed earlier by a bench of Justice Oka and Justice Bhuyan. Last month, a special bench of the court revised an earlier ruling on stray dogs issued by another bench in August. Answering the presidential reference on the grant of assent to bills by governors, the apex court gave an opinion contradicting an order issued by a bench earlier this year. The government had made a presidential reference to the court instead of appealing the earlier ruling or seeking its review, which are the normal options available for reversal or modification of a judgment. </p>.The Prez reference order is a setback.<p class="bodytext">When the court pronounces a judgment on a matter, it should be the last word on it. That is why the Supreme Court is supreme. It is wrong for a different bench of the court to revise that judgment in a few months. The court has, under Article 137, the power of judicial review, which enables it to revisit earlier judgments. This is to rectify weaknesses in earlier judgments, or to review it in the light of new circumstances. For example, the 2017 Puttaswamy judgment, which recognised the right to privacy, corrected an earlier restricted view of the right. But the current trend is troubling, because it is emerging as a method to get around or reverse unfavourable judgments. If new judgments keep reversing past judgments, the Supreme Court’s authority will be eroded, and its decisions will be devalued.</p>
