Can a Supreme Court ruling be overturned? How precedent works

What the law says

The starting point: a Supreme Court judgment is final, and binds everyone

Article 141 of the Constitution says the law declared by the Supreme Court is binding on all courts in India. Finality is the rule, and it is deliberate: if any judgment could be reopened at will, the law would never settle and nobody could rely on it. So the honest answer to "can a Supreme Court ruling be overturned" is yes, but the doors are few and each is narrow. Here they are, from the smallest opening to the widest.

Door one: the review petition

Under Article 137, the Supreme Court can review its own judgment, and the same test applies to a High Court under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. But this is not a second appeal. A review is allowed only on tight grounds: an error apparent on the face of the record, or the discovery of new and important evidence that could not have been found earlier with due diligence, or a similar ground.

The key word is "apparent". The error has to be one you can see by looking at the record, not one that takes a long chain of reasoning to uncover, and if two views were reasonably possible, the Court adopting one of them is not an error at all, as the Supreme Court explained in Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati (2013). You cannot use a review to re-argue the merits or re-appreciate the evidence, that would make it "an appeal in disguise", which courts firmly refuse. Even a later change in the law, or a different decision by another bench, is not a ground to review a concluded judgment. A review is filed quickly, within 30 days, and once it is dismissed, a second review is barred. In short, this door corrects mistakes, not disappointments.

Door two: the curative petition

If the review is dismissed and a real injustice remains, there is one last, extraordinary door: the curative petition. It does not flow from the review power. It comes from the Supreme Court's own inherent power under Articles 129 and 142 to do complete justice, a power the Constitution Bench recognised in Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra. It is invoked as a duty to justice, not a matter of routine, and only to cure a gross, manifest miscarriage of justice or an abuse of the Court's process.

How rare it is shows in when it works. In Surendra Koli v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2025), the Court used curative jurisdiction to set aside a conviction and acquit, because that conviction rested on the very same evidence that had been rejected as unreliable in identical companion cases, so the Court's own final orders were speaking in contradictory voices on the same record. That is the kind of situation a curative petition is for. It is not a "second review", and there is no fixed time limit; it must be filed within a reasonable time.

Door three: a larger bench reconsiders and overrules

The widest door, and the one that actually changes the law rather than just fixing one case, is a larger bench overruling an earlier one. A bench of the Supreme Court is bound by an earlier decision of a bench of equal or greater strength. So if a two-judge bench thinks an earlier ruling is wrong, it cannot simply decide the opposite; judicial discipline requires it to refer the question to the Chief Justice to constitute a larger bench, as the Court held long ago in Tribhuvandas Purshottamdas Thakur v. Ratilal Motilal Patel (1967). A larger bench then overrules the smaller one, and for a substantial question of interpreting the Constitution, at least five judges must sit. This is how a settled position gets reconsidered: a two-judge view can be re-examined by three, a Constitution Bench by a larger Constitution Bench, and so on. When a larger bench does overrule an earlier view, it can sometimes apply the new position only going forward, though the usual rule is that an interpretation of the law relates back.

How precedent actually binds: the ratio, not every line

This is the part most people get wrong, and it is worth understanding, because it is the heart of how precedent works. Under Article 141 the Supreme Court's declared law binds every court, but what binds is the ratio decidendi, the legal reasoning on which the point was actually decided. Stray observations (obiter), the specific facts, and the ultimate relief the Court granted in that case do not bind, as the courts have explained in Amil Kumar Kalita v. State of Assam (2023) and Madhya Pradesh Housing Board v. B.S.S. Parihar (2015). A judgment is read in the context of its facts, and, as the Court has said, it must never be read like a statute. So when someone says "the Supreme Court held X", the real question is what principle it decided, not what a single sentence, lifted out, seems to say.

What you can do

1. Start from finality. A Supreme Court judgment binds every court and is meant to be final, so plan around it rather than assuming it will be undone; the exceptions are genuinely narrow.
2. Use a review only for a patent error. If there is an error obvious on the record, or genuinely new evidence you could not have produced earlier, a review petition is the first door, but it must be filed quickly and cannot be a re-argument of the merits.
3. Treat a curative petition as a true last resort. After a review is dismissed, a curative petition is available only for a gross miscarriage of justice, not as a third attempt to win the same argument.
4. Do not expect a later change in the law to reopen your case. A subsequent ruling you prefer, or a change in the law, is not a ground for review, and it does not reopen a case that has already become final.
5. Understand that the law changes through larger benches. A settled view is revisited when a bench refers it upward and a larger bench overrules it, not because a smaller bench simply disagrees.
6. When you rely on a judgment, rely on its ratio. Base your argument on the principle the Court decided, not on a stray line or the particular facts, because only the ratio binds.
7. Get proper advice for anything serious. These doors are narrow and technical, and a petition that is really an appeal in disguise will be dismissed, sometimes with costs, so a lawyer's read of whether a genuine ground exists is worth it.

Cases that matter

Lily Thomas v. Union of India (Supreme Court, 2000). A review cannot be treated as an appeal in disguise, and the mere possibility of two views is not a ground for review; once a review is dismissed, no further review lies. The judgment also restated the hierarchy rule: larger benches overrule smaller ones, and coordinate benches follow each other.

Surendra Koli v. State of Uttar Pradesh (Supreme Court, 2025). Curative jurisdiction, flowing from Articles 129 and 142 and recognised in Rupa Ashok Hurra, is a narrow, exceptional power to prevent abuse of process and cure a gross miscarriage of justice. The Court used it to acquit where a conviction rested on the same evidence rejected as unreliable in identical companion cases.

Tribhuvandas Purshottamdas Thakur v. Ratilal Motilal Patel (Supreme Court, 1967). Certainty in the law requires that judges not ignore decisions of coordinate or superior benches. A bench that thinks an earlier decision needs reconsideration must not decide the point itself, but refer it so that the Chief Justice can constitute a larger bench.

Amil Kumar Kalita v. State of Assam (Gauhati High Court, 2023). Under Article 141, only the ratio decidendi, the reasoning and principle on which a case was decided, is binding as law declared. Findings of fact and the ultimate relief granted are not binding precedent, and a decision without reasoning on the point is not "law declared".