Supreme Court's Warning on Judicial Reversals: A 2023 Overview

Supreme Court Cautions Against Frequent Reversal of Its Own Judgments

Recently, the Supreme Court (SC) expressed concern over a “growing trend” of reopening and overturning its own verdicts by differently constituted benches. The court warned that such practices could undermine its authority, credibility, and institutional stability.

Background

Article 137 of the Constitution of India empowers the Supreme Court to review its own judgments through review petitions. Typically, these petitions are heard by the same bench that delivered the original verdict. However, the Court exercises this power sparingly, as cases already undergo multiple layers of judicial scrutiny—from trial courts to appellate courts and ultimately the Supreme Court.

In recent times, the SC has reviewed, recalled, or substantially modified its earlier decisions in significant cases, including those related to the Tamil Nadu Governor’s assent issue, the Vanshakti judgment on post-facto environmental clearances, and the liquidation order in the Bhushan Power and Steel case. In several instances, differently constituted benches revisited and replaced earlier rulings, raising concerns about judicial consistency and the possibility of litigants waiting for a more favourable bench.

The Court underlined that legal certainty is as essential as correctness. It observed that without stability, Article 141—which makes Supreme Court judgments binding on all courts—loses much of its constitutional significance. In this context, the SC cautioned that frequent reversals could erode its authority and weaken the stability required for effective administration of justice.

Positive Implications of Reviewing Judgments

• Correction of Judicial Errors: The power to revisit decisions allows the Supreme Court to correct judicial mistakes and address overlooked issues, reinforcing its role as the guardian of justice.
• Evolving Legal Interpretation: Re-examination of earlier rulings ensures that legal interpretations align with evolving societal values, constitutional principles, and changing realities.
• Enhancing Public Trust: Acknowledging and correcting errors strengthens public confidence in the judiciary by demonstrating transparency, accountability, and institutional integrity.
• Consideration of New Evidence: The emergence of significant and previously unavailable evidence may justify reconsideration of an earlier judgment in the interest of justice.
• Addressing Unintended Injustice: When the implementation of a judgment leads to unforeseen harm or inequitable outcomes, the Supreme Court may intervene to remedy the resulting injustice.

Negative Implications of Frequent Reviews

• Erosion of Judicial Finality: Repeated reviews can weaken the finality traditionally associated with Supreme Court judgments, prolonging litigation and unsettling settled law.
• Risks of Excessive Discretion: The broad wording of Article 142 grants the Court significant discretionary power, which may lead to subjective interpretations and inconsistent application.
• Delays in Judicial Outcomes: The review process can slow dispute resolution, especially when sensitive matters are referred to larger benches for reconsideration.
• Concerns Over Misuse of Power: Critics argue that the exceptional powers under Article 142 should be exercised sparingly, as frequent use may encroach upon legislative or executive domains.
• Administrative and Financial Burden: Frequent reviews impose additional burdens on the Supreme Court, requiring extra judicial time, staff effort, and unplanned expenditure beyond routine functions.

Way Forward

• Formulating Clear Operational Norms: The Supreme Court can establish clear guidelines for exercising review and recall powers to ensure consistency and predictability.
• Strengthening Review-Stage Safeguards: Enhancing procedural safeguards can help prevent misuse and ensure that only deserving cases are reconsidered.
• Promoting Alternative Dispute Resolution: Expanding the use of mediation, arbitration, and other ADR mechanisms can reduce the burden on the judiciary and limit the need for repeated reviews.
• Periodic Institutional Review: Regular reassessment of the judiciary’s approach to its extraordinary powers can help balance flexibility with stability in line with evolving legal and societal needs.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Q1. Why does the Supreme Court review its judgments?
Answer: The Supreme Court reviews judgments to correct judicial errors, ensure legal interpretations align with societal values, and maintain public trust in the judiciary by demonstrating accountability.

Q2. What are the potential risks of frequent reviews by the Supreme Court?
Answer: Frequent reviews can erode judicial finality, create delays in resolution, and increase administrative burdens. They may also lead to inconsistent applications of law and misuse of power.

Q3. How does Article 141 impact Supreme Court judgments?
Answer: Article 141 ensures that Supreme Court judgments are binding on all lower courts, providing legal certainty. Frequent reversals can undermine this authority and stability.

Q4. What can be done to improve the review process in the Supreme Court?
Answer: Establishing clear operational norms, strengthening procedural safeguards, and promoting alternative dispute resolutions can enhance the review process and limit unnecessary revisions.

Q5. How does the Supreme Court ensure consistency in its rulings?
Answer: The Supreme Court ensures consistency by typically having the same bench review judgments and exercising its review powers with restraint, although recent trends have raised concerns about judicial inconsistency.