Recent Trend Of Overturning Judgments By Succeeding Benches Painful : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Wednesday (November 26) voiced strong disapproval of attempts at bench hunting, noting growing trends amongst litigants to seek reversal of a prior bench's ruling by approaching a subsequent bench. The Court warned that permitting such practices would undermine the very purpose of Article 141, as no judgment could have finality if it could be reopened merely because a later bench believes its own view to be a 'better' view.

“In the recent past, we have rather painfully observed a growing trend in this Court (of which we too are an indispensable part) of verdicts pronounced by Judges, whether still in office or not and irrespective of the time lapse since pronounced, being overturned by succeeding benches or specially constituted benches at the behest of some party aggrieved by the verdicts prior in point of time.”, observed a bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih. The bench added that “a matter that is res integra may not be reopened or revisited or else consistency in legal interpretation could be compromised and the special authority that is invested in decisions of this Court, under Article 141, lost.”

Recently, judgments such as Vanashakti, Delhi firecracker ban, TN Governor judgment, Bhushan Steel Insolvency etc were revisited.

These observations were made while the bench was hearing an application by a murder accused seeking modification of his bail conditions. The accused had earlier been granted bail by a bench led by Justice Abhay S Oka with a restriction preventing him from leaving Kolkata. After an application for modification were rejected, he filed yet another application, this time before the bench led by Justice Datta(since Justice Oka retired), inviting sharp criticism from the Court for engaging in bench hunting and attempting to secure a reversal of the earlier orders dismissing his plea.

Rejecting the application, the judgment authored by Justice Datta emphasized that “overturning a prior verdict by a later verdict does not necessarily mean that justice is better served.”, adding that any modification to the bail condition would violate the spirit of Article 141 of the Constitution to give finality to the decision of the Supreme Court.

“If any modification of such condition is made now and thereby the stringency relaxed, that would not only amount to overstepping the order of this Court granting bail but would send a wrong message of this Court being unconcerned with the principle of finality of judicial decisions. The stringent condition imposed by the bench while granting bail being justified on facts and in the circumstances, and there being no significant change in circumstances warranting a reconsideration, we see no reason to interfere.”, the court observed.

Accordingly, the application was dismissed.

Cause Title: SK. MD. ANISUR RAHAMAN VS. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR.

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1146

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Vikas Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Amarjit Singh Bedi, AOR Mr. Varun Chandiok, Adv. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Singh, Adv. Ms. Riya Seth, Adv. Ms. Deepeika Kalia, Adv. Ms. Vashuda Singh, Adv. Mr. Sudeep Chandra, Adv. Ms. Kushi, Adv.

For Respondent(s) :Mr. Shadan Farasat, Sr. Adv. Mr. Kunal Mimani, AOR Ms. Shraddha Chirania, Adv. Mr. P. S. Patwalia, Sr. Adv. Mr. Soumya Nag, Adv.