A year of changing views in the Supreme Court

The year 2025 saw the Supreme Court ‘clarify’, ‘modify’ and ‘recall’ its decisions in a variety of issues ranging from stray dogs to retrospective environmental clearances to pollution norms in response to either public furore or on the urging of authorities.

The past months even witnessed the court answer a Presidential Reference against the basic grain of its own judgment pronounced in the Tamil Nadu Governor case.

The shifting of positions on cardinal issues occurred during a year in which the nation saw three Chief Justices of India, even as the pendency climbed steadily, and is perched at an all-time high of 92,118 on December 31, 2025.

When asked once whether the Supreme Court itself was contributing to its already heavy burden of pendency by time and again reviewing its own decisions, Chief Justice Surya Kant brushed off the question by pointing to instances in which the court had re-examined judgments as old as 30 years.

Meanwhile, the Chief Justice has assured the court would convene even in the “middle of the night" for the cause of justice. Vacation Benches assembled thrice during the winter vacations to hear urgent cases, one of them being a suo motu matter to stay its own judgment in the Aravalli case.

In the suo motu Aravalli case, the Vacation Bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant admitted prima facie that the November 20 judgment of the court, based on a government panel’s definition of the Aravalli hill range, had “omitted to expressly clarify certain critical issues”.

The court acknowledged that it had revived the case after a “significant outcry among environmentalists”. Keeping the November judgment delivered by a coordinate Bench “in abeyance”, the Bench agreed that the “public dissent and criticism appear to stem from the perceived ambiguity and lack of clarity in certain terms and directives issued by this court”.

This is not the first time the court, the final arbiter of the law and the Constitution, has re-examined its own decisions arrived at by minute application of the judicial mind. In May 2025, the court held that the Centre’s grant of ex-post facto or retrospective environmental clearances (EC) to building projects and constructions was a “gross illegality” and an anathema.

Months later, in November, a majority judgment by another Bench headed by then Chief Justice (now retired) B.R. Gavai recalled the May judgment on the ground that demolishing huge constructions and projects okayed through retrospective clearances would only cause more environmental harm and lead to extensive financial loss.

The year saw marathon hearings held by a five-judge Bench to answer a Presidential Reference on whether Governors and the President ought to adhere to a timeline to deal with State Bills despite objections raised by Tamil Nadu and Kerala on their very maintainability.

The States argued that the questions of the President were already settled conclusively by a Division Bench in an April 8 judgment in the Tamil Nadu Governor case, and the Reference was basically an appeal or a review in disguise to “disturb the findings and nullify the effect of the judgment".

However, the five-judge Bench justified entertaining the Reference by saying that the April judgment had led to a “state of doubt or confusion” that may impede the smooth functioning of the Constitution. But the “confusion” has doubled with the court speaking in two voices — a judgment and a Presidential Reference opinion — on the same issue. Adding to the problem is the court’s acceptance of the government’s stance that it did not want to set aside the April 8 judgment, and the Reference was only meant as a “clarification of constitutional principles for future governance”.

In December, even as AQI readings hit the ‘severe’ mark in Delhi, the apex court modified its August 12, 2025 order and directed that no coercive steps should be taken against owners of BS-IV vehicles and later emission versions on the ground that they were 10 years old (in the case of diesel engine) and 15 years old (in the case of petrol engine).

The court's flips were in view in the stray dogs case. On August 11, a Division Bench directed the animals to be captured and not released “under any circumstances”. Following protests by animal protection groups, a three-judge Bench took up the case days later, on August 22, to find the earlier order “too harsh”. It ordered that stray dogs be captured, sterilised, dewormed and “released back to the same area from which they were picked up”.

On November 7, the court changed its position to direct municipal authorities to “forthwith remove” stray canines found within the premises of educational institutions, hospitals, sports complexes, bus stands, and railway stations to “designated shelters” and “not release them back to the same location from which they were picked up”.