Consent decrees occupy a distinctive and nuanced position within the Indian civil justice system, functioning at the intersection of private autonomy and judicial authority. Recognized under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), they facilitate amicable dispute resolution while simultaneously acquiring the force of a judicial decree. This dual nature renders them both contractually grounded and judicially enforceable. However, the legal regime governing their challenge is intentionally restrictive. Section 96(3) CPC bars appeals against consent decrees, while Order XXIII Rule 3A prohibits the institution of independent suits to contest their validity. These provisions reflect a legislative commitment to finality in litigation, discouraging prolonged disputes and promoting judicial efficiency. his paper critically examines the statutory framework governing consent decrees in India, the limited grounds available for challenging such decrees, and the procedural mechanisms through which such challenges may be pursued. It also analyses judicial interpretation, which has consistently favored the sanctity of settlements while maintaining narrow exceptions to prevent injustice. The study highlights tensions between finality and fairness, particularly in cases involving fraud, coercion, or lack of genuine consent. Finally, it evaluates comparative legal approaches and proposes reforms aimed at ensuring a more balanced legal framework that protects both procedural efficiency and substantive justice.