The Supreme Court has raised serious concern over what it described as a growing trend of litigants seeking out new benches to revisit or overturn orders previously delivered by the court. The warning came during the hearing of a plea filed by a murder accused who attempted to modify his bail conditions by approaching a different bench after his earlier request had been rejected.
The case involved an accused who had been granted bail on the condition that he could not leave Kolkata. This restriction was imposed by a bench led by Justice Abhay S Oka. After the same bench declined to relax the condition, the accused tried again, this time appearing before a new bench following Justice Oka’s retirement. The move drew sharp criticism from the bench headed by Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih.
The judges stressed that such attempts to reopen matters already settled undermine the authority of the court’s decisions and weaken the constitutional principle that Supreme Court rulings are final. They highlighted that this trend, if allowed to continue, could damage the consistency of legal interpretation and dilute the credibility of the judicial system.
The bench also noted recent instances where settled judgments in cases related to environmental issues, governance disputes, and insolvency matters had been revisited at the request of parties unhappy with earlier outcomes. The court cautioned that such practices risk creating confusion and instability in the law.
Rejecting the plea for modification of bail terms, the court held that there had been no change in circumstances to justify any interference. It added that altering the conditions now would effectively override a previous order and send a problematic message about the finality of judicial decisions.
The court reaffirmed that stability in the justice system depends on respecting the authority of earlier verdicts and avoiding repeated challenges through strategic bench selection.
