FINALITY, WITH A NARROW SAFETY VALVE

When the Supreme Court “reopens” a matter, it is usually not a second appeal—it is the Court using tightly drawn procedural doors to prevent a miscarriage of justice, or to manage ongoing compliance in long-running public interest cases.

- TDG NETWORK

In the Supreme Court's architecture, finality is not a slogan—it is a litigation policy. If judgments could be endlessly re-argued, the system would collapse under its own weight. That is why most "second chances" are designed to be exceptional: review, curative, and (in limited contexts) recall/clarification in continuing matters.

Review is the first safety valve. The Constitution permits the Supreme Court to review its judgments (Article 137), but the bar is intentionally high: it is meant to correct glaring errors, not to re-litigate facts. Many reviews are disposed of in chambers. Even listing review petitions “in open court” is treated as an exception, not the norm.