New Delhi: The year 2025 was remarkable for the Supreme Court for several reasons. For one, it completed 75 years of existence, and second, it will be remembered for the reversals of its own orders.Last year the Supreme Court recalled at least eight of its own orders – three of which were passed by Justice J.B. Pardiwala’s bench – ranging from subjects like judicial discipline, environmental issues and corporate matters.The top court highlighted this “growing trend” in the November Sk. Md. Anisur Rahaman judgment. The bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and A.G. Masih “painfully observed” how “verdicts pronounced by Judges, whether still in office or not and irrespective of the time lapse since pronounced, [were] being overturned by succeeding benches or specially constituted benches at the behest of some party aggrieved by the verdicts prior in point of time.”The bench said, “The pronouncement of a verdict by a bench on a particular issue of law (arising out of the facts involved) should settle the controversy, being final, and has to be followed by all courts as law declared by the Supreme Court.”“However, if a verdict is allowed to be reopened because a later different view appears to be better, the very purpose of enacting Article 141 would stand defeated,” the bench added. It said that the “prospect of opening up a further round of challenge before a succeeding bench, hoping that a change in composition will yield a different outcome, would undermine this Court’s authority and the value of its pronouncements.”Stray dogsIn July 2025, the Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Pardiwala and R Mahadevan took suo motu note of a newspaper report headlines ‘City Hounded by Strays, Kids Pay The Price’. A month later on August 11, the bench made scathing observations on the “systematic failure of the concerned authorities over the past two decades” while issuing stark time-bound directions including banning stray dogs from public places, sterilising and immunising the stray dogs, action against those resisting this exercise, and building shelter homes, dog pounds for at least 5,000 dogs and a dedicated force to carry out the order if required.The Justice Pardiwala bench’s order was met with nationwide outrage with critics alleging that stakeholders were not heard, that it was in conflict with past orders on similar issues and that the order went beyond judicial limits. Beyond the interventions filed in the case, animal rights groups immediately knocked Supreme Court doors a day later seeking a stay on the August 11 order.The outrage prompted then Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai to transfer the matter to a different three-judge bench led by Justice Vikram Nath who not only stayed the August 22 order but expanded the ambit of the issue pan-India included all stray animals and issued directions of its own.The bench comprising Justices Nath, Sandeep Mehta and N.V. Anjaria attempted course correction and clarified that it did not promote indiscriminate culling of dogs. The new bench on August 22 partially stayed the August 11 order calling it “harsh” and highlighted the need “for a balancing exercise”. Justice Nath bench issued new directions on November 7 including banning stray animals from all public places, directing nationwide sterilisation and immunisation drives, directing the availability of anti-rabies vaccines, and fencing to prevent strays from straying while keeping the matter pending for compliance and further directions.AravallisThe top court constituted a special bench during its winter break in December 2025 to address concerns and the outcry for the protection of the Aravalli Hills that was allegedly compromised by its recent ruling.The bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant along with Justices J.K. Maheshwari and A.G. Masih took suo motu note of the issue of its November 20 judgment – delivered by former CJI B.R. Gavai – accepting a committee’s elevation-linked definition of the Aravallis for mining regulation.The December 29 order noted how the “lack of central uniformity” led the states of NCT of Delhi, Rajasthan, Haryana and Gujarat, “to adopt their own interpretative criteria and divergent definitions for demarcating the territorial extent of the range” thereby resulting in the “exigent need” for a “uniform” definition of the Aravallis. During the hearing the bench acknowledged that the definitions approved in its November 2025 order required further clarification and stayed the same.Green crackersDays before the Diwali festivities began, the Supreme Court in October 2025 reversed its almost seven-year-old absolute ban on firecrackers and allowed residents of Delhi-NCR to burst green crackers.The Supreme Court order, passed by ex-CJI B.R. Gavai – came despite the nation’s capital grappling with severe air pollution issues and concerns from the environmental lobby.The apex court’s reversal came on Delhi government’s plea seeking a relaxation on the fireworks ban to “balance out” environmental concerns and cultural practices. In its order, the top court took a “balanced approach” considering the needs and interests of the industry and the health of the general public.“Sadly, it is the rampant use by the general public, without awareness of its ill effects that causes the problem,” the court said further noting that despite the absolute ban people still managed to smuggle and burst crackers “especially during festive days” which caused a “more damaging effect than the green crackers now developed.”Presidential referenceThe Supreme Court on April 8, 2025, ruled that the Tamil Nadu governor R.N. Ravi’s indefinite delay in green-lighting bills passed by state legislative assemblies was “illegal” and “erroneous.” The bench – led by Justice Pardiwala – invoked its inherent powers under Article 142 of the constitution and sanctioned the 10 pending Bills passed by the state assembly.The Supreme Court further ruled that the concept of a ‘pocket veto’ or ‘absolute veto’ found no place in the constitution and that a governor was limited to three options: sign off on it, reject it, or reserve it for the President’s consideration and imposed strict timelines to exercise these options.However, a month later, in a rare instance, President of India Droupadi Murmu invoked the Supreme Court’s advisory jurisdiction and sought its opinion on 14 questions related to the powers of a governor and the President.The five-judge constitution bench deliberated on the issue and found the findings of the April judgment to be “erroneous”. The bench observed that governors enjoy discretionary powers and are not bound by the aid and advice of the council of ministers. The bench further concluded that the President of India and governors cannot be bound by timelines to sanction bills placed before them, and the courts do not have powers to ‘deem assent’ to a bill.Post-facto clearance for environmental projectsThe Supreme Court in November 2025, by a 2:1 majority, rolled back its May 16 judgment and reinstated the Union government’s power to grant post-facto environmental clearance to projects that failed to get permissions before starting construction. The top court in its November 2025 judgment said if the May order was not reversed it would have “devastating effects in as much as various completed/near-completion projects will have to be demolished.” However, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan – he was also on the original bench which passed the order that was overruled – dissented and stated that allowing post-fact clearances was a “step in retrogression” and “overlooks the very fundamentals of environmental jurisprudence.”AGR duesThe Union Cabinet on December 31 approved freezing telecom giant Vodafone Idea’s Rs 87,695 crore Adjusted Gross Revenue (AGR) dues (as of December 2025) for five years after the Supreme Court in November allowed the government to reassess the statutory dues.The Supreme Court’s October 27 order is a shift from the tough stance it took in 2019 when it decided that telecom companies did not have a say in how dues were calculated. At the time, the AGR for the telecom industry, comprising giants like Vodafone Idea, Airtel and others, ballooned to tens of thousands of crores.The top court said it was modifying its 2019 order after considering the government’s 49% shareholding in Vodafone Idea.Bhushan SteelThe Supreme Court in September 2025 set aside its May 2025 order directing the liquidation of Bhushan Power and Steel Limited and allowed the 2021 JSW Rs 19,700 crore-acquisition to go through.The JSW-takeover was approved by the National Company Law Apellate Tribunal under the process outlined under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC). The top court’s September order – delivered by a bench led by ex-CJI B.R. Gavai – attempted to course-correct the Justice Bela Trivedi-led bench May 2025 order which negated the entire insolvency process post its approval and implementation. CJI Gavai cautioned against rejecting resolution plans post implementation after noting how Bhushan Power and Steel Limited had modernised and gone from a loss-making to a profit-making enterprise, ensuring employment to thousands of employees.The Supreme Court said this turnaround was an example of how companies could be revived, thereby fulfilling the object of the IBC. Justice Prashant KumarOn August 4, the Supreme Court partly set aside an Allahabad high court order allowing a complainant to pursue criminal proceedings in a civil matter and directed the court to re-hear the matter on its merits.However, that is not the only unusual part. The Supreme Court in its August 4 order castigated the Allahabad high court judge Justice Prashant Kumar and said it was “constrained” to observe that the order it set aside was “one of the worst and most erroneous” judgments it has come across in their “respective tenures” as Supreme Court judges.The top court went on to direct the Allahabad high court Chief Justice to not only assign the case to “any other Judge of the High Court as he may deem fit” but also sought the immediate withdrawal of all criminal proceedings listed before Justice Kumar and barred him from hearing any other criminal matters till he retires. Furthermore, the high court Chief Justice was also directed to assign Justice Kumar on a bench with a “seasoned senior judge.” Justice Pardiwala’s August 4 order caused outrage and prompted the Allahabad high court Chief Justice to write a letter to the CJI asking him to reconsider the directions against Justice Kumar.Four days later, Justice Pardiwala recalled his directions and clarified that his intention was not to “embarrass” or “cast aspersions” the high court judge. “We were concerned about the appropriate direction to be issued in the interest of justice and with a view to protecting the honour and dignity of the institution,” the August 8 order read.Justice Pardiwala reiterated that the observations in his previous order was “to ensure that the dignity and authority of the judiciary as a whole is maintained high in the minds of the people of this country, as that will go a long way in reinforcing the faith that is reposed” in the judiciary.