Mirroring the necessity of discipline for a well-ordered life, a well-functioning judiciary system requires judicial discipline to fulfil its commitment to the impartial dispensation of justice for all, as enshrined in the nation's constitution. Judicial discipline is essential in legal operations. Adjudicating agencies are required to follow the previous decisions made by higher authorities in comparable situations. Only a court decision that is rational, just, appropriate, substantial, and widely agreed upon would be satisfactory. The Supreme Court abides by a self-imposed principle that a decision can only be reversed by a larger bench than the one that initially made the ruling. The "Larger Bench Rule" is a principle of stare decisis that aims to improve clarity, fairness, and efficiency in legal rulings, as well as bolster the Court's public credibility. The Rule also emphasises the equal significance of each judge's wisdom. The Court has breached the Rule in numerous significant cases. We highlight situations in which smaller or coordinating benches have either directly or tacitly overturned legally binding rulings. The Court ignored past rulings by either not adhering to them, drawing tenuous differences from them, overtly conflicting with them, or capriciously deeming them void, thus violating the Larger Bench Rule. Judicial restraint is a theory in judicial interpretation that recommends judges to restrict the use of their power. This article explores the idea of judicial restraint and accountability in the Indian legal system, its historical roots and its significance in maintaining a balance between the judiciary's role as a guardian of the Constitution and the principles of representative governance. Additionally, suggest specific ways to ensure adherence to court rules in the future, taking into account the Supreme Court's position as a dynamic judicial authority.