Review and Curative Petitions in the Supreme Court

Can a Supreme Court judgment be challenged after it is final?

Yes, but only in two narrow ways. The first is a review petition under Article 137 of the Constitution, which lets the Supreme Court reconsider its own judgment or order on limited grounds. The second, available only after a review has been dismissed, is a curative petition, a remedy the Court created for itself in Rupa Ashok Hurra v Ashok Hurra (2002) to correct a gross miscarriage of justice that no other route can reach.

There is no appeal from the Supreme Court and no writ against it. In Rupa Ashok Hurra the Court held that a writ petition under Article 32 cannot be filed to challenge a final judgment of the Supreme Court, because the Court's judgments do not violate fundamental rights in the sense Article 32 addresses. That is why the curative petition exists: it was the Court's answer to the question of what happens when a serious injustice survives a review.

Both remedies come with a strong presumption that the decision is final. The Court treats finality as a value in itself. The question it asks is not whether the judgment could have been decided differently, but whether something has gone so plainly wrong that leaving it in place would be unjust.

The rules that govern review and curative petitions

What are the grounds for a review petition?

The most used ground is an error apparent on the face of the record. That means an error you can see by reading the judgment and the record, without a long process of reasoning. Examples: the judgment relies on a provision that had been repealed or amended before the relevant date; it proceeds on a fact that the record shows is wrong, such as treating a document as unsigned when the signed copy is on file; it overlooks a binding judgment of a larger bench that directly decides the point; it records a concession that counsel never made. If it takes pages of argument to show the error, it is probably not apparent on the face of the record.

The second ground, available in civil matters, is new and important evidence that could not be produced earlier despite due diligence. The emphasis is on due diligence. A document that was always in your possession, or could have been obtained with reasonable effort, does not qualify. A document that surfaced later, for example in a separate proceeding or through an RTI reply that could not have been obtained before, may.

The third ground, "any other sufficient reason", is narrower than it sounds. It has been read to mean a reason analogous to the first two, not a general invitation to reargue. In criminal matters, the rules limit review to an error apparent on the face of the record, which makes the bar higher still.

What is not a ground for review?

Rearguing the case is not a ground. A review petition that repeats the arguments already made and asks the Court to take a different view is the commonest kind of review, and the commonest kind dismissed. The Court has said many times that a review is not an appeal in disguise.

New arguments that could have been made earlier are not a ground either. If counsel did not raise a point at the hearing, the review is not the place to raise it for the first time, unless the point goes to jurisdiction or shows an error on the face of the record.

A later change in the law is generally not a ground. The explanation to Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC says that if the decision on a question of law is later reversed or modified by a superior court in another case, that is not a ground for review of the earlier judgment. Finality protects judgments decided on the law as it stood. People are often surprised by this, especially when a later judgment adopts exactly the argument they lost on.

Review and curative petitions compared

The two remedies run one after the other. A curative petition cannot be filed without first filing and losing a review.

What is the time limit for a review petition?

Thirty days from the date of the judgment or order. That is a short period, especially where the reasoned judgment is uploaded some days after it is pronounced. The clock runs from the date of the judgment, so do not wait for a certified copy or for a decision on whether to go ahead. Start reading the judgment the day it is available.

Delay can be condoned on an application showing sufficient cause, but the Court is stricter about delay in reviews than in SLPs, because a review challenges a final decision of the Court itself. A delay of a few days with a documented explanation is often accepted. A delay of months needs a strong reason, and a review filed long after the judgment to take advantage of a later development will usually fail on delay alone, even before the grounds are considered.

When a judgment of the Supreme Court comes to Advocate B.K. Singh for a possible review, he reads it twice before anything else: once for what it decides, and once only for what it says about facts and documents, checking each against the paper book. Real errors apparent on the face of the record are usually found in the second reading.

How a review petition is filed and decided

1. Read the judgment against the record

   Compare every factual statement and every provision relied on with the paper book and the law as it stood. Note any binding judgment the Court may have overlooked. This is where the ground for review will come from, if there is one.

2. Decide honestly whether a ground exists

   If the only complaint is that the Court took the wrong view, there is no review ground. Saying so at this stage saves the client the cost of a petition that will be dismissed.

3. Draft the review petition

   The petition sets out the judgment, the specific error or new matter, and why it falls within the permitted grounds. It is short and focused. It is filed through an Advocate-on-Record within 30 days, with an application for condonation of delay if late.

4. Ask for an oral hearing if needed

   Reviews are decided by circulation in chambers. If there is a reason the bench should hear counsel, an application for oral hearing can be filed with it. Such applications are granted only occasionally.

5. Circulation to the bench

   The petition is placed before the judges who decided the matter, as far as practicable. They read it in chambers. Most reviews are dismissed by a short order; if the bench sees merit, it issues notice to the other side and lists the matter in open court.

6. After the decision

   If the review is allowed, the matter is reheard on the point found. If dismissed, the only remaining remedy is a curative petition, and only if its strict conditions are met.

What does "decided by circulation" mean?

It means the judges read the review petition in their chambers and decide it without anyone appearing before them. There is no hearing date in the usual sense. The order is uploaded later and usually says the Court has gone through the review petition and the record and finds no ground to review the judgment. This surprises many petitioners, who expect to be heard. Written submissions can be filed with the petition, and that is often the only chance to make the point at length.

Death sentence cases are treated differently. Since 2014, review petitions in cases where a death sentence has been confirmed are heard in open court, with a limited time for oral argument. The reasoning is that a matter of life and death should not be decided without the condemned person's counsel being heard.

Oral hearing in other reviews is the exception. Where the bench thinks the petition raises a serious point, it may issue notice and list the matter in court. When that happens, the review stands a real chance, because the bench has already found something that needs an answer.

Can you seek review of an order dismissing your SLP?

Yes. A review petition lies against any judgment or order of the Supreme Court, including an order dismissing an SLP at the admission stage. The same narrow grounds apply. In practice, reviews of short dismissal orders face a particular difficulty: the order gives no reasons, so there is often no error on its face to point to. A review of a dismissal usually works only where the bench clearly overlooked something on the record, such as a binding judgment or a fact that changes the picture.

Before filing such a review, consider whether another route is open. If the SLP was dismissed without reasons, the High Court judgment remains the operative decision, and in some situations a review before the High Court may be possible. If the SLP was withdrawn with liberty, the terms of that liberty decide what can be done next. These questions need the actual orders in hand.

For reviewing a High Court judgment itself, the High Court's own review jurisdiction applies, with a limitation of 30 days under the Limitation Act for courts other than the Supreme Court. Criminal courts below the High Court cannot review their own final judgments, apart from correcting clerical or arithmetical errors, so a wrong criminal judgment of a trial court is corrected by appeal or revision, explained in criminal appeal or revision.

What is a curative petition, and when does it lie?

A curative petition is the last remedy against a final judgment of the Supreme Court, after a review has been dismissed. In Rupa Ashok Hurra the Court held that it can reconsider its judgment in the rarest of cases to prevent abuse of its process and to cure gross miscarriage of justice. It gave examples of when this would be justified: where a party was not heard though it was entitled to be, or was adversely affected without notice; and where a judge who heard the case failed to disclose a connection with the subject matter or the parties that gives rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias.

Later decisions have treated these as examples rather than a closed list, and have spoken of a gross miscarriage of justice and, in a few cases, patent illegality. In April 2024, in Delhi Metro Rail Corporation v Delhi Airport Metro Express, the Court allowed a curative petition and set aside its own earlier judgment that had upheld an arbitral award, holding that leaving the award in place would cause a grave miscarriage of justice. Cases like that are rare, and the Court has warned since then that curative jurisdiction must not become another round of review.

The procedural conditions are strict. The grounds must have been raised in the review, the review must have been dismissed by circulation, a Senior Advocate must certify that the petition meets the Rupa Ashok Hurra requirements, and the AOR must certify that it is the first curative petition. The registry checks these before the petition goes anywhere.

What a curative petition must contain

The registry rejects curative petitions that lack any of these. The Senior Advocate's certificate is treated as a real check, not a formality.

How is a curative petition decided?

The petition is first circulated to a bench of the three senior-most judges and the judges who passed the judgment under challenge, if they are still available. It is decided in chambers without oral arguments unless the Court orders otherwise. If a majority of that bench thinks the matter needs a hearing, it is listed, as far as possible before the same bench, and notice goes to the other side.

Most curative petitions are dismissed in chambers by a short order recording that no case is made out within the parameters of Rupa Ashok Hurra. Where the Court finds a petition without merit and vexatious, it can impose exemplary costs. That risk is real, and it is one reason a Senior Advocate's certificate is required: it puts a senior member of the Bar's name behind the claim that the case is genuinely exceptional.

There is no second curative petition. Once a curative petition is dismissed, the judgment is final in every sense.

What else can you do when both have failed?

Once a review and curative petition are dismissed, the judgment binds the parties. What remains depends on the case. Sometimes there is room for settlement, especially in money or property disputes where execution is still ahead. Sometimes there is an administrative or executive route, such as a fresh representation to a department on changed facts, or an application to the Government for relief that the judgment does not forbid.

A fresh cause of action is different from relitigating the same one. If facts change after the judgment, for example a new order is passed or new circumstances arise, a fresh proceeding on those new facts may be possible. It must be genuinely new, not the old dispute in different words, or it will be dismissed as barred by res judicata and as an abuse of process.

If you are on the winning side, a pending review or curative petition does not by itself stay the judgment. Execution can proceed unless the Court orders otherwise. File a caveat if you expect an application for interim relief, and see our post on caveat petitions for how that works. If the other side simply ignores the judgment, a contempt petition is the usual next step.

Mistakes people make with review and curative petitions

• Rearguing the appeal. A review that restates the arguments already rejected is almost always dismissed in chambers.
• Counting from the wrong date. The 30 days run from the judgment, not from when you read it or received a copy.
• Relying on a later judgment. A later change in the law is not, by itself, a ground to review an earlier judgment.
• Producing old evidence as new. Evidence that was available with due diligence does not qualify as new and important matter.
• Raising new grounds in the curative petition. The curative grounds must have been taken in the review. Grounds kept back are not entertained.
• Treating curative as routine. A curative petition without a genuine natural justice or bias issue risks exemplary costs.
• Assuming execution is stayed. Filing a review does not stop the other side from enforcing the judgment.

What to do this week after an adverse Supreme Court judgment

• Write down the date of the judgment and count 30 days from it.
• Download the judgment and get the full paper book from your Advocate-on-Record.
• Read the judgment against the paper book for any factual or legal error visible on the record.
• Check whether a binding judgment of a larger bench on the same point was overlooked.
• List any evidence that has come to light since the hearing, with dates showing why it was not available earlier.
• Find out whether the other side can now execute the judgment, and when.
• Get an honest opinion on whether a review ground exists before you instruct anyone to draft one.

Getting an honest opinion before you file

The most useful advice after losing in the Supreme Court is often that there is no review ground, and that the time and money are better spent on settlement or on planning the next step. Where there is a genuine error on the record, it should be found quickly, because the 30 days pass fast.

If you want an advocate to read the judgment against the record and tell you whether a review or curative petition is realistic, you can send the papers through our online enquiry. You can also read about our Supreme Court work in Delhi and the profile of Advocate B.K. Singh, who handles these matters with an Advocate-on-Record and Senior Advocates where the rules require.