In a significant and nuanced reflection on judicial propriety, Supreme Court judge Justice B V Nagarathna emphasized that court judgments must not be reconsidered merely because the judges who originally authored them are no longer part of the bench. Speaking at the International Convention on the Independence of the Judiciary held at OP Jindal Global University in Sonipat, Haryana, she underscored that the permanence and credibility of judicial decisions rest on the stability of the institution rather than on the personalities within it.

Justice Nagarathna’s remarks were widely viewed as a subtle commentary on a growing trend: decisions of the Supreme Court being questioned or reopened by newly constituted or succeeding benches. This has become increasingly visible in recent years, often triggered by litigants dissatisfied with earlier verdicts seeking reconsideration through procedural mechanisms or by political pressure influencing judicial processes. Addressing this issue head-on, Justice Nagarathna underlined that judicial pronouncements are not to be treated as transient expressions but as legally binding determinations that deserve respect, finality, and continuity.

She argued that the assurance of judicial independence lies not only in the freedom judges enjoy while adjudicating cases but also in the enduring validity of the judgments they deliver. “A judgment once rendered should hold its anchor in time for it is written in ink and not in sand,” she said, eloquently capturing the essence of permanence expected of judicial decisions. If verdicts are frequently revisited simply because the composition of the bench has changed, she warned, the judiciary risks appearing inconsistent and vulnerable to manipulation.

According to Justice Nagarathna, the legal system must give the public confidence that judgments are the product of reasoned deliberation, not of the individuals who temporarily occupy judicial positions. While the judiciary must always remain open to correcting errors through established legal channels, such corrections must never stem from shifts in judicial personalities or ideological preferences. She stressed that any challenge to a verdict should follow the paths laid down in law, such as review petitions or curative petitions, rather than informal pressures or strategic bench-seeking.

In making this argument, Justice Nagarathna also highlighted the shared responsibility of all actors in the legal and governance ecosystem. Lawyers, litigants, government officials, and political actors must respect judicial outcomes and refrain from attempting to bypass the procedural safeguards meant to preserve judicial stability. “It is a duty of the many participants of the legal fraternity and governance framework to respect a judgment for what it is,” she said. To disregard judgments merely because the authors have changed, she argued, undermines the credibility of the court and encourages a culture of endless litigation.

Justice Nagarathna also spoke about the expanding role of the judiciary in contemporary India. With the liberalization of rules on who has standing to approach the courts, and with broad powers to issue a wide range of remedies, the courts find themselves deciding upon issues that shape the nation’s present and future. From fundamental rights and environmental concerns to governance questions and social justice issues, the judiciary’s influence has grown significantly. In this context, she noted, judicial integrity and stability become even more crucial.

She reiterated that the judiciary does not merely interpret laws; it safeguards the constitutional framework, upholds the rule of law, and often intervenes when institutional failures occur. Because of this vital role, it is essential that judicial decisions reflect consistency, predictability, and independence.

Justice Nagarathna also touched upon an equally important dimension of judicial independence: personal conduct. She stressed that the independence of judges is not protected solely through the judgments they write but also through their demeanor and behavior. Judicial officers must exhibit conduct that remains above suspicion, she said. A judge’s integrity is not only about avoiding actual wrongdoing but also about preventing any perception of partiality or external influence. “Political insularity,” she noted, is essential to ensure impartiality. Judges must remain above political pressures, affiliations, or appearances of bias to sustain public trust in the judicial system.

Her remarks resonate particularly strongly in the backdrop of concerns recently expressed by another Supreme Court bench. On November 26, a division bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih voiced alarm over an “emerging trend” in which litigants attempt to have decisions overturned by approaching newly constituted benches or pressing for special listings. The bench underscored that the finality of judgments is foundational to judicial functioning. Without finality, they warned, litigation would never end, and the faith of the people in the judicial process would erode.

The concerns expressed by the bench directly align with Justice Nagarathna’s broader critique of repeated efforts to invalidate judgments without following proper legal procedures. If verdicts are seen as temporary or unstable, the authority of the Supreme Court risks being diminished, and its ability to act as the final arbiter of justice is compromised.

Justice Nagarathna’s call, therefore, is not just an internal message to the judiciary but a broader reminder to the entire legal system and to society. Judicial independence is not an abstract constitutional ideal; it is a living principle that shapes how justice is delivered and how constitutional values are preserved. Respecting judgments, maintaining procedural discipline, and upholding judicial ethics are all part of protecting this independence.

In recentering the conversation around these themes, Justice Nagarathna highlights a fundamental truth: the judiciary’s strength lies in its credibility, and that credibility depends on the steadfastness of its judgments and the unimpeachable integrity of its judges. While governance requires fluidity and adaptation, judicial principles require consistency and stability. Verdicts cannot be ephemeral; they must have lasting force unless overturned through constitutionally sanctioned means.

Her speech invites legal practitioners, lawmakers, and the public to reflect on the importance of judicial finality and the delicate balance that protects the judiciary from external pressures. At a time when courts frequently find themselves pulled into politically charged matters, her remarks serve as both caution and guidance. They reaffirm that the judiciary is not just an institution of law but a pillar of democratic governance, whose endurance rests upon the permanence of its decisions and the unimpeachable character of its judges.