Review petition is the remedy available when there is an error or omission in the Judgment or any other grounds as per Order XLVII of the Supreme Court Rules 2013. It is not another option to file appeal against the order / judgment of the Supreme Court. The order / Judgment passed by the Supreme Court are final. A review petition can be filed only on few grounds. Filing of review petition without valid ground will not give any positive result and it will be just wastage of time and money. However, if there is genuine error on the face of record satisfying the conditions to file review petition, it can be filed.
E.g. in a case a Judgment was passed by referring another Judgment of High Court to give opportunities to candidates for appearing for examination. In High Court Judgment it was mentioned that those who complete course from 2006 to 2008 should be given one opportunity to apply job in subsequent examinations. But in Supreme Court Judgment it was mentioned that those who complete course in 2008 only can be given opportunity to appear for the examination. It was an error apparent to the face of record and notice was issued against Review Petition.
As per order XLVII Rule 1 of Supreme Court Rules, 2013 the court may review its judgment or order, but no application for review will be entertained in civil proceeding except on the ground mentioned in order XLVII, rule 1 of the Code, and in a criminal proceeding except on the ground of an error apparent on the face of the record.
In a criminal proceeding a review petition can be filed if there is an error apparent on the face of the record.
Can a third party file a Review Petition?
No, A third party cannot file a review petition. The following are the Supreme Court case laws:
Satvir Singh v. Baldeva (1996) 8 SCC 593
Simranjit Singh Mann v. Union of India (1992) 4 SCC 653
State of Karnataka V. T. R. Dhannanjaya (1995) 6 SCC 254
Review petition in Civil or other proceedings will be entertained only on the grounds as per order XLVII, Rule 1.
(1) Any person considering himself aggrieved -
(a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has preferred.
(b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or
(c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small causes. And who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of record, or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him, may apply for a review of judgment of the court which passed the decree or made the order.
As per Order XLVII Rule 1 of Supreme Court Rules 2013, the application for review shall be accompanied by a certificate of the Advocate on Record (AOR) certifying that it is the first application for review and is based on the grounds admissible under the Rules. As per Rule 2 the application for review shall be a petition, and shall be filed within thirty days from the date of judgment or order sought to be reviewed. It shall set out clearly the grounds for review.
As per Rule 3 unless otherwise ordered by the Court in an application for review shall be disposed of by circulation without any oral arguments, but the petitioner may supplement his petition by additional written arguments. The court may either dismiss the petition or direct notice to the opposite party. An application for review shall as far as practicable be circulated to the same Judge or Bench of Judges that delivered the judgment or order sought to be reviewed. As per Rule 4 where on an application for review the Court reverses or modifies its former decision in the case on the ground of mistake of law or fact, the Court, may, if it thinks fit in the interest of justice to do so, direct the refund to the petitioner of the court-fee paid on the application in whole or in part, as it may think fit. No further application after disposal of Review Petition
As per Rule 5 where an application for review of any judgment and order has been made and disposed of, no further application for review shall be entertained in the same matter.
Lily Thomas V. Union of India (2000) 6 SCC 224
The Supreme Court held that a review is not an appeal in disguise and its purpose was to ensure that justice was not defeated and errors leading to miscarriage of justice were remedied. Errors requiring review were those which patent and apparent from the face of the record were errors of inadvertence, but not those that needed to be fished out.
Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. V. Government of Andhra Pradesh (1964) 5 SCR 1974
The court held that there was a distinction between a mere erroneous decision and a decision which could be characterized as vitiated by an "error apparent", and a review was by no means an appeal in disguise.
Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Pine Chemicals Ltd. (1995) 1 SCC 58
The Supreme Court held that an interpretation of statue of law at variance with the clear and simple language thereof, would be an error apparent on the face of the record warranting review.
Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh v. Faculty Association (1998) 4 SCC 1
The Supreme Court held that a review petition on the ground that an earlier order had been rendered on a wrong appreciation of law, was liable to be allowed.
Srinivasiah v. Sree Balaji Krishna Hardware Stores (1998) 8 SCC 312
The court found ample justification for review of its order, when it was pointed out that the case had been argued and decided on the basis of the judgment of the High Court alone and the judgments of the Rent Controller and Appellate Authority, containing contrarary findings, had not been brought on record. The said findings when brought to the notice of the Court were accepted. The said findings when brought to the notice of the Court were accepted as findings of fact and review was allowed.
Common Cause v. Union of India (1999) 6 SCC 667
The court allowed a review petition filed by Capt. Satish Sharma on the ground that there was an "error apparent on the face of record" resulting in serious miscarriage of Justice. The Court held that its earlier Order holding the Minister liable for misfeasance in public office and the directing payment of exemplary damage of Rs. 50 lakhs in addition to investigation by the CBI, was incorrect in law.
H.C. Puttaswamy v. Hon'ble Chief Justice of Karnataka, High Court Bangalore 1991 Supp (2) SCC 421
The court allowed Review petition, which pleaded that the directions issued by the Court in earlier order, though "merciful", were not likely to insure the benefit of a large number of petitioners, as a majority of the petitioners, who were directed to reapply for appointment as their appointment was irregular, had become overage. It was stated that all of them had worked on the posts and gained experience for more than 10 years and it would cause them irreparable injury if they were through out of employment. The Court held that these facts had not been brought to its attention when the Special Leave Petitions were disposed of. Holding that it was a human problem which required sympathetic consideration, the Court allowed the review petitions and directed that the petitioners be considered as regularly appointed with all past benefits.
S. Nagaraj v. State of Karnataka 1993 Supp (4) SCC 595
The court while recalling its earlier order and modifying it, observed that review literally and even judicially meant re-examination or re-consideration, the basic philosophy inherent being the universal acceptance of human fallibility. It was held that rectification of an order stems from the fundamental principle that justice was above all and the power to rectify was to remove the error and not to disturb finality. The court observed that apart from the fundamental principle that justice was above all and the power to rectify was to remove the error and not to disturb finality. The court observed that apart from the Order XL Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules, it had inherent powers to make such orders as may be necessary in the interest of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court, and it was not precluded from recalling or reviewing its own order if it was satisfied that it was necessary to do for the sake of justice. The court however held that mere pendency of a matter questioning the correctness of a judgment was not a ground for review.
Union of India v. Mohd. Nayyar Khalil (2000) 9 SCC 252
Though impugned order had followed a three Judge Bench judgment and the correctness of the said judgment was under consideration before a Constitution Bench, the Court declined review on two grounds: 1. That the fact had not been pointed out to the Court at the time of hearing of the appeal 2. Even if the constitution Bench were to take a contrary view, as was clear from subsequent event which could not be a ground for review, as was clear from Explanation to Order XLVII Rule 1(ii) of the Code of Civil Procedure. (The fact that the decision on question of law on which the Judgment of the Court is based has been reversed or modified by the subsequent decision of a superior Court in any other case, shall not be a ground for the review of such judgment.)
Delhi Administration v. Gurdip Singh Urban (2000) 9 SCC 252
The court depreciated the practice of filing review petitions mechanically as a matter of routine where the grounds for review were a mere reproduction of the grounds for special leave and there was no indication as to which ground strictly fell within the narrow limits of Order XL of Supreme Court Rules.