In a significant act of self-correction on its final working day of 2025, the Supreme Court of India stayed its own 40-day-old order concerning the contentious Aravali dispute. This move, however, was not an isolated incident but rather the latest in a series of judicial reversals that marked the year, a trend the apex court itself has noted with grave concern for its own authority and credibility.
A Pattern of Judicial About-Turns
The year 2025 witnessed an unusual frequency of Supreme Court benches overturning orders passed by other benches within short intervals, often without any change in circumstances. This phenomenon, which legal observers suggest points to hurried original rulings or a judge-centric rather than principle-centric approach, spanned a diverse range of critical issues.
The cases that saw such judicial flip-flops include:
- The menace of stray dogs and protocols for their management.
- A governor's power to grant assent to bills passed by a state legislature.
- The ongoing ban on firecrackers.
- The legality of retrospective environmental clearances.
- The insolvency resolution of Bhushan Steel Ltd.
- And finally, the Aravali land conservation controversy.
Notable Cases of Reversal
Several high-profile cases exemplified this troubling pattern. In the Bhushan Steel case, the Supreme Court on May 2 quashed the acquisition of bankrupt Bhushan Power & Steel Ltd (BPSL) by JSW Steel under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) and ordered the company's liquidation. Merely three months later, on July 31, the court recalled that order. It finally upheld the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal's decision approving JSW Steel's Rs 19,700-crore resolution plan for BPSL on September 26.
The stray dogs case followed a similar trajectory. Taking suo motu cognizance of rising dog bites and rabies deaths, the SC on August 11 issued directions for catching strays and placing them in shelter homes. The case was transferred to another bench within a week, and the new bench on August 22 modified the order, directing that sterilized and vaccinated dogs be released back to their territories as per Animal Birth Control Rules, not confined to shelters.
In the Vanashakti petition concerning environmental law, a May 16 ruling that declared retrospective environmental clearances illegal was itself recalled in November by a three-judge bench through a 2:1 majority verdict.
The Court's Own Introspection and Warning
Alarmed by this growing trend, the Supreme Court explicitly addressed it in a judgment delivered on November 26. A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and AG Masih expressed that it was "painfully" observing this pattern, which risked undermining the court's authority and public confidence in the judiciary.
The bench highlighted that judicial discipline, propriety, and comity demand that a subsequent bench defers to the view of an earlier bench, unless the initial order is grossly erroneous or palpably wrong. In such instances, the proper recourse is through a review or curative petition, not by constituting special benches for a re-hearing at the behest of a party aggrieved by the original verdict.
The judges emphasized that the object of Article 141 of the Constitution is to ensure that a Supreme Court verdict settles a legal controversy finally, establishing a law that all courts must follow. The frequent overturning of orders, they implied, destabilizes this very foundation of judicial precedent and consistency.
This rare moment of self-introspection by the apex court underscores a critical year where its procedural stability came under scrutiny. The repeated reversals not only created legal uncertainty for the parties involved but also sparked a broader conversation about the processes that safeguard the Supreme Court's enduring credibility as the final arbiter of law in India.
