Supreme Court flags 'growing trend' of successor benches reopening verdicts: 'Undermining Court's authority'

Supreme Court of India

A two-judge bench of the Supreme Court -- Justices Dipankar Datta and AG Masih -- voiced concern Wednesday over what it described as a serious pattern within the court itself of verdicts being overturned by succeeding benches, reported The Indian Express.

According to them, they have “rather painfully observed” a “growing trend in this Court (of which we too are an indispensable part)” where verdicts already delivered, “whether still in office or not and irrespective of the time lapse since pronounced,” end up being reopened or revisited by later benches.

The judges said that such actions could erode “this Court’s authority” and fundamentally weaken the value of its decisions, as per the report.

Their remarks came while dismissing a plea filed by SK Md Anisur Rahaman, a West Bengal resident accused of killing a political rival.

Earlier in January, Rahaman had been granted bail by a bench comprising Justice AS Oka (now retired) and Justice Masih, but the order restricted him to remain within Kolkata.

When he sought to relax this condition, a separate bench led by Justice Oka rejected his request on May 5. Notwithstanding that, Rahaman made another attempt on August 8, asking once again for the same modification.

Justice Datta noted that this second attempt had arrived “a couple of months after” Justice Oka “demitted office”, pointing out that “the purpose is not far to seek.” He observed that this appeared to be “an attempt to take a chance because of the changed scenario.”

Since the original bail restrictions had been imposed for justified reasons and there was “no significant change in circumstances warranting a reconsideration,” the court said it was not inclined to intervene.

Reflecting on the broader issue, the bench explained that Article 141 of the Constitution is meant to ensure that “the pronouncement of a verdict by a bench on a particular issue of law… should settle the controversy, being final", The Indian Express reported.

Should verdicts be reopened merely because “a later different view appears to be better,” they said, “the very purpose of enacting Article 141 would stand defeated.”

The bench said allowing parties to hope that “a change in composition will yield a different outcome” would not only “undermine this Court’s authority” but also weaken faith in the court’s pronouncements. "We propose not to walk that path," it said.

The bench tied this warning to recent developments in unrelated cases. In the matter concerning stray dogs, for instance, a 3-judge bench was constituted after an earlier two-judge bench had, on August 11, directed that all strays be moved into dedicated shelters.

The newly formed bench, however, did not proceed with that direction, noting that another 3-judge bench had previously said adopting a compassionate stance in cases involving strays. T

The judges’ remarks also resonate with another instance from November 18, when a three-judge bench, by a 2:1 majority, recalled the Court’s May 16 two-judge order that had struck down the Centre’s move allowing ex post facto environmental clearances -- that is, clearances granted after a project had already begun.