© The Indian Express Pvt Ltd
Journalism of Courage
Premium
Supreme Court frowns on ‘growing trend’ of own benches reversing Court orders
Recently, the Supreme Court, in the stray dogs matter, set up a 3-judge bench which did not carry forward the August 11 direction of a 2-judge bench to move all strays to dedicated shelters.
Amicus curiae Aparajitha Singh said children’s sports events were held despite a court ban during peak pollution. (file)
A two-judge bench of the Supreme Court Wednesday red-flagged what it called a “growing trend in” the top court “of verdicts pronounced by Judges, whether still in office or not and irrespective of the time lapse since pronounced, being overturned by succeeding benches or specially constituted benches at the behest of some party aggrieved by the verdicts prior in point of time” and said this “would undermine” the “court’s authority”.
Observing that “in the recent past, we have rather painfully observed” the “growing trend in this Court (of which we too are an indispensable part)”, the bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and A G Masih said, “To us, the object of Article 141 of the Constitution seems to be this: 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.”
Dismissing the plea of a murder accused seeking relaxation of his bail conditions, the bench said “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 … 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.”
Petitioner S K Md Anisur Rahaman, a West Bengal resident, who was accused of the murder of a political rival, was granted bail by a Supreme Court bench of Justice A S Oka (since retired) and Justice Masih on January 3 this year. The bail conditions included that he remained confined to Kolkata.
Although he moved an application for modification of the condition restricting his movements, this was dismissed on May 5 by another two-judge bench presided by Justice Oka. On August 8, he once again moved the court for modification of the condition.
Dismissing it, Justice Datta noted that the application was filed “a couple of months after” Justice Oka “demitted office”. The bench said, “The purpose is not far to seek. We perceive this to be an attempt to take a chance because of the changed scenario.” It said “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.”
And in a clear reference to what it called the “growing trend” of the Court’s judgments being reversed, it said “with an over looming sense of dissatisfaction and remorse, we propose not to walk that path”.
Story continues below this ad
Recently, the Supreme Court, in the stray dogs matter, set up a 3-judge bench which did not carry forward the August 11 direction of a 2-judge bench to move all strays to dedicated shelters. The court said the 3-judge bench was necessitated because another 3-judge bench had, in a matter relating to strays, called for a compassionate approach to the issue. More recently, on November 18, a three-judge bench, by a 2:1 majority ruling, recalled the Court’s May 16 two-judge order that had struck down a Central government notification allowing grant of environmental clearance for projects ex post facto – in short, clearance for projects after commencement.
Advertisement
Loading Recommendations...
Live Blog