The Supreme Court has made a scathing attack on its own judges for overruling the judgments of earlier benches, which it said “would undermine this court’s authority and the value of its pronouncements”.
Under Article 141 of the Constitution, a judgment by the Supreme Court is “binding on all courts of the country”, including the top court, the bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih said on Thursday.
The bench observed while dismissing a plea for modification of the bail condition of murder accused Anisur Rahaman that he should be confined to Calcutta following his release. The bail condition was imposed by a bench headed by Justice Abhay S. Oka, which also rejected the accused’s application to modify the condition.
After Justice Oka’s retirement in May, Rahaman had filed a fresh application to modify the bail condition, which was rejected by the top court on Thursday.
The scathing observations come against the backdrop of a series of judgments/orders passed by sitting judge Justice J.B. Pardiwala in connection with the stray dog problem in the Delhi-NCR region and the fixing of a timeline for the President and governors in clearing the bills passed by the state legislatures.
The judgment passed by the two-judge bench headed by Justice Pardiwala on the powers relating to governors and the President was overruled by a five-judge constitution bench on a Presidential reference. Justice Pardiwala’s judgment on the stray dog menace was virtually overturned with several modifications by a subsequent three-judge bench.
In the Nithari serial killing case, the apex court used its curative powers to acquit convict Surendra Koli, despite three earlier benches dismissing his challenge to the death penalty imposed on him.
“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,” Justice Datta wrote in the judgment.
“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,” he said.
“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 prospect of opening up a further round of challenge before a succeeding bench, hoping that a change in composition will yield a different outcome, would undermine this 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,” he said.
The apex court said judicial discipline, propriety and comity, which were inseparable parts of a just and proper decision-making process, demanded that a subsequent bench of different combination deferred to the view expressed by the earlier bench, unless there was something “grossly erroneous” or “palpably wrong” that it necessitated a relook either through a review petition or a curative petition as explained in the Rupa Ashok Hurra vs Ashok Hurra case in 2002 by a constitution bench.