New Delhi, Nov 30 (PTI) Verdicts should not be "tossed out" merely because the judges who authored them have changed or demitted office, Supreme Court judge Justice BV Nagarathna said, as she flagged her concern over recent instances of judgements being overturned by succeeding benches of the apex court.

She was speaking at the International Convention on the Independence of the Judiciary at the OP Jindal Global University in Haryana's Sonipat on Saturday.

Justice Nagarathna said an evolved understanding of judicial independence warrants the "assurance by our system of laws" that a judgement once rendered by a judge will hold its anchor in time for it is written in "ink and not in sand." "It is a duty of the many participants of the legal fraternity and governance framework to respect a judgement for what it is, raise objections only in accordance with traditions embedded in law and not attempt to toss it out solely because the faces have changed," she said.

Earlier, this month the top court recalled its order passed in May that had barred retrospective environmental clearances for development projects.

On November 28, a bench headed by then Chief Justice of India BR Gavai allowed a review petition of a builders association and lifted the ban on ex post facto environmental clearances for different projects.

Similarly, in September the top court upheld steel major JSW Steel Ltd's over Rs 19,000-crore bid to acquire Bhushan Power and Steel Ltd (BPSL) through the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) route, reversing its order of May which directed the liquidation of the company.

Justice Nagarathna, the lone woman judge at present in the apex court, said the judiciary is an institution integral to the governance of the country.

"With liberalised rules of standing, wide powers and a range of remedies, the court is frequently called upon to decide a whole spectrum of questions concerning the future of Indians.

"Today, the judiciary is seen as having a duty to ensure the rule of law, whenever infractions may occur," she said.

Justice Nagarathna pointed out that the independence of the judiciary is protected not only through the judgements judges write, but also through their personal conduct.

A judge's behaviour must be perceived as beyond suspicion, she said, adding that political insularity is essential for an impartial judicial system.

On November 26, the Supreme Court expressed concern over a "growing trend" in the apex court of judgments being overturned by succeeding benches or specially-constituted benches at the behest of parties aggrieved by the previous verdicts.

A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih said that by upholding the finality of verdicts, not only is endless litigation prevented but public confidence in the judiciary is also maintained.

"We have rather painfully observed a growing trend in this Court (of which we too are an indispensable part) of verdicts pronounced by Judges, whether still in office or not and irrespective of the time lapse since pronounced, being overturned by succeeding benches or specially constituted benches at the behest of some party aggrieved by the verdicts prior in point of time," the bench said.

The top court said though elementary, it requires restatement that it is fundamental to the rule of law to maintain the sanctity and finality of judicial verdicts.

"Judicial orders which determine issues arising between the parties to the lis (dispute) bind them, and its conclusive nature ensures resolution of disputes so that justice is served. The strength of judicial power lies less in the hope of perfection and more in the confidence that decisions, once made, are settled," the bench said. PTI MNL VN VN

Judicial verdicts should remain final despite changes in judges to preserve rule of law and public confidence. Finality of judicial verdicts is essential to preserve the rule of law and public confidence; verdicts should not be set aside simply because the judges who authored them have changed or demitted office. Recent reversals of orders, including on retrospective environmental clearances and a corporate insolvency liquidation direction, exemplify concerns about decisions being reopened by succeeding benches at the behest of aggrieved parties. Upholding verdict finality ensures judicial orders binding parties are conclusive, prevents endless litigation, and sustains trust in the judiciary.