FOR A COURT THAT STANDS FIRM

The Supreme Court has been revisiting too many of its own orders, affecting the principle of finality. The rising number of revision, review, and curative petitions is evidence of a malady that affects certainty and adds to pendency. Structural reforms from within the judiciary are called for

- 

THE Supreme Court is the custodian of India's 'living' Constitution and the final arbiter of the laws of the land.

Though one of the three equal pillars of the State, it holds an exalted position not only by constitutional design, but also in the public conscience, earned through its untiring efforts in upholding the Constitution and steadfast protection of citizens' rights. All citizens, including these authors, repose high expectations on the SC as it discharges its dharma of justice.

It is the final authority in ensuring closure to disputes. Though it may not necessarily always be right (due to human frailties), it is always final-and the institution has lived up to this expectation umpteen times. However, certain recent developments suggest that this finality is no longer assured. Judgements are being revisited, stayed, recalled, or altered-creating a perception that a matter is not truly settled even after the SC has pronounced its verdict.

This blurring of finality raises important questions on the certainty of law, the authority of judicial outcomes, and the stability of legal systems. Consider a few recent examples that happened in quick succession. The resolution plan of Bhushan Power and Steel was rejected in May while disposing of an appeal filed five years ago. At end July, a bench headed by the Chief Justice of India recalled the judgement for review, as it had not correctly considered the legal position laid down by a catena of judgements.