New Delhi: The Supreme Court’s only woman judge, Justice B.V. Nagarathna, Saturday struck a note of caution for the institution, publicly disapproving of the emerging trend in the top court to revisit and overturn its past rulings.
She called it the greatest challenge faced by the judiciary from within, quietly eroding the authority of judges who deliver verdicts that are overturned later. The judge also warned that such a practice threatens to shake public confidence in the institution.
Justice Nagarathna was delivering a speech at the International Convention on the Independence of the Judiciary: Comparative Perspectives on Rights, Institutions and Citizens at O.P. Jindal Global University, Sonipat.
Her remarks come days after a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court, comprising Justices Dipankar Dutta and Augustine George Masih, underlined the “painful” trend of the court rewriting its own verdicts. This, the bench said, affected the credibility of the institution. The observations were part of an order that denied modification of bail condition to a man facing murder charges.
The judges dismissed the plea to change the bail conditions, noting that the court had already settled the matter. They warned that attempts to reopen such settled issues undermine the authority of past rulings and run directly against the spirit of Article 141.
Article 141 lays down the principle of “stare decisis”, that directs courts to adhere to previous judgments. It essentially binds all courts to the law declared by the Supreme Court.
Speaking Saturday, Justice Nagarathna, who is on course to become the first woman Chief Justice of India in 2027, said: “The judiciary’s independence has evolved through the assurance by our system of laws that a judgement once rendered by a judge will hold its anchor in time, for it is written in ink and not in sand.”
She added, “It is a duty of the many participants of the legal fraternity and governance framework to respect a judgement for what it is, raise objections only in accordance with traditions embedded in law and not attempt to toss it out solely because the faces have changed.”
She forwarded her argument through the powerful lens of judicial independence, which is not a privilege granted to courts but a fundamental democratic right owed to every citizen. In the sharply reasoned address, the judge underscored that only the vigilant protection of this right can truly safeguard the rule of law and the credibility of institutions.
According to Justice Nagarathna, the importance of this independence was exemplified through Kesavananda Bharti vs State of Kerala (1973), where the verdict demonstrated independence in both decision-making and institutional structure, leading to establishment of the basic structure doctrine. The doctrine holds that while Parliament has the power to amend the Constitution, it cannot alter its fundamental or basic structure.
Beyond institutional independence, Justice Nagarathna highlighted three indispensable tenets brought forth by the challenges surfacing over the years: independence as duty and conduct, political insularity, and independence as confidence in posterity.
Quoting the Supreme Court in SP Gupta vs Union of India, she concluded by stressing on the critical need for a judge to be “independent of himself”. She stated that inner strength, cultivation of humility, and dedication to duty were necessary to curb personal passions and prejudices, underscoring that “it is the inner strength of judges alone that can save the judiciary”.
Chief Justice Surya Kant, who gave the inaugural lecture, highlighted the lasting importance of the Kesavananda Bharti case. He emphasised that the Supreme Court, in that landmark moment, chose the dual path of constitutional maturity and moral clarity by refusing to bend the Constitution. It demonstrated that a democracy need not grow old to grow wise.
He compared the basic structure of the Constitution with a khatt, a bedstead or cot, traditionally a handwoven bed with a wooden frame, often with ropes tied in an interlocking manner.
“The text provides the frame, the institutions form the legs, but the rope—that interlacing of restraint, balance and moral discipline—is what makes the entire structure useful, just, and lasting,” he said.
In recent months, the Supreme Court has recalled or substantially modified its own orders in at least three high-stakes matters. These span an extraordinarily wide range—multi-thousand-crore insolvency proceedings, directions on stray dog management, and a local panchayat dispute in Rajasthan.
Vaibhav Pant is an alum of ThePrint School of Journalism, currently interning with ThePrint
(Edited by Nida Fatima Siddiqui)