What is a Review Petition?

A Review Petition is a constitutional remedy through which a court is requested to re-examine its own judgement or order. In India, this power is primarily derived from Article 137 of the Constitution, which empowers the Supreme Court to review any judgement pronounced or order made by it.

The power of review represents a careful balance between two important legal principles — the finality of judicial decisions and the need to correct serious judicial errors. Courts ordinarily do not reopen concluded matters. However, where there is a patent error or grave injustice, limited reconsideration is permitted through a review petition.

This article explains the meaning, constitutional basis, grounds, procedure, limitations, and important case developments relating to review petitions in India.

Doctrine of Functus Officio

When a court pronounces a judgement after following due process of law, the doctrine of functus officio applies.

The Latin expression functus officio means “having performed his or her office.” In legal context, it signifies that once a court has delivered its final judgement or order, it has exhausted its authority over that matter. The case cannot ordinarily be reopened or reconsidered.

This doctrine ensures:

• Finality of litigation
• Stability and certainty in law
• Prevention of endless judicial proceedings

However, strict application of this doctrine may sometimes result in injustice if a clear and serious mistake exists in the judgement. The right to file a review petition operates as an exception to this doctrine.

Constitutional Basis of Review Petition: Article 137 – Power of Supreme Court to Review

Article 137 of the Constitution provides that subject to the provisions of any law made by Parliament and rules made under Article 145, the Supreme Court has the power to review any judgement pronounced or order made by it.

This constitutional provision recognises that even the highest court in the country may occasionally need to correct its own decisions.

The Supreme Court has clarified that this power is meant to correct a “patent error” and not minor mistakes of inconsequential importance. The review jurisdiction is therefore limited and exceptional.

Review Power of High Courts

High Courts also possess the power to review their judgements. Although Article 226 of the Constitution deals primarily with writ jurisdiction, High Courts have been recognised to possess inherent power to review their decisions.

However, such review can be invoked only when:

• There is a breach of law, or
• There is violation of constitutional provisions

Thus, both the Supreme Court and High Courts exercise review jurisdiction cautiously and within narrow boundaries.

Meaning and Nature of Review

The word “review” means “to examine again.”

A review petition does not involve a complete rehearing of the case. It is not an appeal. An appeal challenges the correctness of a decision before a higher court. A review, on the other hand, is filed before the same court requesting it to reconsider its decision on limited grounds.

The review jurisdiction cannot be used merely because another view is possible or because the decision is perceived to be incorrect. It is confined strictly to specific legally recognised grounds.

Grounds for Filing a Review Petition

In a 2013 ruling, the Supreme Court itself laid down three grounds for seeking review of a verdict delivered by it. A review petition can be entertained only on the following grounds:

Discovery of New and Important Matter or Evidence

A review may be sought if new and important evidence is discovered which:

• Was not within the knowledge of the petitioner at the time of the original hearing, and
• Could not have been produced even after exercising due diligence

This ground ensures that justice is not defeated due to genuine inability to present relevant material earlier.

Error Apparent on the Face of the Record

A review may be granted where there is a clear mistake or error apparent on the face of the record.

Such error must be:

• Obvious and self-evident
• Not requiring elaborate arguments to establish

For example, misapplication of a statutory provision or overlooking a binding legal principle may qualify as an error apparent on record.

However, if the error requires detailed reasoning to be established, it does not fall within review jurisdiction.

Any Other Sufficient Reason

The phrase “any other sufficient reason” has been interpreted narrowly. It means a reason analogous to the first two grounds.

It does not allow reopening of a case merely because the court may take a different view. The review jurisdiction remains confined to exceptional situations.

Procedure for Filing Review Petition

Who Can File?

It is not necessary that only parties to a case can file a review petition. Any person aggrieved by the ruling may seek review.

This broad approach ensures that substantial injustice affecting other interested persons can also be addressed.

Time Limit

As per the Supreme Court Rules (1996), a review petition must be filed within 30 days from the date of judgement or order.

The distinction between judgement and order is relevant:

• A judgement is the final decision in a case.
• An order may be an interim ruling subject to final determination.

Delay beyond 30 days may require sufficient explanation.

Mode of Consideration

Generally, review petitions are considered “through circulation.”

This means:

• The petition is circulated among judges in their chambers.
• Oral arguments are usually not heard.
• The decision is taken on written submissions.

In exceptional cases, oral hearing may be permitted.

Same Bench Requirement

The review petition should ordinarily be circulated to the same bench that delivered the judgement or order sought to be reviewed.

If the original bench is unavailable due to retirement, transfer, or other reasons, another competent bench may hear the review application.

Civil and Criminal Review

In civil matters, review petitions are filed under Order XLVII Rule 1(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

In criminal matters, review jurisdiction is narrower. A criminal review petition can be moved only on the ground of error apparent on the face of the record.

This distinction reflects the cautious approach adopted in criminal proceedings.

Curative Petition After Dismissal of Review

If a review petition is dismissed, an aggrieved person may file a Curative Petition.

The curative petition is intended to prevent abuse of judicial process and cure gross miscarriage of justice. It is entertained only in rare and exceptional cases.

Thus, after a Supreme Court judgement, the hierarchy of remedies is:

1. Review Petition
2. Curative Petition

Both are extraordinary remedies and are exercised sparingly.

Prominent Cases Involving Review Petitions

IPC 498A Review (Dowry Harassment Case)

On 23 April 2018, the Supreme Court heard arguments on a review petition filed against an earlier order that had outlawed immediate arrests under Section 498A of the IPC.

On 14 September 2018, the Court set aside its earlier judgement and left it to Parliament to enact suitable guidelines. This case demonstrates that review jurisdiction may correct earlier judicial directions affecting criminal law.

2G Spectrum Case

On 2 March 2012, the Government of India filed a review petition against the Supreme Court’s 2 February 2012 order which had quashed 122 telecom licences.

The Government questioned the Court’s authority regarding the first-come first-served policy but did not challenge cancellation of licences issued during the tenure of A Raja as Telecom Minister.

On 4 April 2012, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the Government’s review petition on limited grounds and dismissed other review petitions.

Later, the Government applied for withdrawal of the review petition, which was accepted by the Supreme Court.

This case highlights the limited scope of review jurisdiction even in matters of large public importance.

NEET Case

On 18 July 2013, a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court, by a 2:1 majority, quashed the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET) for admission to medical and dental courses.

The Government of India filed a review petition. On 23 October 2013, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the review petition. On 11 April 2016, it recalled the 18 July order and allowed the Government to conduct NEET in the meantime.

After a fresh hearing, another three-judge bench upheld NEET by its judgement dated 29 April 2020.

This case demonstrates how review jurisdiction can significantly influence national education policy.

Vodafone-Hutchison Tax Case

On 17 February 2012, the Government of India sought review of the Supreme Court’s verdict holding that the Income Tax Department did not have jurisdiction to impose tax on the overseas deal between Vodafone and Hutchison.

On 20 March 2012, the Supreme Court dismissed the review petition during in-chamber proceedings, stating that the petition had no merit.

This case reflects the strict scrutiny applied in review proceedings.

Mayawati Disproportionate Assets Case

On 4 October 2012, based on a review petition filed by Kamlesh Verma, the Supreme Court decided to review its earlier verdict in open court in the disproportionate assets case against Mayawati.

The case originated in 2003 when the CBI filed a case alleging that assets were disproportionate to known sources of income.

On 6 July 2012, the Supreme Court had quashed the case, finding it unwarranted. The CBI decided not to file an appeal.

This case illustrates that review petitions may reopen even politically sensitive matters under appropriate circumstances.

Conclusion

A Review Petition is a constitutional mechanism that enables the Supreme Court, and similarly High Courts, to reconsider their own judgements within narrowly defined limits. Article 137 forms the foundation of this power, while judicial interpretation has confined it to specific grounds such as discovery of new evidence, error apparent on record, or analogous sufficient reasons.

It is not a rehearing or appeal. It is an extraordinary remedy intended to correct patent errors and prevent injustice. Through cautious and limited use of review jurisdiction, Indian courts maintain a balance between finality of judgements and the demands of fairness and justice.