Supreme Court judge Justice BV Nagarathna has raised a strong and timely caution against the emerging trend of judicial verdicts being overturned merely because the judges who authored them have retired, demitted office, or been replaced by a new bench. Speaking on Saturday at the International Convention on the Independence of the Judiciary held at OP Jindal Global University in Sonipat, Haryana, Justice Nagarathna highlighted the need to preserve stability, continuity, and respect for judicial decisions within the country’s legal system.

Her remarks come at a sensitive moment for the Supreme Court, which in recent months has witnessed multiple instances of its own verdicts being revisited or reversed by subsequent benches—developments that have drawn concern from within the judiciary itself.

Judgments Written in “Ink, Not in Sand”

Justice Nagarathna, currently the sole woman judge on the Supreme Court bench, delivered a pointed reminder that once a judgment has been delivered, it must hold its place in India’s legal framework regardless of changes in the judicial composition.

She emphasised that judicial independence today must include “assurance by our system of laws that a judgment once rendered by a judge will hold its anchor in time for it is written in ink and not in sand.” A verdict, she said, should not be discarded simply because “the faces have changed.”

Her call was directed at all key participants in the judicial ecosystem—advocates, litigants, lawmakers, and institutions—urging them to respect judgments and challenge them only through established legal traditions, rather than through attempts to secure favourable benches or exploit transitions in judicial leadership.

Recent Examples of Overturned Judgments

Justice Nagarathna’s comments are grounded in real and recent concerns. Earlier this month, the Supreme Court reversed its own order passed in May, which had barred retrospective environmental clearances for development projects. The November 28 order, issued by a bench led by then Chief Justice BR Gavai, allowed a builders’ association’s review plea and restored the practice of granting ex post facto environmental clearances.

Similarly, in September, the Supreme Court reversed another major decision. It upheld JSW Steel’s ₹19,000-crore bid for the acquisition of Bhushan Power and Steel Ltd under the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, overturning a previous order issued in May which had directed the liquidation of the company.

These reversals have sparked a wider debate on judicial consistency, stability of judgments, and the confidence that litigants and the public place in the finality of Supreme Court decisions.

Judicial Power, Governance, and Public Confidence

Justice Nagarathna reminded attendees that the judiciary plays a crucial role in India’s governance structure, especially given its liberalised rules of standing, its wide-ranging powers, and the broad spectrum of matters it is called upon to decide.

She noted that courts today are expected to safeguard the rule of law across all domains—from environmental regulation and governance disputes to complex business resolutions and individual rights cases. With such broad responsibilities, she said, the public’s trust in the judiciary must be sustained through consistent, principled, and final decisions.

Justice Nagarathna also underscored that judicial independence is safeguarded not only by the judgments judges write but also by the personal conduct of judges themselves. “A judge’s behaviour must be perceived as beyond suspicion,” she said, stressing that political neutrality is essential for a judiciary that commands credibility and fairness.

Supreme Court Bench Flags “Growing Trend” of Overturning Judgments

Justice Nagarathna’s remarks closely followed an observation made by another Supreme Court bench earlier in the week. On November 26, a bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih expressed concern about a “growing trend” in the apex court where judgments—whether delivered by sitting judges or those who have retired—are being revisited and overturned by succeeding benches.

The bench emphasised the importance of finality: “By upholding the finality of verdicts, not only is endless litigation prevented but public confidence in the judiciary is also maintained.” It added that the authority of the court relies not on the expectation of perfect decisions but on the assurance that once a decision is made, it remains settled.

The judges reiterated a foundational principle: judicial orders that determine issues between disputing parties are binding and conclusive. The certainty of those decisions ensures that justice is effectively served. Without such finality, they warned, the very strength of the judicial system comes into question.

A Debate That Strikes at the Heart of Judicial Integrity

The combined impact of Justice Nagarathna’s speech and the bench’s recent observations signals an introspective moment for the Supreme Court. Questions around judicial consistency, the influence of changing benches, and the pressures exerted by litigants seeking more favourable outcomes now occupy centre stage in discussions of judicial reform and independence.

Justice Nagarathna’s reminder—that judgments should not be “tossed out” simply because a new bench is in place—reflects deep concerns about preserving the sanctity of the institution. It underscores a belief that the authority of courts rests not in the personalities of judges but in the principles of law and continuity that bind judicial processes together.

As the judiciary continues to face complex disputes and heightened public scrutiny, her call for stability, respect, and principled adherence to tradition stands as a significant intervention in an ongoing debate—one that will shape how India approaches judicial independence and consistency in the years ahead.