The Supreme Court already has review and curative jurisdictions to reconsider its judgments on specific grounds. But these jurisdictions have been found to be inadequate to consider challenges to the court’s judgments on substantial grounds.
Article 137 of Constitution of India gives the Supreme Court the power to review its judgments or orders however, the review jurisdiction only enables the court to correct errors apparent on the face of the record. Whereas, curative jurisdiction enables a litigant to challenge a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the ground of violation of natural justice.
In this article we shall delve into the detailed discussion as regards review jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and Curative Petitions as a final remedy to reconsider dismissed review petitions.
The Supreme Court has the power to review its rulings to correct a “patent error” and not “minor mistakes of inconsequential import”. A review is by no means is an appeal in disguise. To be more precise, the Court is not allowed to take up fresh cases but to correct grave errors that have resulted in the miscarriage of justice. It is also pertinent to note that the Court does not entertain every review petition filed challenging a verdict of the Court. The Supreme Court has laid down the following grounds for filing of a Review Petition:
The discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within the knowledge of the petitioner or could not be produced by him;
Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; or any other sufficient reason that is analogous to the other two grounds.
The Court evolved the concept of a curative petition, which can be heard after a review petition is dismissed. Curative Petition is supported by Article 137 of the Constitution of India.
The concept of the curative petition was first evolved by the Supreme Court of India in Rupa Ashok Hurra v Ashok Hurra on the question whether an aggrieved person is entitled to any relief against the final judgement/order of the Supreme Court, even after the dismissal of a review petition. In Rupa Ashok Hurra case (Supra), it was held that the Hon’ble Supreme Court could entertain a curative petition upon considering the following aspects:
Such curative petitions are mostly taken up by Constitutional Bench of Supreme Court of India. A Constitutional Bench is a bench of the Supreme Court having five or more judges on it. Constitutional Benches are convened under the following circumstances:
Article 145(3) – The minimum number of Judges who are to sit for the purpose of deciding any case involving a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of this Constitution or for the purpose of hearing any reference under Article 143.
When the President seeks the Supreme Court’s opinion under law under Article 143 of the Constitution.
When two or more three-judge benches of the Supreme Court have delivered conflicting judgments on the same point of law, necessitating a definite understanding and interpretation of the law by a larger bench.
Several questions were raised in various cases as to whether the Constitutional Bench can sit in review over judgements passed by other coordinate benches. Few such relevant cases are as follows:
Variety Emporium versus V.R.M. Mohd. Ibrahim Naina (1984)
“Quantitatively, the Supreme Court has a vast jurisdiction which extends over matters as far apart as excise to elections and Constitution to crimes. The Court sits in Benches and not en banc, as the American Supreme Court does. Indeed, even if the entire court were to sit to hear every one of the eighty-thousand matters which have been filed this year, a certain amount of individuality in the response to injustice cannot be avoided.”
However, over a period of time, the mind set and understanding of the requirement of Review Petitions have changed and the following judgement is a testament to the same.
Vijay Madanlal Choudhary vs Union of India (2022 SCC OnLine SC 929)
Hon’ble Supreme Court bench comprising of Justices Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari and C.T. Ravikumar had upheld various contested provisions of the PMLA, including the controversial “twin conditions” for bail in PMLA cases. Several Petitions were filed for review and the Supreme Court upon hearing the petitions, observed that its judgment required reconsideration. Thereafter, the Hon’ble Supreme Court heard the review petitions and pronounced judgement on merits.
Since evolution of the concept of curative petitions in Rupa Ashok Hurra case (Supra), several such curative petitions have been heard by Supreme Court of India. Certain notable curative petitions are as follows:
Seven judge bench of the Supreme Court including CJI D.Y. Chandrachud, and Justices S.K. Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, B.R. Gavai, Surya Kant, J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra assembled to reconsider the five-judge bench decision in NN Global Mercantile v Indo Unique Flame (2023).
In 2010, the Union Govt. had filed a curative petition seeking additional compensation for the victims of the Bhopal Gas Tragedy. In 2023, a 5-Judge Bench led by Justice S.K. Kaul rejected the Petition. The Bench held that a curative petition can be entertained when there is a ‘gross miscarriage of justice’, fraud or suppression of material facts.
The emerging position of law, as laid down in the above judicial precedents, recognises the basic tenets of the principle of Natural Justice. It calls for more fairness and transparency, particularly in the exercise of power in order to instil the rule of law.
www.grandmasters.in | 8 Years & Counting
www.rcls.in | 8 Years & Counting
www.itlegalsummit.com | 8 Years & Counting
www.bfls.in | 8 Years & Counting
www.maels.in | 8 Years & Counting
www.plcs.co.in | 8 Years & Counting
Copyright © 2020 Lex Witness - India's 1st Magazine on Legal & Corporate Affairs Rights of Admission Reserved
