Oct. 19, 2024:
In India, the Supreme Court is quite flexible in changing its own verdicts. It is because of this, it is almost a routine to seek review after every landmark judgment. Take for example, the Supreme Court judgment in money-laundering case [Vijay Madanlal Chaudhary v. Union of India, (2023) SCCOnline SC 929]. The Supreme Court is now in the process of reconsidering it though it has been clarified and followed recently [V. Senthil Balaji v. State, (2024) 3 SCC 51]. This is possible because there is a Bench-system in the Supreme Court of India. One Bench may have different opinion than the other. Whenever a Bench gets opportunity to propagate its views, it does not hesitate, without bothering that law will be destabilised. Again referring to the Vijay Madanlal case, many were feeling uncomfortable the way it gave free hand to the Enforcement Directorate. In fact, we in TheLawyerics, observed one Sr. Advocate who argued this case, saying in the court itself immediately after the Judgment was pronounced, that struggle will continue. And he is now active in getting the law changed. It would have been better if Vijay Madan Lal had been the collective wisdom of the whole of the Supreme Court rather than of a Bench.
As against the above, the complete set of nine Judges in the US Supreme Court sit in a case. There is no scope for one Bench to differ with another. It is for this this reason Roe v. Wade (1973) could be tweaked after about 50 years (2022). Even while doing this, the US Supreme Court did not take upon itself the task of changing the abortion law. It returned the power to the respective legislatures in the USA to decide whatever they considered best.
It is left to the readers to evaluate which system is better or what are merits and demerits of each system. We in TheLawyerics believe that there should be flexibility for changing the law but not as frequently and as easily it happens in our Supreme Court.