Supreme Court Justice Warns Against Overturning Verdicts When Judges Change: Protecting Judicial Independence in India

Supreme Court Justice BV Nagarathna expressed concern at the International Convention on the Independence of the Judiciary that judgments should not be discarded simply because the authoring judges have changed or left office.

Speaking at OP Jindal Global University in Sonipat, Haryana on Saturday, Justice Nagarathna emphasized that judicial independence requires assurance that judgments will endure through time, being "written in ink and not in sand."

She stated that all participants in the legal system have a duty to respect judgments and challenge them only through established legal procedures, not merely because "faces have changed."

This statement comes amid recent instances where Supreme Court benches have overturned previous judgments. Earlier this month, the court recalled a May order that prohibited retrospective environmental clearances for development projects. On November 28, a bench led by then Chief Justice BR Gavai lifted the ban on ex post facto environmental clearances after reviewing a builders association petition.

Similarly, in September, the court reversed its May order and approved JSW Steel Ltd's ₹19,000-crore bid to acquire Bhushan Power and Steel Ltd through the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, overturning an earlier decision to liquidate the company.

Justice Nagarathna, currently the only female judge on the Supreme Court, described the judiciary as an essential institution in national governance. With expanded standing rules and broad powers, the court regularly addresses critical questions concerning India's future, upholding the rule of law whenever violations occur.

She emphasized that judicial independence is protected not only through judgments but also through judges' personal conduct, which must remain above suspicion. Political insularity, she added, is crucial for an impartial judicial system.

On November 26, a Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih also voiced concern over the "growing trend" of judgments being overturned by succeeding benches or specially constituted benches at the request of parties dissatisfied with previous verdicts.

The bench stressed that maintaining the finality of verdicts prevents endless litigation and preserves public confidence in the judiciary. They noted it had become necessary to restate the fundamental principle that judicial verdicts must maintain sanctity and finality to uphold the rule of law.

They concluded that judicial power derives its strength less from perfect decisions and more from confidence that once made, decisions remain settled.