Curative petition is the last constitutional remedy available to a person
whose review petition has been dismissed by the Supreme Court.
Though the Constitution explicitly speaks about the review power of the Supreme
Court under Article 137, it is silent about 'curative power'.
The curative petition was given shape and form in the case of Rupa Ashok
Hurra v. Ashok Hurra & Anr., (2002) 4 SCC 388 : AIR 2002 SC 1771,
Writ Petition No. 509 of 1997, where the apex court reconsidered its judgment
in exercise of its inherent power to prevent abuse of its process and to cure a
gross miscarriage of justice.
It was explained in the said decision that the curative power of the Court flows
from Article 142 of the Constitution, which gives Court power to do complete
justice.
"The Court, to prevent abuse of its process and to cure a gross miscarriage of
justice, may re-consider its judgments in exercise of its inherent power",
observed the 5-judge bench in that case.
The apex court, in this case, observed that the powers conferred on the court by
the said article is curative in nature and cannot be interpreted as powers which
authorize the court to ignore substantive rights of a litigant while dealing
with a case pending before it. This power of the court cannot be used to replace
the essential law applicable to the case or case under consideration of the
court.
"We are of the view that though Judges of the highest Court do their best,
subject of course to the limitation of human fallibility, yet situations may
arise, in the rarest of the rare cases, which would require reconsideration of a
final judgment to set right miscarriage of justice complained of. In such case
it would not only be proper but also obligatory both legally and morally to
rectify the error."
When and how to file curative plea is very well laid down in the Rupa Hurra
case. In this case, the 5-judge Constitution bench considered the question
whether an aggrieved person is entitled to any relief against a final
judgment/order of the apex court after dismissal of the review petition, either
under Article 32 of the Constitution or otherwise.
Except when very strong reasons exist, the court should not entertain an application seeking reconsideration of an order of the apex court which has become final on dismissal of a review petition. While acknowledging that it was not possible to enumerate all the grounds on which a curative petition may be entertained, the Court laid down certain broad parameters for exercise of this power.
A petitioner is entitled to relief under curative petition, if he
establishes:
(i) violation of principles of natural justice where he was not a party to the
lis but the judgment adversely affected his interests.
(ii) he was a party to the lis, but he was not served with notice of the
proceedings and the matter proceeded as if he has the choice.
(iii) wherein the proceedings a Learned Judge failed to disclose his connection
with the subject-matter.
(iv) the parties giving scope for an apprehension of bias and the judgement
adversely affects petitioner.
In the curative petition thus filed, the petitioner shall assert the grounds
mentioned therein had been taken in the review petition and that it was
dismissed by circulation. The curative petition should also contain a
certification by a Senior Advocate with regard to the fulfilment of the above
requirements.
The curative petition thus filed must be circulated to a Bench of the three
senior-most Judges and the Judges who passed the judgement complained of (if
available). And it is only when a majority of the learned Judges on this Bench
conclude that the matter needs hearing that it should be listed before the same
Bench which may pass appropriate orders. The court also added that, it shall be
open to the Bench at any stage of consideration of the curative petition to ask
a senior counsel to assist it as amicus curiae. In the event if the Bench at any
stage finds that the curative petition is displeasing, it can also impose
exemplary costs on the petitioner.
A curative petition is usually decided by judges in chamber, unless a specific
request for an open-court hearing is allowed.
Another specialty is that, there is no limitation period for curative petition.
But the Court has said that it must be filed within a "reasonable time".
The apex court in Rupa Hurra case also pointed out that:
"Rectification of an order thus stems from the fundamental principle that
justice is above all. It is exercised to remove the error and not for disturbing
finality. When the Constitution was framed the substantive power to rectify or
recall the order passed by the apex court was specifically provided by Article
137 of the Constitution. And Article 145(c) permitted the apex court to frame
rules as to the conditions subject to which any judgment or order may be
reviewed. And in the exercise of this power, Order XL of the Supreme Court Rules
had been framed empowering the apex court to review an order in civil
proceedings on the grounds related to Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC. The court
is thus not precluded from recalling or reviewing its own order if it is
satisfied that it is necessary to do so for the sake of justice".
"Curative petitions ought to be treated as a rarity rather than regular ",
Justice Banerjee had added in his concurring judgment in that case.
The curative petition was allowed in the case of Navneet Kaur v. State of
NCT of Delhi where the curative petition was filed by Navneet Kaur w/o
Devender Pal Singh against the dismissal of review petition wherein she prayed
for setting aside the death sentence imposed upon him on the grounds of
supervening circumstance of delay of 8 years in disposal of mercy petition. The
apex court in this case allowed the curative petition by commuting the death
sentence to life imprisonment on the ground of inordinate delay of 8 years in
disposal of mercy petition and on the ground of insanity.
In another case, the Supreme Court set aside its own judgment which held that
the action of a the woman merely kicking her daughter-in-law or threatening her
with divorce would not come within the meaning of "cruelty" under Section 498 A
of the Indian Penal Code. The three judge Bench allowed the curative petition
filed by the National Commission for Women (NCW) by restoring the Special Leave
Petition.
Before the origin of curative petition in Rupa Hurra case, a writ petition
was filed under Article 32 of the Constitution in the Supreme Court for the
second time in the same case for reconsideration of a final judgment by the
court to set aside the miscarriage of justice. This is was done in the case of
A.R.Antulay v. R.S. Nayak & Anr. where the majority judges (5:2) opined that a
previous judgment could be recalled under a petition under Article 32 or 136 of
the Constitution.
But this view was later doubted, leading to the reference which was answered in
Rupa Hurra case. There, the Court said an earlier judgment of the Court cannot
be challenged under Article 32 of the Constitution. This was in line with the
1966 decision of a nine-judge bench of SC in Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar and Ors.
v. State of Maharashtra and Anr, which held that a judicial order cannot be
challenged as violating fundamental rights.
At the same time, the Court in Rupa Hurra gave shape to the contours of curative
jurisdiction, in order to do complete justice.
Even though there is a narrow line that differentiate between a curative
petition and review petition, the apex court has laid down distinct grounds for
filing both these petitions and this makes it evident that both the petitions
are different in totality.
Thus it can be said that the idea of the curative petition is a Constitutional
remedy which is a last resort that was originated to rectify the decision of the
Supreme Court by themselves as a legal and moral obligation in deciding rarest
of rare cases.