Curative Petition and Article 137 of Constitution of India

A curative petition is the final legal remedy available in the Indian judicial system for correcting grave miscarriages of justice. It serves as an extraordinary recourse that allows the Supreme Court of India to reconsider a dismissed review petition in cases where fundamental errors or biases may have influenced the judgement. 

Curative petitions are not a right but a privilege, granted only in rare and exceptional cases to prevent abuse of the legal process and rectify egregious errors. In this article, we will discuss the origin, objectives, constitutional framework, procedure, conditions for filing, and landmark cases related to curative petitions.

What is Curative Petition?

A Curative Petition is the last legal remedy available in the Indian judicial system, allowing a litigant to seek relief after the dismissal of a review petition by the Supreme Court. Introduced in Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra (2002), it aims to correct gross miscarriage of justice and prevent abuse of judicial process. 

Governed under Article 137 of the Indian Constitution, it can only be filed in exceptional cases where there is a violation of natural justice or judicial bias. The petition is reviewed by the three senior-most judges and the judges who passed the original verdict. If found frivolous, the Court can impose exemplary costs on the petitioner to prevent misuse.

Origin and Evolution of Curative Petition

The concept of curative petitions originated in the landmark judgement of Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra & Anr. (2002). This case addressed whether an aggrieved person has any remedy left after the dismissal of a review petition. The Supreme Court recognised the need for an extraordinary mechanism to rectify gross miscarriage of justice, leading to the introduction of the curative petition.

Objectives of Curative Petitions

1. To prevent miscarriage of justice: Ensures that no innocent individual suffers due to judicial errors.
2. To prevent abuse of judicial process: Provides a safeguard against errors that may arise due to bias or procedural lapses in judgements.

Legal and Constitutional Basis of Curative Petition

Curative petitions are grounded in Article 137 of the Indian Constitution, which grants the Supreme Court the power to review its own judgements and orders. The Court exercises this power in accordance with laws and rules framed under Article 145.

However, a curative petition is not a constitutional right. It is an exceptional remedy devised by the judiciary, making it different from a review petition.

Difference Between Review Petition and Curative Petition

Requirements for Filing a Curative Petition

The Supreme Court has set strict conditions for entertaining a curative petition to prevent misuse and ensure it is only invoked in exceptional cases.

Key Requirements

• Violation of Natural Justice: The petitioner must prove a genuine violation of natural justice, such as being denied a fair hearing or judicial bias affecting the verdict.
• Grounds Raised in Review Petition: The petition must specifically state that the same grounds were presented in the dismissed review petition.
• Certification by a Senior Advocate: A senior lawyer must certify that the curative petition meets all prescribed conditions.
• Review by Senior Judges: The petition is sent to the three senior-most Supreme Court judges and the judges from the original bench (if available).
• Majority Decision for Rehearing: If the majority of these judges agree, the case is listed for a fresh hearing, preferably before the same bench that delivered the initial judgement.
• Penalty for Frivolous Petitions: If the Court finds that the petition lacks merit, it can impose exemplary costs on the petitioner.

Process of Review

1. The petition is first circulated among the three senior-most judges and the judges who delivered the original judgement (if available).
2. If a majority agrees, the petition is listed for hearing before the same bench.
3. The Supreme Court may seek assistance from an amicus curiae (friend of the court) to examine legal points.
4. Hearings usually take place in chambers, but an open-court hearing may be allowed in exceptional cases.
5. If found without merit, the Court can impose exemplary costs on the petitioner to prevent frivolous filings.

Landmark Curative Petitions in India

Curative Petitions: Key Cases and Judicial Precedents

A curative petition serves as the Supreme Court’s final recourse to reconsider a dismissed review petition in cases of miscarriage of justice. This exceptional legal remedy was established in Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra (2002) and has since been invoked in notable cases.

2002 – Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra

A 5-Judge Constitution Bench recognised curative petitions as a last resort to rectify judicial errors. The Supreme Court ruled that such petitions could be entertained under three conditions: violation of natural justice, judicial bias, or abuse of the legal process. However, the Court stressed that curative petitions must be used sparingly to prevent frivolous litigation.

2013 – National Commission for Women v. Bhaskar Lal Sharma

Monica Sharma accused her husband and in-laws of cruelty, leading to a summons order against them. The Supreme Court overturned the summons, stating her accusations did not constitute cruelty. The National Commission for Women (NCW) filed a curative petition, arguing the Court had prematurely assessed the allegations. The SC recalled its judgement and ordered a fresh hearing.

2014 – Navneet Kaur v. State of NCT of Delhi

A petitioner convicted under TADA sought to commute his death sentence to life imprisonment. The SC granted the plea, citing two factors:

1. The petitioner’s mental illness, confirmed by medical institutions.
2. An 8-year delay in deciding his mercy petition, referencing Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of India.

2015 – Yakub Abdul Razak Memon v. State of Maharashtra

Yakub Memon, convicted in a terror case, filed a curative petition against his death sentence. Justice Kurian Joseph argued the petition was wrongfully dismissed, as it violated Supreme Court Rules (2013), requiring review by a 3-Judge Bench including the original judge. However, since the judge had retired, Chief Justice Dipak Misra ruled against reconsideration.

2023 – Union of India v. Union Carbide

The Union Government filed a curative petition in 2010, seeking additional compensation for Bhopal Gas Tragedy victims. In 2023, a 5-Judge Bench led by Justice S.K. Kaul dismissed it, stating the petition failed to meet curative grounds—gross miscarriage of justice, fraud, or suppression of facts. The Court warned against expanding curative jurisdiction, calling it a Pandora’s box.

Criticism and Challenges of Curative Petitions

• Overuse of the Mechanism: The rare nature of curative petitions has been diluted, with litigants filing them routinely. The Supreme Court imposes exemplary costs in frivolous cases to prevent misuse.
• No Defined Time Limit: Unlike review petitions (which must be filed within 30 days), curative petitions have no strict time limit, potentially leading to unnecessary delays.
• Subjectivity in Application: The Supreme Court retains complete discretion in admitting curative petitions. This lack of clear criteria has led to inconsistencies in judgements.

Conclusion

Curative petitions play a crucial role in the Indian legal system, offering a final chance to rectify judicial errors. However, given their extraordinary nature, they are strictly limited to cases of gross miscarriage of justice. The Supreme Court’s evolving jurisprudence ensures that these petitions remain an exceptional remedy rather than a routine legal recourse.

While curative petitions provide a safeguard against judicial fallibility, courts must exercise caution in their application to balance justice with judicial finality.