Why does the court repeatedly reverse its own decisions?
When the Supreme Court repeatedly reverses its own decisions, it becomes a matter of public concern. In 2025, the Supreme Court reversed eight of its own decisions. Many orders were reversed within weeks of their passage. It’s not that the Supreme Court hasn’t changed or amended its decisions in the past, but this has often occurred when a party appealed to a larger bench for review. However, the recent developments are different because these decisions were reversed within the court itself. In other words, the Supreme Court took suo motu cognizance and referred the cases to another bench, which reversed the decision of the first bench.
Legal experts say this is a first for the Supreme Court. If this trend continues, it is a matter of concern for the future of jurisprudence, as it will undermine the legitimacy of Supreme Court decisions. The issues on which decisions have been overturned range from judicial discipline to environmental matters, corporate issues, and stray dogs.
It is noteworthy that three of the eight decisions overturned were passed by a bench headed by Justice J.B. Pardiwala, the future Chief Justice of India (CJI). It is also interesting that these decisions began to be overturned during the tenure of Justice B.R. Gavai, who recently retired as CJI. This trend continues under the current CJI, Surya Kant. The most shocking reversal was the decision related to Aravalli mining.
A bench headed by then-CJI Gavai had approved the height-based definition suggested by a government committee for mining regulation on November 20. Following protests from environmentalists and social activists, a bench headed by CJI Surya Kant stayed that decision and constituted a new committee of subject experts to re-evaluate the issue.
The new order stated that the earlier decision was being reviewed in light of “public sentiment.” While the move to judicially review the issue in response to public outcry is welcome, it also raises questions about the manner in which the earlier decision was made. Did the previous bench not deliberate sufficiently before accepting the government committee’s elevation-based definition for the Aravalli Hills, considered the “green lungs” of Delhi and Haryana? Or is this stay an attempt to garner popularity?
The timing of the reversal of earlier decisions deepens the mystery. The first decision, giving the green light to mining in the Aravallis, came on November 20th, just three days before the retirement of then-CJI Gavai. This decision was overturned five weeks later, on December 29th.
During the winter vacation, CJI Surya Kant constituted a special bench for this purpose. Courts, especially the Supreme Court, are expected to carefully consider all legal aspects before passing an order. Once passed, the order must be binding.
A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and A.G. Masih had warned about the dangers of this new trend of reversing decisions. And this warning came just before the decision on mining in the Aravallis was overturned. Clearly, their cautionary words were ignored.
The two judges had said that ‘a decision by a bench on a legal issue should end the dispute, as it is final… But reopening a decision merely because a different view later appears to be preferable would defeat the very purpose of enacting Article 141… It would undermine the authority of the court and the value of its decisions.’
The Supreme Court is currently walking a fine line between government pressure, public interest, and the Constitution. The year 2025 has highlighted the difficulties of balancing these three. Now, it remains to be seen what 2026, with a new CJI, brings. The judiciary is the final authority for determining constitutionality in governance.
Courts, especially the Supreme Court, are expected to carefully consider all legal aspects before passing any order. Once passed, the order should be binding.
