The recent criticism by a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court of what it saw as a growing trend of judgments by the highest court being overturned by subsequent benches revisiting earlier verdicts has reopened an old debate on judicial review. Finality is a necessary element of any adjudicatory system; Article 141 thus makes Supreme Court judgments binding on all courts. Yet courts are not insulated from the possibility of oversight. This is why Article 137 permits judicial review. The court’s willingness to reconsider past directives is also an acknowledgement that the law must keep pace with societal transformation. The ruling in Puttaswamy (2017) — a judicial milestone — which affirmed the fundamental right to privacy, required the court to revisit earlier decisions that had taken a narrower view of personal liberties. Similarly, the striking down of Section 377 in Navtej Singh Johar (2018) followed a careful departure from the reasoning in Suresh Koushal (2013).

These revisions of earlier judgments did not dilute judicial authority; rather, they reaffirmed the court’s capacity to respond to the demands of contemporary life. A legal system that refuses to adapt risks stagnation, while one that corrects doctrinal missteps through controlled mechanisms of review upholds justice and flexibility. Given the sensitivity associated with the principle of a judicial review, the scope of a review has been kept limited to rectifying apparent weaknesses in a judgment. The court is also bound by procedural discipline set out in Article 145 and the Supreme Court Rules, which require a review petition to be filed within a strict timeline and be placed before the same bench. The criteria for granting a review of a judgment are exacting as well. The court has repeatedly clarified that review is not a disguised appeal, nor an opportunity for parties to seek a rehearing. In the light of these safeguards and clear examples from history, it cannot be denied that prudent reconsideration, even by other benches, has often preserved, rather than imperilled, the authority of the Supreme Court by ensuring that its judgments remain aligned with constitutional morality and the needs of the present.