Supreme Court Procedure
Review Petition in the Supreme Court under Article 137: Grounds, Limitation and Procedure
Article 137 of the Constitution
Article 137 gives the Supreme Court power to review any judgment pronounced or order made by it, subject to law made by Parliament and rules made under Article 145 of the Constitution.
The constitutional power is exercised through the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 and the established principles governing review jurisdiction.
Order XLVII of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013
Order XLVII contains the principal procedural rules for Review Petitions in the Supreme Court. The Court's official jurisdiction page summarises the rule by distinguishing civil and criminal review.
The current Supreme Court Rules and amendment notifications are available at Supreme Court of India - Supreme Court Rules.
Grounds for review in a civil proceeding
In a civil proceeding, Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules refers to the grounds in Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Broadly, review may be sought where the legally prescribed conditions are satisfied on grounds such as:
- Discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, despite due diligence, was not within the applicant's knowledge or could not be produced when the judgment or order was made.
- A mistake or error apparent on the face of the record.
- Any other sufficient reason recognised within the narrow scope of review jurisdiction.
Review in criminal proceedings
In a criminal proceeding, Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules permits review on the ground of an error apparent on the face of the record.
Review is not an appeal in disguise
The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that review jurisdiction has a limited purpose. It cannot be used to rehear and correct an allegedly erroneous decision as though the Court were hearing another appeal.
A party cannot ordinarily use review to repeat arguments already considered, introduce a different interpretation of the same material, or reopen conclusions merely because the earlier judgment is said to be wrong on merits.
Who may file a Review Petition?
Review jurisdiction is ordinarily invoked by a person legally aggrieved by the Supreme Court judgment or order. The applicant must demonstrate a sufficient legal grievance and satisfy the applicable review grounds.
The older proposition that "a third party can never file review" is too broad when stated without context. A complete stranger cannot ordinarily use review merely to reopen concluded litigation, but maintainability ultimately depends on whether the applicant is legally aggrieved and has standing in the circumstances recognised by law.
Advocate-on-Record certificate
Order XLVII Rule 1 requires the Review Petition to be accompanied by a certificate of the Advocate-on-Record stating that it is the first application for review and that it is based on grounds admissible under the Rules.
Time limit: 30 days
Under Order XLVII Rule 2, a Review Petition is generally required to be filed within 30 days from the date of the judgment or order sought to be reviewed. The petition must clearly set out the grounds for review.
Where filing is delayed, the petitioner must comply with the applicable procedural requirements for seeking condonation of delay. Condonation is not automatic.
How Review Petitions are considered
Under Order XLVII Rule 3, a Review Petition is ordinarily disposed of by circulation without oral arguments, unless the Court orders otherwise. The petitioner may supplement the petition with additional written arguments.
As far as practicable, the review is circulated to the same Judge or Bench that delivered the judgment or order sought to be reviewed. The Court may dismiss the petition or direct notice to the opposite party.
Death-sentence cases: open-court hearing
Death-sentence review petitions are an important exception to the ordinary circulation procedure. In Mohd. Arif alias Ashfaq v. Registrar, Supreme Court of India, the Constitution Bench held that review petitions arising from conviction and imposition of the death sentence must be heard in open court rather than disposed of only by circulation.
What happens if review is allowed?
If the Court finds a valid review ground, it may recall, reverse or modify the earlier judgment or order to the extent legally warranted. Order XLVII Rule 4 also permits the Court, where appropriate, to direct refund of the court fee paid on the review application when the earlier decision is reversed or modified on a mistake of law or fact.
No second Review Petition
Order XLVII Rule 5 provides that once an application for review of a judgment or order has been made and disposed of, no further application for review is to be entertained in the same matter.
Review Petition vs Curative Petition
| Review Petition | Constitutionally recognised under Article 137 and governed by Order XLVII of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013. |
|---|---|
| Curative Petition | An exceptional post-review remedy governed by Order XLVIII and the principles in Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra. |
| Sequence | A curative petition ordinarily arises only after the review remedy has been exhausted. |
Read more: Curative Petition in the Supreme Court
Leading Supreme Court cases on review jurisdiction
Review is not an appeal in disguise. The jurisdiction exists to correct the kind of patent error or miscarriage of justice that falls within the recognised review grounds.
The Court drew the classic distinction between a merely erroneous decision and an error apparent on the face of the record.
The judgment consolidates the circumstances in which review may or may not be maintainable and reiterates that review cannot become a rehearing of the original matter.
The Constitution Bench recognised open-court oral hearing for review petitions in death-sentence cases.
The Court reiterated that an erroneous decision cannot be reheard and corrected under review, questions already decided cannot be reagitated, and an error apparent should not require a long-drawn reasoning process to discover.
Other cases retained from the earlier article
- Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Pine Chemicals Ltd., (1995) 1 SCC 58: review was considered where the legal interpretation was inconsistent with the clear statutory language.
- Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research v. Faculty Association, (1998) 4 SCC 1: review jurisdiction was exercised in the factual and legal circumstances before the Court.
- Srinivasiah v. Sree Balaji Krishna Hardware Stores, (1998) 8 SCC 312: material findings not earlier placed before the Court were relevant to review.
- Common Cause v. Union of India, (1999) 6 SCC 667: review was allowed where an error apparent resulted in serious miscarriage of justice.
- H.C. Puttaswamy v. Hon'ble Chief Justice of Karnataka, 1991 Supp (2) SCC 421: the Court reconsidered earlier directions in light of material consequences not previously brought to its attention.
- S. Nagaraj v. State of Karnataka, 1993 Supp (4) SCC 595: review was described as a power aimed at rectifying error in the interests of justice, not disturbing finality without lawful cause.
- Union of India v. Mohd. Nayyar Khalil: a later or prospective change in legal position does not by itself create a review ground.
- Delhi Administration v. Gurdip Singh Uban: the Court deprecated mechanical review petitions that merely reproduce earlier grounds without identifying a true review ground.
Practical checklist before filing
- Identify the exact review ground under Order XLVII.
- Do not merely repeat grounds already argued and rejected.
- Explain why the alleged error is apparent from the record.
- If relying on new evidence, explain due diligence and why it could not earlier be produced.
- Ensure the Advocate-on-Record certificate complies with Rule 1.
- Calculate the 30-day filing period carefully and address any delay.
- Check whether the matter falls within a special procedure, such as a death-sentence review.
Official Supreme Court resources
Supreme Court Rules, 2013 and amendments
Supreme Court jurisdiction - review and curative jurisdiction
This article is a general procedural guide. Review jurisdiction is narrow and fact-specific. Current Supreme Court Rules, amendments, Registry requirements and the judgment sought to be reviewed should be examined before filing.