A year of changing views in the Supreme Court

The year 2025 marked a significant period in the annals of Indian jurisprudence, witnessing the Supreme Court's dynamic and responsive approach to its own pronouncements. Far from being static, the apex court actively engaged in 'clarifying', 'modifying', and even 'recalling' its previous decisions across a diverse range of issues. This judicial agility, often spurred by public outcry or requests from governmental authorities, underscores the evolving nature of judicial review and its profound impact on governance, policy, and society in India.

At its core, the Indian judiciary, particularly the Supreme Court, possesses the power of judicial review, a fundamental feature of our Constitution. This power allows courts to examine the constitutionality of legislative enactments and executive orders. However, the events of 2025 highlighted an equally crucial, albeit less frequently emphasized, aspect: the Court's inherent power to review its *own* judgments. This power is explicitly enshrined in **Article 137** of the Constitution, which states that 'the Supreme Court shall have power to review any judgment pronounced or order made by it.' Additionally, **Article 142** empowers the Supreme Court to pass any decree or order necessary for doing 'complete justice' in any cause or matter pending before it, often invoked to provide flexible remedies and even to revisit earlier orders when justice demands.

What precisely happened in 2025? The Supreme Court demonstrated a willingness to revisit matters like judgments concerning stray dogs, retrospective environmental clearances, and pollution norms. For instance, decisions related to stray dogs often involve a complex interplay of public safety, animal welfare, and the responsibilities of municipal bodies. Initial rulings might have faced 'public furore' due to perceived imbalances, leading the Court to clarify or modify directives to ensure a more equitable or practical solution. Similarly, in the critical domain of environmental protection, the Court re-evaluated its stance on 'retrospective environmental clearances'. This refers to the contentious practice of granting post-facto approval to projects that commenced or even completed without the mandatory prior environmental impact assessment and clearance. Such modifications are pivotal, as they directly impact the 'polluter pays' principle and the very integrity of environmental governance, often invoking the spirit of **Article 48A** (Protection and improvement of environment) and the fundamental right to a healthy environment under **Article 21** (Right to Life).

Key stakeholders in this dynamic judicial landscape include, first and foremost, the **Supreme Court** itself, as the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution and laws. Then there are the **Union and State Governments/Authorities**, who often file review petitions or bring to the Court's attention the practical difficulties or policy implications of certain judgments. **Public interest groups, environmental activists, and civil society organizations** also play a crucial role, often initiating Public Interest Litigations (PILs) or mobilizing 'public furore' that draws judicial attention. Finally, the **affected parties**, whether they are industries seeking retrospective clearances or citizens impacted by pollution or stray animal issues, are directly influenced by these judicial shifts.

This dynamic approach holds immense significance for India. It reinforces the principle that justice is not rigid but adaptable, capable of correcting errors or responding to unforeseen consequences. For environmental governance, the Court's evolving stance on retrospective clearances can either strengthen or weaken the regulatory framework laid out in laws like the **Environmental Protection Act, 1986**, and the rulings of the **National Green Tribunal (NGT)**, established under the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010. A firm stand against retrospective clearances would reinforce environmental rule of law and sustainable development, while a more lenient approach could be exploited. Socially, issues like stray dogs highlight the Court's role in balancing diverse societal interests and public sentiment. Politically, the Court’s willingness to revisit its decisions can influence policy-making, prompting the executive and legislature to formulate more robust and foresightful laws and regulations.

Looking ahead, this trend of judicial review and self-correction implies several future implications. It could lead to increased judicial scrutiny of governmental actions, but also a more nuanced understanding of the practical challenges faced by the executive. There might be a greater emphasis on 'living constitutionalism,' where legal interpretations evolve with societal changes. However, it also raises questions about judicial certainty and predictability, as constant modifications could potentially undermine the finality of judgments. The balance between judicial activism (proactive intervention) and judicial restraint (deference to other branches) will remain a critical area of debate. Ultimately, the Supreme Court's actions in 2025 underscore its vital role as a guardian of the Constitution and a responsive institution dedicated to delivering complete justice in a complex and rapidly changing nation.