In a significant development on Monday, a Bench led by the Chief Justice of India issued a stay on a judgment delivered just last month concerning the ecologically sensitive Aravalli range. While the substantive outcome of protecting the hills may be applauded by environmentalists, the manner in which this reversal was achieved demands critical examination. This incident is not isolated but appears to be part of a larger, concerning pattern within the apex court's recent functioning.
The Growing Trend of Swift Judicial Reconsideration
The Supreme Court revisiting its own orders has become a more frequent occurrence in recent months. While courts have always possessed the power to correct errors, historical precedents like A K Gopalan v State of Madras being reconsidered in Maneka Gandhi, or I C Golaknath in Kesavananda Bharati, are often cited in defense. However, these comparisons are flawed. Those landmark reversals happened after considerable time, through sustained doctrinal evolution and meticulously reasoned judgments. They represented constitutional growth, not immediate improvisation.
The core issue today is not the act of reconsideration itself, but the speed, manner, and procedural route through which it is increasingly being undertaken. This trend strikes at the heart of foundational legal principles: consistency, predictability, and, crucially, the finality of judgments. These are not mere academic ideals. They allow citizens and litigants to plan their affairs, guide lower courts in uniform application of the law, and ensure that the executive complies with judicial decisions in full, not selectively.
Bypassing Established Constitutional Frameworks
The Constitution, under Article 137, grants the Supreme Court a review jurisdiction, but this power is deliberately narrow and constrained. The court itself has held that a judgment is final, and departure is justified only under circumstances of a "substantial and compelling character" or to correct an "error apparent on the face of the record." The grounds are strict: mere disagreement or the possibility of an alternative view is insufficient.
What is increasingly alarming is the emergence of alternative procedural routes that achieve the effect of a review while sidestepping these strict constitutional confines. Two recent examples underscore this shift:
- The Presidential Reference on Bills: A reference under Article 143 was used, in substance, as a de facto review of an earlier judgment that had imposed timelines on gubernatorial assent to bills. The court, while asserting the reference was not an appeal, nonetheless set aside key conclusions of the prior decision.
- The Allahabad High Court Judge Case: In August, the SC issued intrusive directions against a High Court judge, only to withdraw them days later not through a formal review petition, but "in deference" to a written request from the CJI.
These episodes point to a troubling development: swift course-correction that bypasses the disciplined, transparent framework of review jurisdiction. This creates opacity, with no clear trigger, articulated threshold, or uniform reasoning standard for when a judgment is truly final.
Root Causes and the Path Forward
Several factors may explain this phenomenon. The court is increasingly tasked with adjudicating complex, politically salient issues that require extensive deliberation and hearing all stakeholders. Sometimes, decisions are rendered without hearing relevant parties, leading to unforeseen consequences and hurried corrections, as seen in the community dogs matter. Furthermore, broad interim orders, issued as stop-gap measures, often carry the weight of final directions but remain easier to modify.
None of this suggests the court should never revisit its decisions. Reconsideration is inevitable and sometimes necessary. However, it must occur firmly within the confines of the Constitution and through established procedural discipline. The court's enduring institutional strength and legitimacy lie not in deciding quickly, but in deciding well—through time, thorough deliberation, and unwavering adherence to due process. The stay of the Aravalli judgment, while welcome for its outcome, serves as a stark reminder of the importance of the journey, not just the destination, in upholding the rule of law.
The analysis is based on the opinion written by Swapnil Tripathi, who leads Charkha, the Constitutional Law Centre at the Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy. The views expressed are personal. First published on: December 31, 2025, at 04:02 PM IST.
