A curative petition, in simple words, is the final and last option for the people to acquire justice as mentioned and promised by the Constitution of India. The concept originated from the case of Rupa Ashok Hurra Vs. Ashok Hurra and Anr. where the  following question arose before the court of law- ‘whether an aggrieved person is entitled to any relief against the final judgment/order of the Supreme Court, after the dismissal of a review petition?’

The court used the Latin maxim “actus curiae neminem gravabit”, which means that an act of the court shall prejudice no one. The maxim becomes applicable when the court is under an obligation to undo a wrong done to a party by the act of court itself — This led to the creation of the concept of a curative petition by the Supreme Court and the reason given for such creation was preventing the abuse of the process of law and to cure the lapses in the existing system of justice.

A curative petition is an extraordinary remedy, as it is filed after the apex Court refuses to review its judgment.

There are only two main grounds for entertaining such a petition: to prevent abuse of process & to prevent gross miscarriage of justice, although it is not possible to enumerate all the circumstances that warrant it.

It is founded on the principle that the court’s concern for justice is no less important than the principle of finality.

Under India’s arbitration law, an award can be set aside only on limited grounds.

It is normally inexpedient for arbitration issues to have many levels of litigation.  

The Court invoked its inherent power under Article 142 to do complete justice.

The power of review is granted by Article 137 to the Supreme Court to review any of its judgments. Such power is not provided anywhere else in the Constitution. The Supreme Court has defined review to mean reexamining or reconsidering a final decision

In both curative and review actions, the Supreme Court is only reconsidering its final judgment as such in both the endeavours the activity is the same save for different words being adopted to describe these activities.

The Supreme Court’s review & curative actions amount to an acknowledgement by it that sometimes errors or mistakes in judgments do occur resulting in a miscarriage of justice.

Legally speaking, curative action by the Supreme Court should not amount to review action. However, as already stated the power to review is inherent in curative actions of the Court.

EVOLUTION

The curative petition was crafted by the apex court in 2002 in the landmark judgment of Rupa Ashok Hurra vs Ashok Hurra. Such a petition is a judicial invention to rectify gross miscarriage of justice in its own final judgments.

According to the Ashok Hurra case, the court can hear a curative petition only if there is a violation of principles of natural justice, a question of bias against the presiding judge, and/or an abuse of the process of the court.

Although these grounds were not exhaustive, the court should consider such petitions only in rare circumstances to prevent frivolous litigation.

In the case of Rupa Ashok Hurra Vs. Ashok Hurra, the main question lies around the relief against the final judgement when the option of review petition has already been discharged. Article 137 of the Indian Constitution broadly supports the idea of a curative petition.

It states that the “Supreme Court has the power to review any judgment pronounced by it if the matter concerns the laws and rules made under Article 145 . 

Art. 137 : – Subject to the provisions of any law made by Parliament or any rules made under article 145, the Supreme Court shall have power to review any judgment pronounced or order made by it.

Art 145 : – Subject to the provisions of any law made by Parliament, the Supreme Court may from lime to time, with the approval of the President, make rules for regulating generally the practice & procedure of the Court.  

Order 48 of the Supreme Court Rules, enacted in 2013, codifies the requirements of a curative petition and includes a certificate by a Senior Advocate confirming that the requirements for filing a curative petition have been met.

RECENT CASES

The Supreme Court’s decision to reopen the Bhopal gas tragedy case through a curative petition led to significant legal developments concerning industrial liability & compensation.

Another critical case was the acceptance of a curative petition by the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC), which significantly influenced public infrastructure contracts and dispute resolution mechanisms in India.

The acceptance of curative petitions is rare, but there are pivotal cases illustrating its impact

RARITY OF CURATIVE PETITION

A curative petition is the third stage of proceedings before the Supreme Court, that is filed after proceedings in a special leave petition/appeal & the review of the decision in SLP/appeal.

This is one of the main reasons why such petitions are accepted only in rare and extraordinary circumstances and not otherwise.

Curative Petition can be simply seen as the last option in delivering justice, as it indulges many criticisms in light of legal developments despite being the newer concept in the legal field of the land.

It witnesses the fist of criticism as it has the capability to shake the trust that a large public bestows in the legal system.

The concept of curative petitions is not new to the legal world in itself, but the need for the same in our country is debatable.

It’s a kind of petition that is not generally allowed to be heard in open courts as it’s mostly brought upon & heard in the chamber of judges and only in the rarest case it is allowed to happen in the open courts.

The SC has held that curative petitions must be rare rather than regular, & be entertained with circumspection. 

The principle on which the concept of a curative petition is based i.e., “It is better that a guilty person go free than an innocent be punished

According to the rules prescribed in the Supreme court Rules of 1966,  The aggrieved parties hold the statutory right to appeal in the apex court of the country and once the apex court reserves the judgement against the statutory appeals it should be seen as a final & binding order.

The same petition has to be filed within 30 days of the original judgement /order, to the same Bench Judges who delivered the judgment or order that sought to be reviewed.

There is a Latin proverb that suits the reasoning “interest Reipublicae Ut sit finis litium” It particularly means any litigation must come to an end in the interest of society & the public at large while considering the time taken for each litigation to reach its final outcome. 

Furtherance with the justice promised and securing the interest, makers are always ready with the possible solution and as a result, the Indian Constitution is honoured with Article 137, which specifically inherits the power to review the orders passed by the SC.

In occurrence with the legal developments over the period of time, the question arose that what if the dismissal of the review petition later witnesses the violation of natural justice? To cure that miscarriage of justice the concept of the curative petition came into practicality to guard the justice promised by the founding brains.

This concept of the petition at the last resort evolved in relation to the doctrine of “Ex Debito Justitiae” –  means the “requirements in the way of justice must be fulfilled” secondly it also draws the principles from the Latin proverb i.e., “Actus Curiae Neminem Gravabit” —  means that the act of court cannot be prejudice to anyone. 

FINALITY OF THE JUDGMENT

The core principle is  Error is not a fault of our knowledge, but a mistake of our judgment giving assent to that which is not true”.

Assigning such rights to review the final order of the apex court may  invite the flood of litigations. So, to keep a check on the idea evolved from the “Doctrine of Harmonious Construction”.

The doctrine of ‘harmonious construction’, in the present context, simply means that in case of a conflict between two laws, their interpretation should be in a way in which the spirit and essence of both laws are maintained, which is done by ‘harmonising’ the laws

It particularly ensures that the final judgement laid down by the apex court can’t be questioned until or unless it’s a matter of miscarriage of justice or abuse of process of law, having this doctrine made it possible that the curative petition is not vulnerable to any misuse and doesn’t act as an opening gate of reservoirs which holds the numbers of probable litigations inside.

It emphasizes questioning the finality of judgement on the basis of gross miscarriage, violation of principles of natural justice and abuse of the process of law.

FILLING A CURATIVE PETITION

●In the Handbook on Practice and Procedure and Office Procedure of the Supreme Court of India there are certain points made that explain the procedure in filling the curative petition

❖There shall be Plenary Jurisdiction that has been inherent in the Supreme Court to hear such kinds of petitions – means that if there is lapses in regard to the merit of the petition then the court holds a power to impose an exemplary cost.

❖Curative petitions can be civil or can be criminal.

❖The petitioner should clearly showcase that there was a gross miscarriage in the delivery of justice and holds the biases that leads to the abuse of the process of law.

❖In a petition it should be specifically highlighted on which grounds the review should be considered & on which it was dismissed by the bench.

❖A senior lawyer must certify the petition, and look into that every ground has been fulfilled.

❖Petition must be circulated to the three most senior judges and the bench who dismissed the review petition.

❖It must be rare in nature and not regular.

❖If the majority of the judges conclude that the issue should be heard, then it will be shipped off a similar bench beyond what many would consider possible.

❖Curative petitions are not generally allowed to be heard in open courts as it’s mostly brought upon & heard in the chamber of judges and only if there is a particular solicitation then it is allowed to happen in the open courts.

❖The bench at any stage while considering the curative petition can ask the senior counsel as an amicus curiae

❖No new grounds will be considered in the curative petition & the grounds that were brought upon had to be taken in the application for review .

❖If the Bench concurs at any stage of the petition that it does not hold the merit, then the bench inherent with the powers may impose a plenary cost on the petitioner.

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION Vs. REVIEW PETITION

SLP can be filed under Article 136 of the Indian Constitution before the hon’ble SC.

It states that an appeal can be directly made to the SC against any order or decree passed by any court or tribunal in India

Review Petition basically prayed before the hon’ble court to review its order or judgement that has already been pronounced. The court may accept such petitions in consideration of grave error by judicial lords and fallibility.

The legal remedies guaranteed,  comprise the crispness of the order in the filing process: A review Petition is followed by a curative petition which is overlooked by a mercy petition.

A convict who is awarded the death sentence and that sentence particularly upheld by the order of the apex court, then he/she has three legal options left in the bucket i.e., Review & Curative Petition before the SC & on dismissal of the same the Mercy Petition before the President

The Supreme Court Rules, 1966 made in exercise of the powers under Article 145 of the Constitution prescribe that in civil cases, review lies on any of the grounds specified in Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which provides:

(i)Discovery of new and important matter of evidence

(ii)Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record

(iii)Any other sufficient reason.

In the case of criminal proceedings a review lies on the ground of an ‘error apparent on the face of the record’ – mean an error which strikes one on merely looking at the record and does not require any long drawn process of reasoning on points where there may, conceivably, be two options.