What is the news?

 

Supreme Court’s Curative Petition: A Rare Tool for Correcting Injustice

 

• • The recent Supreme Court decision to revive the 2019 Delhi High Court judgment on the Delhi Metro arbitration award through a curative petition highlights a critical, rarely used judicial power. This editorial will delve into the concept of curative petitions, their significance, and the implications of this recent case.

 

What is a Curative Petition?

 

• A curative petition is the final legal recourse available to an aggrieved party seeking to challenge a Supreme Court judgment. It’s a sparingly used judicial innovation meant to address “grave miscarriage of justice.” Here’s a breakdown of its key aspects:

 

• • Final Resort: It comes after a review petition, the usual route for challenging a Supreme Court verdict, is dismissed.
  • Objective: To ensure justice is served and prevent abuse of legal processes.

 

History and Development:

 

• • The concept of curative petitions emerged in the 1970s through a series of Supreme Court judgements. There was a growing concern that the Court, lacking a formal mechanism for review, might make errors that could go unaddressed.
  • Initial Precedents: In cases like Mohinder Singh Gill vs. Chief Election Commissioner (1978) and Rupa Hathiya vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1980)*, the Court hinted at the possibility of reconsidering its own decisions in exceptional circumstances.
  • Landmark Judgement: The foundation for curative petitions was laid in the landmark case of Hussainara Khatoon vs. State of Bihar (1979). Here, the Court acknowledged the inherent possibility of judicial error and the need for a corrective mechanism. It didn’t explicitly define curative petitions, but opened the door for them.
  • The concept of curative petitions indeed gained significant recognition and formalization in the 2002 case of Rupa Ashok Hurra vs Ashok Hurra. This landmark judgement explicitly acknowledged the need for a final resort mechanism to address potential miscarriages of justice, even after dismissal of a review petition.
  • While there were earlier judicial pronouncements hinting at the possibility of review in exceptional circumstances (as I mentioned previously), the Rupa Ashok Hurra case established a more concrete foundation for curative petitions and the specific process involved.

 

Here’s a corrected timeline:

 

• • 1970s: Early hints at the possibility of review under specific circumstances appear in Supreme Court judgements.
  • 1979: Hussainara Khatoon vs. State of Bihar judgement acknowledges the need for a corrective mechanism for judicial errors, paving the way for curative petitions.
  • 2002: Rupa Ashok Hurra vs. Ashok Hurra case formally recognizes curative petitions as a final remedy and outlines their purpose and process.

 

Constitutional Basis (Although Indirect):

 

There’s no specific mention of curative petitions in the Indian Constitution. However, their existence can be argued to be implied by certain articles:

 

• • Article 141: This article empowers the Supreme Court to make rules for regulating its practice and procedure. This gives the Court the authority to establish curative petitions as a practice within the judicial system.
  • Article 32 (Right to Constitutional Remedies): This fundamental right guarantees access to justice, which can be interpreted to include the ability to seek a review of a final judgement in exceptional circumstances.
  • Also Article 137 of the Indian Constitution does play a role in the concept of curative petitions, although it doesn’t directly address them. Here’s how they connect:

 

Article 137: Power of Review

 

• • This article states that the Supreme Court has the authority to review its own judgements and orders, subject to any laws enacted by Parliament or rules made under Article 145.
  • While Article 137 grants the Supreme Court the general power of review, it doesn’t specify the procedures or limitations for such reviews. This is where curative petitions come in.

 

Curative Petitions: A Specific Form of Review

 

• Curative petitions are a specific type of review petition envisioned by the Court itself under Article 141. They represent a well-defined procedure with strict limitations for reviewing past judgements in exceptional circumstances.

 

• • Article 141: Power to Make Rules
  • Article 141 empowers the Supreme Court to make rules for regulating its practice and procedure. This includes establishing guidelines for curative petitions, outlining the grounds for filing them, and setting the vetting process.

 

Interplay Between Articles:

 

• • Article 137 provides the broad framework for the Supreme Court’s power of review.
  • Article 141 allows the Court to establish the specific rules and limitations for such reviews, including the concept of curative petitions.

 

Curative Petitions: Beyond Article 137

 

It’s important to note that curative petitions go beyond the simple power of review mentioned in Article 137. They introduce additional elements like:

 

• • Exceptional Circumstances: Curative petitions are meant for very specific situations, not just any review.
  • Strict Grounds: They require raising substantial legal issues, not minor technicalities.
  • Rigorous Vetting: Only a small number of petitions even get a hearing.

 

In essence, curative petitions are a specific and limited exercise of the Supreme Court’s review power under Article 137, with additional safeguards to ensure they are used judiciously.

When is a Curative Petition Considered?

 

Curative petitions are considered under exceptional circumstances, such as:

 

• • Violation of Natural Justice: If the petitioner can demonstrate they weren’t heard before the order was passed.
  • Undisclosed Bias: If a judge failed to disclose facts raising concerns of bias.
  • These petitions are first circulated to a bench comprising the three senior-most judges and the judges who passed the original judgment (if available). Only upon a majority vote for a hearing is the petition listed, usually before the same bench and often decided in chambers.

 

Here’s a breakdown of what a curative petition is and how it works:

 

Purpose and Process:

 

Curative petitions are not meant to be a routine method of relitigating cases. They serve a specific purpose:

 

• • Preventing Miscarriage of Justice: To provide a safety valve in rare cases where a grave error or violation of fundamental rights may have occurred in the original judgement.
  • Addressing New Evidence: If crucial evidence that could significantly alter the outcome of the case comes to light after the review petition stage.

 

Strict Process and Limited Scope:

 

Curative petitions are an extraordinary remedy with a rigorous process:

 

• • Following Dismissal of Review Petition: They can only be filed after a review petition against the original judgement has already been dismissed by the Supreme Court.
  • Stringent Grounds: The petition must raise substantial issues, not mere technicalities. It might involve arguments like violation of fundamental rights, the discovery of new and incontrovertible evidence, or a blatant error in the initial judgement.
  • Vetting by Senior Judges: A bench of senior judges meticulously scrutinizes the petition. Only if a majority agrees is it admitted for a hearing, making the chance of a curative petition being heard very low.

 

Example:

 

• • As an illustration, consider the 2023 case where the Supreme Court rejected a curative petition filed by the Indian government in the Bhopal Gas Tragedy case. The Court reasoned that the petition didn’t meet the exceptional criteria required for curative petitions.

 

Significance of the Recent Case 2024:

 

• • The Supreme Court’s decision to use a curative petition in the Delhi Metro case signifies the court’s commitment to correcting potentially flawed judgments. It demonstrates that even the highest court can revisit its decisions in exceptional circumstances. This upholds the ideal of justice being a continuous process, striving to rectify errors.
  • However, it’s important to remember that curative petitions are extraordinary measures. Their rarity ensures that final judgments are not easily overturned, maintaining the stability of the legal system.

 

Conclusion:

 

• • The concept of curative petitions serves as a crucial safeguard against potential miscarriages of justice in the highest court. While their use is rare, the recent Supreme Court decision highlights their significance in ensuring justice prevails. As India’s legal system evolves, the judicious use of this tool can contribute to a more robust and just legal framework.

 

• • 

QuizTime:

 

Mains Questions:

 

Model Answer:

 

A curative petition is the final legal recourse available to challenge a Supreme Court judgment. It’s a rarely used mechanism meant to address “grave miscarriage of justice.”

Circumstances for Curative Petitions:

• • Violation of Natural Justice: If the petitioner can demonstrate they weren’t heard before the order was passed.
  • Undisclosed Bias: If a judge failed to disclose facts raising concerns of bias.

Significance:

• • Corrects Miscarriages of Justice: It provides a final safety net against potentially flawed judgments.
  • Maintains Public Trust: The ability to revisit decisions upholds the ideal of justice as a continuous process.

Finality versus Curative Petitions:

• • Rarest of Exceptions: Curative petitions are sparingly used, ensuring finality of most judgments.
  • Maintains Stability: Their rarity prevents frivolous challenges and upholds the legal system’s stability.
  • While curative petitions can appear to undermine finality, their exceptional nature ensures final judgments remain largely unchallenged.

 

 

Model Answer:

 

Pros:

• • Corrects Errors: Curative petitions can rectify potentially flawed judgments with significant financial implications.
  • Justice Prevails: They ensure even high-value cases receive a final chance for a fair outcome.

Cons:

• • Legal Uncertainty: Curative petitions can create uncertainty regarding the finality of high-value judgments.
  • Frivolous Petitions: The possibility of curative petitions might encourage more frivolous appeals.
  • The recent case highlights the complexities of balancing the need for correcting errors with maintaining the finality of judgments.

 

Remember: These are just sample answers. It’s important to further research and refine your responses based on your own understanding and perspective. Read entire UPSC Current Affairs.