Supreme Court flags growing trend of succeeding Benches reversing previously decided cases

The Supreme Court on Wednesday expressed concern over an increasing trend in which subsequent Benches of the Court set aside decisions of earlier Benches comprising a different composition of judges [SK MD. Anisur Rahaman v The State of West Bengal & Anr].

The Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice AG Masih emphasized that the sanctity and finality of judicial verdicts is fundamental to the rule of law.

The strength of judicial power lies less in the hope of perfection and more in the confidence that decisions, once made, are settled, the Court remarked.

“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. To us, the object of Article 141 of the Constitution seems to be this: the pronouncement of a verdict by a bench on a particular issue of law (arising out of the facts involved) should settle the controversy, being final, and has to be followed by all courts as law declared by the Supreme Court. However, if a verdict is allowed to be reopened because a later different view appears to be better, the very purpose of enacting Article 141 would stand defeated," the Bench asserted.

The Court added that the prospect of opening up a further round of challenge before a succeeding Bench with the hope that a change in composition may yield a different outcome would undermine the top court’s authority and the value of its pronouncements.

"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. The weight and influence of that special authority depend on the credibility we, the Judges, give to it. As Judges of this Court, we are alive to the position that overturning a prior verdict by a later verdict does not necessarily mean that justice is better served," it further said.

The Court made these observations while dealing with a murder case in which the accused was granted bail by a Bench comprising Justice Abhay S Oka (now retired) and Justice Masih in January.

At the time, this Bench also imposed a bail condition that the accused would not move out of Kolkata after his release.

The accused later sought the modification of this condition. Meanwhile, a plea was also moved for the cancellation of the bail granted to the accused.

Both the bail condition modification plea and the bail cancellation plea were heard by the new Bench of Justices Datta and Masih.

After examining the case records, the Court noted that the Justice Oka-led Bench had earlier rejected a similar application for bail condition modification and that the latest plea had been moved after his retirement.

"The present application has been filed on 8th August, 2025, i.e., a couple of months after His Lordship demitted office. In between, there were Partial Working Days from 26th May, 2025 till 11th July, 2025. The purpose is not far to seek. We perceive this to be an attempt to take a chance because of the changed scenario," it said.

The Court also opined that the application for the bail cancellation was more of a retaliatory response to the application for the modification of the bail condition rather than a genuine effort to further project how the accused has breached the terms and conditions of bail.

However, it also acknowledged the concerns of the murder victim's brother, as it agreed with the submission that the State seemed to have "crossed the line of being an honest and fair prosecutor and bordered on becoming a real facilitator for the accused in the sessions trial to evade conviction."

Nevertheless, it declined to cancel the bail since it was not established that the accused was responsible for lapses during the criminal trial.

"There is also little doubt that witnesses for the prosecution have turned hostile, but that Anisur [accused] is directly responsible for the damage caused has not been conclusively established before us. Be that as it may, having regard to the stage the trial has progressed, we do not consider any useful purpose being served by cancelling the bail granted in favour of Anisur," it said.

On the application for modification of bail condition, the Court acknowledged that the principle of finality of judicial decisions may not apply when there is a question about a citizen's right to free movement.

However, it added that facts in light of which the condition restricting a person's movement was imposed assume significance.

"Any restrictive order of the nature under consideration has to be and must be premised on some worthy reason. Such reason need not be brushed aside as irrelevant or untenable. Judicial discipline, propriety and comity, which are also inseparable parts of a just and proper decision-making process, demand that a subsequent bench of different combination defers to the view expressed by the earlier bench, unless there is something so grossly erroneous on the face of the record or palpably wrong that it necessitates a re-look in exercise of inherent jurisdiction either by a review petition or through a curative petition as explained in Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra," it added.

Considering the facts of the present case, the Court concluded that the very purpose of the order granting bail would stand frustrated if the condition requiring the accused not to leave Kolkata were modified.

It noted that bail had been granted after considering that the accused was in custody for more than five years and that despite an express directive for it, the trial was not concluded within six months.

"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," it added, while rejecting the application for modifying the bail condition.

Senior Advocate Vikas Singh appeared for the accused.

Senior Advocate PS Patwalia appeared for the victim's brother.

Senior Advocate Shadan Farasat appeared for the State.

[Read Judgment]