Can Judicial Opinion of the Supreme Court Change from Bench to Bench?
🔹 1. Doctrine of Stare Decisis vs. Judicial Discipline
The doctrine of stare decisis means that courts must follow the precedents set by higher courts. In the context of the Supreme Court, its earlier decisions are binding on all lower courts and even on itself to maintain consistency.
However, judicial discipline requires that if a later bench disagrees with a previous decision of a bench of equal strength, it must refer the matter to a larger bench rather than overruling it directly.
🔹 2. Binding Nature of Precedents
As per Article 141 of the Constitution of India:
"The law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts within the territory of India."
However, this does not mean that the Supreme Court cannot depart from its earlier judgments. The key issue is whether the subsequent bench is of equal, lesser, or larger strength.
🔹 3. Change from Bench to Bench – Permissibility
A coordinate bench (same number of judges) cannot overrule a previous decision of another coordinate bench. If it disagrees, it should refer the matter to a larger bench.
🔹 Key Case Laws:
✅ Union of India v. Raghubir Singh (1989) 2 SCC 754
Held: The Supreme Court has the power to overrule its earlier decisions in the interest of justice and constitutional interpretation.
Importance: The Court acknowledged that the law must evolve with societal changes and changing conditions.
✅ Bengal Immunity Co. Ltd. v. State of Bihar AIR 1955 SC 661
A larger bench of 7 judges overruled the earlier decision of a 5-judge bench in State of Bombay v. United Motors.
Held: The doctrine of stare decisis is not an inflexible rule. Precedents can be overruled if found erroneous.
✅ Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community v. State of Maharashtra (2005) 2 SCC 673
Held: If a bench of equal strength finds a previous decision to be incorrect, it cannot overrule it. It must refer the case to a larger bench.
Key Quote:
“A Bench of lesser or co-equal strength cannot take a view contrary to the view taken by a larger or co-equal Bench.”
✅ Keshav Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT AIR 1965 SC 1636
The Supreme Court stressed the importance of stare decisis for legal certainty but clarified that it is not a rule of law and can be departed from in exceptional cases.
✅ Patan Jamal Vali v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2021) 5 SCC 1
A 3-judge bench clarified the interpretation of the term “mental illness” under the POCSO Act and took a slightly different view from earlier judgments but did not directly overrule; it refined the understanding based on changed social context and evidence.
🔹 4. Summary of When Judicial Opinion Can Change
| Situation | Can Opinion Change? | How? |
|---|---|---|
| Smaller bench vs. larger bench | ❌ No | Must follow the larger bench's decision |
| Coordinate bench (equal strength) | ❌ No | Must refer to larger bench if it disagrees |
| Larger bench vs. smaller bench | ✅ Yes | Can overrule the smaller bench |
| New facts or social changes | ✅ Yes | Can revisit precedent in exceptional cases |
🔹 5. Practical Example: Sabarimala Case
Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala (2018) 10 SCC 1
A 5-judge Constitution Bench allowed entry of women into the Sabarimala temple.
Kantaru Rajeevaru v. Indian Young Lawyers Association (2020)
The matter was referred to a larger 7-judge bench to reconsider not just Sabarimala, but also other religious issues.
✅ Conclusion
Yes, judicial opinions can change from bench to bench, but only in a structured and disciplined manner:
Coordinate benches cannot overrule each other.
Larger benches can overrule smaller or coordinate benches.
The Court may depart from precedent in exceptional circumstances, such as changes in constitutional interpretation, social context, or error in earlier decisions.
This flexibility ensures that while the Supreme Court promotes legal certainty, it also remains responsive to justice and evolving societal needs.
RELATED Blog
0 comments