The Supreme Court is the final court of appeal in India, but its decisions are not completely beyond reconsideration.
The Constitution provides the Supreme Court with the power to:
The main constitutional provision for review is:
Article 137
The Curative Petition is a judicially evolved remedy developed by the Supreme Court.
Under:
Article 137
the Supreme Court has the power to:
Review any judgment pronounced or order made by it.
This power is subject to:
The review power recognises that even the highest court can make an error.
It provides a limited mechanism to correct:
The purpose is:
Correction of judicial error
A review petition is not a:
Second appeal
The Court does not normally rehear the entire case simply because a party is dissatisfied with the judgment.
Appeal
→ Reconsideration by a higher court
Review
→ Limited reconsideration by the same court
4. Constitutional Basis of Review
The constitutional basis is:
Article 137
The Supreme Court's review power is therefore expressly recognised by the Constitution.
5. Grounds for Review
The grounds for review are governed by:
Constitutional provisions
Supreme Court Rules
Established judicial principles
A review may be considered where there is:
Error apparent on the face of the record
Discovery of new and important matter or evidence in appropriate circumstances
Other sufficient reason recognised by law
The remedy is exercised:
Sparingly
6. Error Apparent on the Face of the Record
An error apparent is an error that is:
Clear and self-evident
and does not require a lengthy process of reasoning to establish.
A mere disagreement with the Court's reasoning does not ordinarily constitute an error apparent.
7. New Evidence
A review may be sought where:
New and important matter or evidence
is discovered after the exercise of due diligence, subject to the applicable legal requirements.
The evidence must be significant enough to justify review.
8. Review in Civil and Criminal Matters
Review jurisdiction can operate in:
Civil matters
Criminal matters
However, the applicable grounds and procedural requirements may differ.
The Supreme Court Rules govern the procedure for filing and considering review petitions.
9. Review Petition
A party seeking review files a:
Review Petition
before the Supreme Court.
The Court first determines whether the strict requirements for review are satisfied.
If they are not satisfied:
Review is dismissed.
10. Review and Finality of Judgments
The review jurisdiction balances two principles:
Finality of litigation
and:
Correction of serious judicial error
The law generally favours finality, which is why review is a:
Limited remedy
11. Curative Jurisdiction
A:
Curative Petition
is an extraordinary judicial remedy developed by the Supreme Court.
It is intended to prevent:
Gross miscarriage of justice
in exceptional cases even after a review petition has been dismissed.
12. Origin of Curative Petition
The Supreme Court recognised the concept of a Curative Petition in:
Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra, 2002
The Court developed this remedy to address exceptional situations where:
The final judgment has become conclusive
Review has already been dismissed
A serious miscarriage of justice may still remain
13. Why Curative Jurisdiction Was Developed
The Supreme Court recognised a tension between:
Finality of judgments
and:
Need to prevent gross miscarriage of justice
The Curative Petition provides an extremely narrow mechanism to address the latter in exceptional circumstances.
14. Curative Petition Is Not a Second Review
A Curative Petition is not intended to:
Reopen every dismissed review
Provide another ordinary appeal
Reargue the entire case
Correct every alleged error
It is an:
Extraordinary and exceptional remedy
15. Conditions for Curative Petition
The remedy is available only in exceptional circumstances.
The petitioner must generally establish that:
The case falls within the recognised principles for curative jurisdiction
There has been a serious failure of justice
The requirements laid down by the Supreme Court are satisfied
16. Principles from Rupa Ashok Hurra Case
In:
Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra (2002)
the Supreme Court recognised the possibility of a Curative Petition after dismissal of a review petition.
The remedy is intended to prevent:
Abuse of the process of law
and:
Gross miscarriage of justice
17. Natural Justice
Curative jurisdiction is particularly concerned with exceptional violations of:
Principles of natural justice
For example, circumstances involving:
Failure to hear a party
Serious procedural unfairness
Conflict of interest involving a judge in circumstances recognised by law
may be relevant to curative consideration.
18. Certification by Senior Advocates
The Supreme Court's curative framework requires the petitioner to satisfy procedural safeguards before a Curative Petition is considered.
A Curative Petition is ordinarily accompanied by certification by a:
Senior Advocate
regarding the fulfilment of the prescribed requirements.
This discourages frivolous curative petitions.
19. Curative Petition and Bench
The curative petition is ordinarily considered by:
The three senior-most judges of the Supreme Court
The judges who passed the impugned judgment, if available
subject to the applicable Supreme Court procedure.
The Chief Justice of India may constitute the appropriate Bench.
20. Review vs Curative Petition
Feature Review Curative
Basis Article 137 Judicially evolved remedy
Filed after Judgment/order Review petition is dismissed
Purpose Correct limited judicial errors Prevent gross miscarriage of justice
Nature Limited Extraordinary and exceptional
Normal remedy? No No
Case Same Supreme Court Same Supreme Court
21. Appeal vs Review vs Curative
Appeal
↓
Higher court examines decision
Review
↓
Same Supreme Court
↓
Limited grounds
Curative
↓
Review already dismissed
↓
Exceptional circumstances
↓
Gross miscarriage of justice
22. Article 137 vs Article 136
These provisions should not be confused.
Article 136
→ Special Leave to Appeal
→ Extraordinary appellate jurisdiction
Article 137
→ Review
→ Reconsideration of Supreme Court's own judgment/order on limited grounds
23. Article 137 vs Article 142
Article 137
→ Review jurisdiction
Article 142
→ Power to do complete justice
These are separate constitutional powers.
24. Review and Judicial Independence
Review jurisdiction does not undermine judicial independence.
Instead, it provides an internal mechanism through which the Supreme Court can correct serious errors without requiring external interference.
25. Finality of Supreme Court Decisions
The Supreme Court is the final court of appeal.
However, the constitutional and judicial framework recognises limited exceptions through:
Review
and:
Curative jurisdiction
These remedies preserve a balance between:
Finality + Justice
26. Important Prelims Distinction
Article 136
→ Special Leave to Appeal
Article 137
→ Review
Curative Petition
→ Judicially evolved remedy
→ After review
27. UPSC Prelims Facts
Article 137
→ Supreme Court's power of review
Review
→ Review of Supreme Court's own judgments/orders
Curative Petition
→ Judicially evolved remedy
Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra
→ 2002
→ Recognised Curative Petition
Purpose of Curative Petition
→ Prevent gross miscarriage of justice
Review
→ Limited remedy, not a second appeal
Curative
→ Exceptional remedy after review
28. UPSC Prelims Traps
Trap 1
"Article 137 gives the High Courts power to review Supreme Court judgments."
False
Article 137 concerns the:
Supreme Court itself
Trap 2
"Review is another ordinary appeal."
False
Review is a:
Limited remedy
Trap 3
"Curative Petition is expressly mentioned in the Constitution."
False
It is:
Judicially evolved
Trap 4
"Curative Petition can be filed before a Review Petition."
False
It comes:
After dismissal of the Review Petition
Trap 5
"Every error in a Supreme Court judgment can be corrected through review."
False
Review is available only on:
Recognised limited grounds
Trap 6
"Curative Petition is a routine third appeal."
False
It is an:
Extraordinary and exceptional remedy
Trap 7
"Rupa Ashok Hurra case is associated with Article 136."
False
It is primarily associated with the development of:
Curative Petition
29. Quick Revision
SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT
↓
Review Petition
↓
Article 137
↓
Limited Grounds
↓
Review Dismissed
↓
Curative Petition
↓
Exceptional Circumstances
↓
Gross Miscarriage of Justice
ARTICLE 137
→ Review
CURATIVE PETITION
→ Judicially Evolved
→ Rupa Ashok Hurra, 2002
→ Exceptional Remedy
FINALITY
+
CORRECTION OF SERIOUS ERROR
↓
REVIEW
FINALITY
+
GROSS MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE
↓
CURATIVE JURISDICTION
30. Mains Relevance
Review and Curative jurisdiction demonstrate that even though the Supreme Court is the final court of appeal, the constitutional system recognises limited mechanisms to correct serious errors and prevent gross miscarriage of justice.
Review jurisdiction under Article 137 provides a limited opportunity for reconsideration of the Court's own judgments.
Curative jurisdiction goes one step further but is reserved for exceptional circumstances after the review remedy has been exhausted.
Together, they balance:
Finality of Judicial Decisions + Corrective Justice + Public Confidence in the Judiciary
The extraordinary nature of these remedies is essential to prevent endless litigation while preserving the possibility of correcting grave injustice.