Judicial course corrections & the need for judicial finality

A constitutional court exists in a democracy, provokes strong emotions, and functions under the public eye. But there isa difference—crucial and constitutional— between recognising a judgment’s public consequences and letting public opinion shape judicial outcomes. In 2025, that line began to blur.

- Insiyah Vahanvaty is the author of The Fearless Judge. Ashish Bharadwajis professor & dean of BITS Pilani’s Law School in Mumbai. The views expressed are personal

Over the last year, the Supreme Court reversed eight of its own judgments, a tally rare in recent memory. Several others were recalled, reopened, or substantially modified. Many of these did not emerge from the slow grind of doctrinal reconsideration. Instead, they occurred sometimes within weeks or months, often following waves of media outrage, street-level anxiety, and political discomfort. While each may be defensible on its own, the cumulative effect raises a troubling question: Are judicial course corrections being driven by legal reconsideration, or by public unease?

Some examples stand out. In August 2025, the court ordered authorities to remove stray dogs from public spaces and place them in shelters. But after weeks of public outrage, it allowed their return to the streets under revised guidelines. A November judgment defining the Aravalli hill range was put in abeyance after widespread criticism, with the court setting up a committee to reassess ecological impacts. Earlier in the year, the court had expanded a year-round ban on firecrackers in the asphyxiated Delhi National Capital Region (NCR) on environmental grounds, but later permitted green firecrackers during Diwali.