Does upturned judgements in a higher court brings the judgement in the dock. Law is objective, empirical and follows a strict judicial process. Legal interpretation is the cause, of the judges deciding differently. What does it speak of the judges whose legal interpretation is not concurred up on by the next higher court? The matter in question is the same case; same facts, same law, same process, same court rulings and results are coming out to be different. Does it enhance or bring down judicial credibility? It will depend the way you look at it, some can talk of it as judiciary standing tall while others can find a gaping hole.
Serious research needs to be done, on the percentage of judgements upturned and what have been the reasons ascribed for it. There are times when the appellate courts pass caustic remarks against the courts, which have passed such judgements. The upturned judgements can be divided into various categories, of genuine misjudgment, of not having evaluated the evidence properly, of having lack of proper knowledge of law and so and so forth. There needs to remedial action taken by way training etc. to bring them on a competence level, required for task he is mandated to do.
With regards to use of the power of granting bail, over and over again higher courts have found the lower courts not utilizing it. Bail is the norm and arrest an exception. Is this being followed? The gold standard of judicial administration would be that all directions laid in landmark judgements need to be followed in word and spirit by all courts. That is the way forge ahead in quality of justice being delivered. And this would save time as well, as strict compliance needs less thought. Same for upturned judgements, concurring with decisions of the lower courts for well taken decisions, will certainly take much less time.
What about the litigant? The time and cost of fighting legal battle is a huge one. Added to it, is the trauma. He feels at levels that justice is not being meted out to him. If large number of judgements don’t get upturned, might be lots of litigation would end up at lower courts or maximum of high court. Anyway, the evidence remains the same which is just evaluated by better legal brains and acumen and capability to take a call which might be at times extraordinary. Judicial objectivity in practice should reach a level that all are bound to concur. Judicial administration can be improved in house, and we see lot many things happening too.
JUDICIAL FINALITY CAN BE PROVIDED AT ANY LEVEL, NOT ONLY THE SUPREME COURT.
Have a nice evening.