A self-critical observation made by the Supreme Court on Saturday merits detailed discussion. Justices Dipankar Dutta and Augustine George Masih cited in a critical tone the tendency in which a matter decided by one bench of the court is considered by another bench later and given a verdict reversing the previous one. The two-judge bench pointed out that if a party, unhappy with the order of one bench, files a similar complaint in that or a succeeding bench after the retirement of someone on the bench, the court allows it, and then gives a verdict at variance with the first one, it will destroy the finality of the Supreme Court's judgments and damage the credibility of the judiciary. It is assumed that judgments are prepared on the basis of deep constitutional knowledge and extensive examination. Therefore, it is not right that they are constantly changed. At the same time, there is a rare possibility that some judgments may become incomplete or inadequate due to human errors or changes in circumstances. In such cases, there is a provision for filing a review petition and a correction petition for that. However, the practice that has become a habit in recent times is not what the provision envisions. What has now come to be criticised is that after the composition of the bench has changed, the matter decided again comes up before the court through another petition.
An example is the harm caused to the Environmental Protection Act, 1986. The law clerly states that environmental clearance should be obtained in advance before starting projects. Notifications were issued in 1994 and 2006, emphasising this. Large industrial enterprises should not start before an expert committee studies their impact and gives recommendations. Starting without prior clearance is a violation of the law. This was necessary to reduce the damage that the development fever causes to the environment, climate and survival. Where remedial measures should be prepared in advance, if they are put in place after the environmental damage is done through the start of the project, obviously the law becomes ineffective. It is pointless to grant permission with retroactive effect after it has already started. However, companies and entrepreneurs violated this law and started projects and exerted pressure for permission. It was this pressure that led to the notification in 2017 and the order in 2021, stating that it was a one-time permit and could be issued with a penalty. In the ‘Vanashakti’ case filed against this, the two-judge bench gave a well-considered verdict that prior permission is mandatory. Granting permission later on a retrospective basis is against environmental protection. The court pointed out that the practice of granting permission for a project after irreparable damage to the environment has been caused, citing the money and labour spent, is a curse on the environment. What happened thence was unusual. The verdict in May 2025 that made prior permission mandatory was given by a two-judge bench headed by Justice AS Oka and comprising Justice Ujjal Bhuyan. After Justice Oka retired, a bench comprising Chief Justice BR Gavai (Chairman), Justice K Vinod Chandran and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan was formed to review it.
The majority verdict came out, with Justice Ujjal's dissent, that it is sufficient to obtain environmental clearance subsequently. Such a change happened despite environmental protection laws being violated and even the capital being filled with toxic air. The manner in which it happened is also undesirable. In another case, the bench granted bail to the accused in a murder case, after Justice Oka retired from the bench which issued the verdict, the prosecution approached the Supreme Court the other day, seeking a change in the verdict. In the recent Presidential reference, the verdict, which set a time frame for the governors and the President to take decisions on the bills, was changed by the Constitution Bench on the President's reference, and things have returned came back to square one with the old uncertainty. The verdict to shelter stray dogs in Delhi and the verdict to impose a complete ban on firecrackers in view of Delhi's air pollution were soon reversed. In all of these, the general assessment can be said to be that the revision is more harmful than the original verdict. Not only the method of the revision but also its content is not out of line with the public good. This certainly calls for reconsideration.