Review Petition

June 2, 2023

Context:

The Central government moved the Supreme Court, filing a review petition against the Court’s May 11 judgment that gave control over the subject of administrative services to the Delhi government.

How does a review petition get heard in court?

A judgment of the Supreme Court becomes the law of the land, according to the Constitution.
However, the Constitution, under Article 137, gives the Supreme Court the power to review any of its judgments or orders.
This departure from the Supreme Court’s final authority is entertained under specific, narrow grounds.
The court has the power to review its rulings to correct a “patent error” and not “minor mistakes of inconsequential import”.
In a 1975 ruling, Justice Krishna Iyer said a review can be accepted “only where a glaring omission or patent mistake or like grave error has crept in earlier by judicial fallibility.
Under a review petition, the court has
- Not to take fresh stock of the case
- To correct grave errors that have resulted in the miscarriage of justice

Grounds of Review Petition: In a 2013 ruling, the Supreme Court itself laid down three grounds:

The discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within the knowledge of the petitioner or could not be produced by him.
Mistakes or errors are apparent on the face of the record.
Or any other sufficient reason.
- In subsequent rulings, the court specified that “any sufficient reason” means a reason that is comparable to the other two grounds.

Who can file a Review Petition?

It is not necessary that only parties to a case can seek a review of the judgment on it.
As per the Civil Procedure Code and the Supreme Court Rules, any person aggrieved by a ruling can seek a review.
However, the court does not entertain every review petition filed.
The Court exercises its discretion to allow a review petition only when it shows the grounds for seeking the review.

What is the procedure the Court uses to consider a review petition?

As per 1996 rules framed by the Supreme Court, a review petition must be filed within 30 days of the date of judgment or order.
While a judgment is a final decision in a case, an order is an interim ruling that is subject to its final verdict.
In certain circumstances, the court can condone a delay in filing the review petition if the petitioner can establish strong reasons that justify the delay.
The review petitions would ordinarily be entertained without oral arguments by lawyers. It is heard “through circulation” by the judges in their chambers.
Review petitions are also heard, as far as practicable, by the same combination of judges who delivered the order or judgment that is sought to be reviewed.
If a judge has retired or is unavailable, a replacement is made keeping in mind the seniority of judges.
In exceptional cases, the court allows an oral hearing. In a 2014 case, the Supreme Court held that review petitions in all death penalty cases will be heard in open court by a Bench of three judges.

What happens if a review petition fails?

In Roopa Hurra v Ashok Hurra (2002), the court itself evolved the concept of a curative petition, which can be heard after a review is dismissed to prevent abuse of its process.
A curative petition may be filed after a review plea against the final conviction is dismissed.
It is meant to ensure there is no miscarriage of justice and to prevent abuse of process.
A curative petition is usually decided by judges in chamber, unless a specific request for an open-court hearing is allowed.
The court ruled that a curative petition can be entertained
- If the petitioner establishes there was a violation of the principles of natural justice, and
- That he was not heard by the court before passing an order.
- It will also be admitted where a judge failed to disclose facts that raise the apprehension of bias.