The Supreme Court (SC) has expressed concerns about its own internal practices, specifically the increasing trend of benches overturning decisions made by previous benches, sometimes within just a few days or months. This observation was made "painfully" by the SC, which stated that this practice could "undermine this court's authority".

The court highlighted several instances, including cases related to dog bites, retrospective environmental clearances, the insolvency of Bhushan Steel Ltd., and firecracker bans, where prior verdicts had been overturned. Another significant instance involved a curative petition against the SC's 2021 verdict concerning a dispute between Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) and Delhi Airport Metro Express Private Ltd (DAMEPL), where the court quashed a ₹7,687-crore award in favor of DAMEPL.

Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih noted that public confidence in the judiciary could be eroded if cases are reopened and reheard by special benches at the request of parties dissatisfied with the original verdicts. They quoted Justice Robert Jackson, emphasizing that the court's finality is what makes it infallible, not the other way around.

The bench stated that Article 141 of the Constitution intends for a verdict on a specific legal issue to settle the controversy and be followed by all courts as the law declared by the SC. Reopening verdicts would defeat this purpose.

The Supreme Court has consistently maintained that orders issued under a statute deemed unconstitutional are void from the beginning. This principle aligns with Article 13 of the Constitution, which invalidates laws conflicting with fundamental rights. The SC has differentiated between void and voidable orders, clarifying that a void order is a nullity that can be disregarded in legal proceedings, while a voidable order remains effective until annulled by a competent authority. Orders violating fundamental rights, especially those made without due process, are considered void from the outset.

A void order does not confer any rights and can be challenged directly in court. The principle of audi alteram partem, ensuring a fair hearing, is crucial; its violation renders an order a nullity. However, even a void order may have de facto effects until formally challenged and invalidated by a court.

The U.S. Supreme Court has also stated that judgments and orders issued without authority are nullities, not voidable, and do not prevent recovery, even before reversal. Such orders offer no justification, and those executing them are considered trespassers. A party affected by void judicial action need not appeal, as it does not affect legal rights. A void judgment, including one from a court lacking jurisdiction or acting against due process, can be challenged anytime.

Furthermore, if a judgment is void, all subsequent orders and issues are also void. A void judgment can never gain legitimacy. The Karnataka High Court has also noted that even a void order remains operational until a competent body or court certifies it as void.

In another context, the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo has been interpreted as weakening the authority of federal agencies. By overturning the Chevron deference, the court allows judges to substitute their judgment for that of expert agencies, potentially injecting political ideology into regulatory decisions. This shift has led to concerns about a weakened administrative state.