Supreme Court Flags Growing Trend Of Overturning Own Verdicts, Warns Of Undermining Authority

The Supreme Court has issued a strong warning against a “growing trend” of litigants seeking to reopen and overturn its own settled verdicts before differently constituted benches. The apex court cautioned that this practice poses a serious threat to “undermine” its authority and credibility, while also weakening the constitutional mandate of finality in its rulings.

The observations were made by a bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and AG Masih while hearing a plea for the modification of a bail condition in a 2019 murder case. The bench lamented that in the recent past, there has been a noticeable trend where verdicts, irrespective of the time elapsed or the composition of the pronouncing bench, are being challenged and reversed by succeeding

or specially constituted benches.

The court underscored that the legitimacy of judicial power rests not on achieving “perfect correctness”, but more so on the certainty and finality of judicial outcomes. Allowing a matter to be reopened simply because a later bench might hold a “better view” defeats the entire purpose of adjudication and risks eroding respect for the judicial system.

Invoking Article 141 of the Constitution, which mandates that the law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts within the territory of India, the bench emphasised that the pronouncement of a verdict must settle the controversy. The prospect of “bench hunting”—seeking a fresh outcome merely due to a change in the composition of judges—undermines the authority of the court and the value of its pronouncements. The bench stressed the foundational importance of finality to the rule of law and the need to maintain consistency and stability in legal interpretation.

The court ultimately rejected the modification plea in the case, noting that making such a change would not only amount to overstepping a prior order but would also send a wrong message of being unconcerned with the principle of finality, thus reinforcing the gravity of its warning.