A two-judge bench of the Supreme Court has voiced grave concern over the growing practice of newly constituted benches overturning prior verdicts, warning that the habit threatens the authority and stability of the apex court’s rulings. Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih described the pattern as “painful”, noting that many reversals occur at the instance of aggrieved parties hoping a fresh bench will deliver a different outcome. The judges said such reversals defeat the purpose of Article 141 of the Constitution, which declares a Supreme Court verdict the “law of the land” and expects its finality.
The remarks came while rejecting a plea from a West Bengal-based murder accused who sought modification of bail conditions imposed by an earlier bench. The accused, whose bail mandated residence in Kolkata, had already seen one request denied. When the plea re-emerged before the new bench — after a change in composition — it triggered sharp criticism. The court observed that revisiting concluded matters simply because one hopes for a different outcome undermines judicial certainty.
