New Delhi: In a rare but increasingly visible trend, the Supreme Court has, in recent months, recalled or substantially modified its own orders in at least three high-stakes matters.
These cases span an extraordinarily wide range—multi-thousand-crore insolvency proceedings, directions on stray dog management, and a local panchayat dispute in Rajasthan. Yet, together, they reveal a judicial will to revisit, correct, and amend its decisions when confronted with factual inaccuracies, procedural lapses, or real-world constraints.
Under Article 137 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court may review its judgments through a formal petition pointing to errors of law, fact, or procedure. Recall, however, is a different and far more extraordinary power—an inherent jurisdiction the court exercises only in exceptional circumstances: fraud, non-joinder of necessary parties, lack of jurisdiction, or serious judicial error.
Crucially, a recall does not necessarily reopen the case on merits; it simply clears the ground to rectify a fundamental flaw in the earlier decision. However, the result of both review and recall is the same, i.e., altering the previous judgement under reconsideration.
The Supreme Court is the final court of adjudication and there is no higher court of law where an appeal against its judgment can be made. However, review, recall and curative are the measures provided in the current legal framework to seek a reconsideration of its judgement in question. A review is usually heard in chambers and by the same judges who deliver the original verdict. So, is curative.
Also Read: A tale of 2 Nithari verdicts—how same evidence 14 yrs apart led to opposing conclusions
Vanshakti judgment recalled
On 18 November, the Supreme Court, by a 2:1 majority, recalled its judgment in the Vanshakti case, which had barred the Union government from granting post-facto environmental clearances (ECs).
The earlier ruling—delivered 15 May by Justices Abhay S.Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan—had restrained the Centre from issuing retrospective ECs. That judgment had placed several major infrastructure projects, collectively worth nearly Rs 20,000 crore, in jeopardy. The majority opinion at the time held that certain permissible projects could receive ex post facto clearances.
The November bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) B. R. Gavai, along with Justice K. Vinod Chandran, overturned that view while allowing the review petition filed by the Builders Association of India (BAI). The judgement was delivered after the matter was heard at length in open court.
The bench held that the earlier judgement that prohibited post facto or retrospective ECs was a “gross illegality” and an “anathema.” The court stressed that enforcing the earlier ruling could have had “devastating effects” on public infrastructure—citing examples such as a fully-built AIIMS in Odisha and a greenfield airport in Karnataka.
Justice Bhuyan, who had authored the earlier verdict and was added as the third judge on the new bench, dissented. He reiterated that retrospective clearance “is derogatory to the environment” and that such clearance is an “anathema,” adding definitively: “‘Anathema’ means a curse.”
Although the court acknowledged the environmental implications, it emphasised that failing to modify the ruling could trigger an “extreme public interest crisis,” especially when there was no evidence of malicious intent behind the constructions.
Reopening liquidation order
In another significant intervention, the Supreme Court on 31 July reviewed and recalled its earlier order directing the liquidation of Bhushan Power & Steel Ltd (BPSL).
The original judgment dated 2 May had set aside the Rs 19,700-crore resolution plan submitted by JSW Steel, finding it in violation of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). Implementing that ruling would have forced the company into liquidation, risking thousands of jobs and disrupting key industrial operations.
Recalling the judgment, a CJI-led bench held that it had not applied the correct legal standards flowing from established IBC precedents. More unusually, the court noted a factual error: parts of the judgment reproduced submissions that had never been made during the hearing. It termed the misattribution a serious flaw that compromised the integrity of the decision.
The recall nullified the earlier judgment and reopened the dispute for fresh adjudication. Insolvency experts consider the move highly unusual, underscoring the court’s sensitivity to the economic tremors that accompany major IBC decisions.
The September judgment that followed reinstated the JSW Steel resolution plan, reaffirming the finality of approved plans and the primacy of creditor decisions.
Stray dogs order rolled back
On 22 August, the Supreme Court modified an 11 August directive relating to stray dog management in Delhi-NCR—a move welcomed by animal welfare groups and local authorities.
The earlier order required authorities to catch all stray dogs and keep them in shelters within eight weeks, prohibiting their release back into neighbourhoods. The directive triggered widespread concern, with critics warning that large-scale confinement was both legally unsound and practically impossible given the limited shelter infrastructure.
A three-judge bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and N. V. Anjaria revisited the matter, calling the earlier order “too harsh” and inconsistent with the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules, 2023. Those rules mandate that sterilised and vaccinated dogs must be released back in the same locality.
The modified order now allows dogs to be captured for sterilisation, vaccination, and deworming, but requires their release thereafter—except in cases of aggressive behaviour or suspected rabies. Municipalities must designate feeding zones, and public feeding outside these zones is prohibited.
The court accepted that its earlier direction had not sufficiently accounted for on-ground constraints, including the operational limits of the ABC framework. The modification reflects a more balanced approach that considers public health, child safety concerns, and animal welfare.
A fourth recall arose from a more contained but instructive dispute in the Uchhain Pradhan case from Rajasthan. Here, the Supreme Court withdrew a 1st September favourable order after finding that the petitioner, Himanshu Awana, a former BSP MLA’s son had concealed the fact that he had already been removed from the post of pradhan through a no-confidence motion.
A bench of Justices P.S.Narasimha and Atul S. Chandurkar found the suppression amounted to a fraud on the court. Last week, the bench noted that Himanshu committed a “serious act of misleading” the court and recalled the earlier relief. It imposed Rs 8 lakh in costs, noting that such abuse of judicial process would not be tolerated.
Also Read: Morality, massagers & sex toys: Why Delhi HC called for fixed standards to end subjective opinions
Divergent views
Supreme Court senior advocate Gopal Shankaranarayanan called the recent recalls “deeply disturbing.” He said this is not an isolated development but a pattern visible over the past two years, where “based on very little material or legal principle, the Supreme Court has started revisiting its final judgements.”
According to him, the court is no longer relying on the established principles governing reviews or curative petitions. Instead, he argued, “it has started with a conclusion that it wants to achieve – and then set about achieving it by first listing the cases before a particular bench who have a different view and then going ahead and evolving the judgement.” He warned that such an approach “does irreversible damage to the credibility of the court.”
When a final judgment is reopened, he said, the original judges and bench strength must be retained. “You have to maintain both to ensure the confidence and consistency in the system—which are two things that citizens expect—will continue.”
Shankaranarayanan also outlined the limited, recognised grounds for recalling a final judgment: necessary parties were not heard; judicial misconduct by the adjudicator was apprehended; essential material escaped the court’s notice, or binding law was overlooked.
He argued that today, however, “judicial personality—individual judges—seem to have taken centre stage,” influencing how matters were listed and how final judgments were reopened. This, he said, is part of a larger trend over the last three years: “(Former) CJI Chandrachud authored quite a few decisions where he reversed final judgements of the court. Justice Gavai has done the same.”
Shankaranarayanan added that frequent admissions of factual or procedural lapse were creating unease. “The admission of factual or procedural lapse by the SC is causing a disquiet in us—as lawyers involved in the case and members of the Bar – because even when we get a final judgement we don’t know if some sentiment will come to bear later which will cause a reversal.” This uncertainty, he said, is affecting not just lawyers but also clients and citizens, and “is beginning to reveal cracks within the judiciary among the so-called fraternity of judges.”
In contrast, senior advocate Sunil Fernandes cautioned against characterizing the recent recalls as a “trend,” even though he agreed some instances may appear unusual.
He attributed much of this to the fact that the CJI is the ‘master of the roster’, holding powers that no other judge—whether in the Supreme Court or any High Court—possesses. Because the CJI alone can exercise these extraordinary powers, their use naturally “sticks up for the sheer rarity, unusualness, exclusivity or uniqueness of this power.”
“We have to trust the chair of CJI that s/he would apply these powers with the best interest of justice in terms of the Constitution,” he added.
On judicial finality, Fernandes emphasised that the public often misunderstands the system. A two-judge bench decision does not attain absolute finality, because the Constitution itself provides remedies: “Under Article 137, there is provision of review and the Supreme Court precedent in the Ashok Hurra case of 2002 has a curative petition as well.”
In strict legal terms, he noted, “Until a curative (petition) is not dismissed—you can never say that the last word has been spoken by the SC in that matter.”
Fernandes also pointed at a structural reality: unlike the US Supreme Court, where all nine judges sit together, India’s apex court is polyvocal. “In India–34 judges don’t sit together… What we have in India is a polyvocal court—it sits in multiple division benches of two or three judges; there’s a possibility that at different times, the SC will have concurring judgments and sometimes, even at the same time there can be concurring judgments.”
Because the Supreme Court does not compartmentalize criminal and civil rosters the way the high courts do, “different judges might have different views on the various range of matters,” naturally giving rise to conflicting decisions—“a part and parcel of the court.” He added that, despite this fragmentation, “Till date, SC has done a fantastic job of maintaining that consistency – thus, we don’t have one Supreme Court but we have 17 Supreme Courts.”
Fernandes argued that the court’s ability to observe the impact of its judgments on the ground makes course correction a necessary feature, not a flaw. The Supreme Court, he said, “has the benefit of the recent past—to see how the judgement has worked itself out, what was the impact on the ground—and this flexibility and evolution is required so that the SC is not divorced from the ground reality.”
(Edited by Tony Rai)
Also Read: A battle over your Digi Yatra data is playing out in Delhi HC. It’s testing India’s privacy promises