Curative Petitions - Supreme Court of India Affirms Finality of Its Judgments but Opens Door for Rare Curative Petitions to Prevent Miscarriage of Justice

Constitution Bench Ruled that while writ petitions under Article 32 cannot challenge Supreme Court’s final orders, the Court may reconsider judgments in rare cases involving violation of natural justice or bias under its inherent powers

In a landmark judgment delivered on April 10, 2002, the Supreme Court of India (Constitution Bench) in the case of Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra clarified the scope and finality of its own judgments and the limited circumstances under which they may be revisited. The judgment meticulously examined the constitutional provisions relating to the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction, writ powers under Article 32, the review mechanism under Article 137, and the exercise of inherent powers to prevent abuse of process or miscarriage of justice.

The bench, comprising Chief Justice S.P. Bharucha and four other judges, was called upon to resolve a pivotal legal question: Whether an aggrieved party can seek relief against a final judgment or order of the Supreme Court after the dismissal of a review petition, either by way of writ petition under Article 32 or otherwise.

The Court reaffirmed the well-established principle that the Supreme Court, as the apex judicial authority under Article 124 of the Constitution, is the final arbiter on questions of law and fact. Its judgments are binding on all courts in India under Article 141, and final decisions cannot be challenged by writ petitions under Article 32 or by any writ of certiorari.

The judgment extensively analyzed the nature of writs such as certiorari, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, and habeas corpus, emphasizing that writ jurisdiction is generally exercised over subordinate or inferior courts and authorities. The Court held that neither a High Court can issue writs against another High Court or the Supreme Court, nor can one Bench of the Supreme Court issue writs against another Bench. Consequently, a writ petition under Article 32 challenging a final Supreme Court order is not maintainable.

However, the Court recognized the competing principles of finality of judgments and the necessity to prevent grave injustice. It acknowledged that while certainty in law is paramount to ensure stability and end litigation, there may be “rarest of rare” cases where a final judgment of the Supreme Court may be reconsidered to rectify manifest injustice, violation of natural justice, or bias that shocks judicial conscience.

To balance these concerns, the Court laid down a precise procedural mechanism to entertain what it termed a “curative petition” - a special kind of petition filed after dismissal of a review petition. The curative petition can only be entertained on narrowly defined grounds:

• 1. Violation of principles of natural justice, such as when a party was not heard or was not served notice but was adversely affected by the judgment; or
• 2. Where a Judge who participated in the decision failed to disclose connections with the parties or subject matter, raising a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The curative petition must explicitly state that these grounds were raised in the review petition and that the review petition was dismissed. It must also be certified by a Senior Advocate to ensure that frivolous or vexatious petitions are not entertained.

The Court further prescribed that such curative petitions will initially be circulated to the three senior-most Judges of the Supreme Court and to the Judges who passed the impugned judgment, if available. Only if a majority of this Bench concludes that the matter warrants hearing, will it be listed for a detailed hearing. The Court also reserved the right to impose exemplary costs for abuse of the process.

The judgment drew upon precedents from Indian and foreign jurisdictions, including the United States Supreme Court’s exercise of inherent powers to correct its own errors and the House of Lords’ practice statements on overruling its own decisions. It also referred to notable Indian cases such as Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra (1966) and A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak (1988), which underscored the non-maintainability of writ petitions challenging Supreme Court orders.

While emphasizing the doctrine of stare decisis and the importance of finality, the Court underscored that justice must prevail over technicalities in exceptional circumstances. It highlighted that the Supreme Court is not just a dispute-settling forum but also a law-making and justice-delivering institution that adapts to changing societal needs.

The judgment thus struck a fine balance: It preserved the sanctity and finality of Supreme Court decisions, thereby preventing endless litigation, but at the same time carved out a narrowly tailored exception to correct gross miscarriages of justice and uphold the integrity of the judicial process.

This decision provides much-needed clarity on the finality of Supreme Court orders and outlines the limited scope and rigorous procedure for curative petitions, which serve as the last judicial resort for aggrieved persons after exhausting all statutory remedies.

Statutory provisions: Constitution of India Articles 12, 32, 124, 129, 131, 132, 133, 134, 136, 137, 141, 142, 144, 145; Supreme Court Rules, Order 40 Rule 5; Order 47 Rule 6

Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra, (SC) : Law Finder Doc Id # 3826