Supreme Court Procedure
Curative Petition in the Supreme Court: Grounds, Eligibility and Filing Procedure
What is a curative petition?
The Constitution expressly recognises the Supreme Court's power of review under Article 137, but it does not separately name a "curative petition". The remedy was judicially formulated by the Constitution Bench in Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra & Anr., (2002) 4 SCC 388, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 509 of 1997.
In that case, the Supreme Court held that, in the rarest situations, it may reconsider a final judgment after review in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of its process and to cure a gross miscarriage of justice. The jurisdiction has been traced to the Court's constitutional status and plenary powers, including Articles 129 and 142.
Article 137: review jurisdiction
Article 137 of the Constitution empowers the Supreme Court, subject to law made by Parliament and rules made under Article 145, to review a judgment pronounced or order made by it. A curative petition comes only after the ordinary review remedy has failed; it does not replace a review petition.
Article 142: complete justice
Article 142 empowers the Supreme Court to pass decrees and orders necessary for doing complete justice in a cause or matter pending before it. In the development of curative jurisdiction, this constitutional power has been considered together with the Court's inherent authority to protect the integrity of its own process.
Order XLVIII of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013
Curative petitions are specifically regulated by Order XLVIII of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013. The Rules adopt the principles laid down in Rupa Ashok Hurra and prescribe the essential filing and circulation requirements.
The current official Supreme Court Rules and amendment notifications are available at Supreme Court of India - Supreme Court Rules.
| Rule 1 | Curative petitions are governed by the judgment in Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra & Ors.. |
|---|---|
| Rule 2(1) | The petition must specifically aver that the grounds relied upon had been taken in the review petition and that the review petition was dismissed by circulation, subject to the Supreme Court's later clarification for reviews heard in open court. |
| Rule 2(2) | A certificate from a Senior Advocate must accompany the petition confirming that the requirements laid down in Rupa Ashok Hurra are satisfied. |
| Rule 2(3) | A certificate from the Advocate-on-Record must state that it is the first curative petition in the impugned matter. |
| Rule 3 | The curative petition must be filed within a reasonable time from the judgment or order passed in the review petition. |
| Rule 4 | The petition is first circulated to the three senior-most Judges and, if available, the Judges who delivered the judgment complained of. Ordinarily it is considered by circulation without oral arguments. |
Grounds recognised in Rupa Ashok Hurra
The Supreme Court made clear that curative jurisdiction is extremely narrow and that the grounds are not capable of exhaustive enumeration. Broadly, relief may be considered where a grave defect strikes at the fairness or legitimacy of the adjudicatory process.
- A person was adversely affected without being a party to the proceedings and without an opportunity of hearing.
- A party was not served with notice and the matter proceeded without a real opportunity to participate.
- A Judge failed to disclose a connection with the subject matter or a party, giving rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias.
- Other circumstances disclose a gross miscarriage of justice of the exceptional kind contemplated in Rupa Ashok Hurra.
How to file a curative petition
- The judgment or order sought to be revisited must already have been subjected to review before the Supreme Court.
- The curative petition should identify the exceptional defect or miscarriage of justice relied upon and demonstrate compliance with Rupa Ashok Hurra.
- The petition must satisfy the averment requirement under Order XLVIII Rule 2(1), subject to the 2024 clarification concerning review petitions dismissed after open-court hearing.
- A Senior Advocate must certify that the petition satisfies the curative requirements.
- The Advocate-on-Record must certify that it is the first curative petition in the impugned matter.
- The petition must be filed within a reasonable time from the judgment or order in review.
- The matter is ordinarily considered first by circulation before the Bench specified in Order XLVIII.
2024 Supreme Court clarification: review dismissed in open court
In Brahmaputra Concrete Pipe Industries v. Assam State Electricity Board, 2024 INSC 145, the Supreme Court considered curative petitions arising from review petitions that had been dismissed after open-court hearing rather than by circulation.
The Court held that the Registry could not itself reject such a curative petition merely because the review had been heard in open court. In that situation, the curative petition should contain a plea or prayer seeking exemption from compliance with the specific Order XLVIII Rule 2(1) averment, and the matter should be placed before the Judge in Chambers for appropriate instructions.
Official Supreme Court judgment - Brahmaputra Concrete Pipe Industries, 2024 INSC 145
Is there a limitation period?
Order XLVIII does not prescribe a fixed number of days. Rule 3 requires the curative petition to be filed within a reasonable time from the judgment or order passed in the review petition. Delay should therefore not be treated as unlimited merely because no fixed numerical limitation period is stated.
Is there an open-court hearing?
Ordinarily, a curative petition is disposed of by circulation without oral arguments. The petitioner may supplement the petition by additional written arguments. If the prescribed Bench concludes by majority that the matter requires hearing, it may then be listed for hearing, as far as possible before the same Bench.
Role of the Senior Advocate and Advocate-on-Record
A curative petition requires both a substantive certification and a filing certification. The Senior Advocate's certificate addresses compliance with the exceptional requirements in Rupa Ashok Hurra, while the Advocate-on-Record certifies that the filing is the first curative petition in the impugned matter.
Examples referred to in curative-petition jurisprudence
Curative jurisdiction has been invoked only exceptionally. The original article referred to cases such as Navneet Kaur v. State (NCT of Delhi), involving the effect of supervening circumstances in a death-sentence matter, and other cases where the Supreme Court reconsidered an earlier disposition to prevent serious injustice. Such examples should be understood as exceptional applications rather than creating a broad right to a second review.
Curative petition vs review petition
| Review petition | Expressly recognised by Article 137 and governed by the Supreme Court Rules. It asks the Court to review its judgment or order on the legally recognised review grounds. |
|---|---|
| Curative petition | An exceptional post-review remedy governed by Rupa Ashok Hurra and Order XLVIII, intended to prevent abuse of process or cure a gross miscarriage of justice. |
| Nature | A curative petition is narrower than review and is not an ordinary continuation of the merits litigation. |
Key takeaways
- A curative petition is generally available only after the review remedy has been exhausted.
- Order XLVIII of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 is the principal procedural rule governing curative petitions.
- The petition requires certification by both a Senior Advocate and an Advocate-on-Record.
- There is no fixed numerical limitation period, but filing must be within a reasonable time.
- Ordinary consideration is by circulation; oral hearing is not automatic.
- The 2024 Supreme Court clarification addresses the procedure where the review petition was dismissed after open-court hearing.
- Curative jurisdiction is reserved for exceptionally serious defects and is not a second review on merits.
This article explains the curative-petition framework for general legal information. Filing requirements may also be affected by current Supreme Court practice directions, Registry requirements and amendments applicable on the date of filing.