Supreme Court Flags ‘Growing Trend’ of Succeeding Benches Altering Earlier Verdicts

The Supreme Court on November 26, 2025 expressed concern over a growing trend in the apex court wherein verdicts pronounced by judges are being overturned by succeeding benches or specially constituted benches at the behest of litigants attempting to reopen settled Supreme Court verdicts.

Court observed thus while dismissing a plea by West Bengal murder-accused Sk. Md. Anisur Rahaman seeking relaxation of a bail condition that restricts him to the city of Kolkata.

The bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih said the object of Article 141 of the Constitution seems to be that 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.

"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,'' the bench said.

Judicial discipline, the division bench said, requires subsequent benches to follow earlier ones unless the earlier decision is so patently wrong that only review or a curative petition is appropriate.   

The bench emphasised 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 the apex 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,'' the bench said.

In the present case, applicant Sk Md Anisur Rahaman faced trial along with co-accused for killing his political rival on October 7, 2019. He was granted bail on January 3, 2025 by the Supreme Court on a condition that he would remain confined to Kolkata and would not visit Purba Medinipur, West Bengal.

Dissatisfied with the condition that restricted his movements, he applied for modification, which was rejected on May 5, 2025 by a coordinate bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, holding that no case was made out “at that stage”.  

In a fresh application, he contended that such a condition is an unreasonable restriction on his right to liberty protected by Article 21 of the Constitution.

Having heard the counsel for the parties, the present bench observed that the developments, which included the de facto complainant resiling from his stand and almost 10 police witnesses turning hostile apart from other witnesses and the State giving direction for withdrawal of prosecution (ultimately set aside), did leave a very bitter taste in the mouth.

The bench, however, rejected an application filed by the victim's brother to cancel the bail, even after agreeing that the State seemed to have crossed the line of being an honest and fair prosecutor and bordered on becoming a real facilitator for the accused in the sessions trial to evade conviction. 

"There is also little doubt that witnesses for the prosecution have turned hostile, but that Anisur is directly responsible for the damage caused has not been conclusively established before us. Be that as it may, having regard to the stage the trial has progressed, we do not consider any useful purpose being served by cancelling the bail granted in favour of Anisur,'' the bench said.

Court noted Anisur’s previous application for modification was rejected by the bench presided over by Justice Oka. The present application had been filed on August 8, 2025, i.e., a couple of months after he demitted office. "The purpose is not far to seek. We perceive this to be an attempt to take a chance because of the changed scenario,'' the bench said.  

The bench emphasised that it is fundamental to the rule of law to maintain the sanctity and finality of judicial verdicts. "Judicial orders which determine issues arising between the parties to the lis bind them and its conclusive nature ensures resolution of disputes so that justice is served", the bench stressed.   

"The strength of judicial power lies less in the hope of perfection and more in the confidence that decisions, once made, are settled... By upholding the finality of verdicts, not only is endless litigation prevented but public confidence in the judiciary is also maintained,'' the bench said.

Citing Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra (2002), the bench said, judicial discipline, propriety and comity, which are also inseparable parts of a just and proper decision-making process, demand that a subsequent bench of different combination defers to the view expressed by the earlier bench, unless there is something so grossly erroneous on the face of the record or palpably wrong that it necessitates a re-look in exercise of inherent jurisdiction either by a review petition or through a curative petition.

In this case, the bench held, the very purpose of the order granting bail would stand frustrated if the condition requiring Anisur not to leave Kolkata were modified.   

"If any modification of such a condition is made now and thereby the stringency relaxed, that would not only amount to overstepping the order of this court granting bail but would send a wrong message of this court being unconcerned with the principle of finality of judicial decisions. The stringent condition imposed by the bench while granting bail being justified on facts and in the circumstances, and there being no significant change in circumstances warranting a reconsideration, we see no reason to interfere,'' the bench said.

Court also noted that applicant Anisur had been provided security cover by none other than the Superintendent of the police force of the district of which he is a permanent resident. 

If indeed there is any threat perception that endangers Anisur’s life in Purba Medinipur, it would be appropriate for him not to leave Kolkata till such time the trial is concluded, the bench said, rejecting the application for modification of the bail condition.

Case Title: Sk Md Anisur Rahaman Vs The State of West Bengal & Anr

Judgment Date: November 26, 2025

Bench: Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih