Article 137

Article 137 of the Constitution of India empowers the Supreme Court to review its own judgments or orders. This provision establishes a constitutional mechanism of self-correction, ensuring that the Court can rectify errors apparent on the face of the record or address circumstances where justice may have been inadvertently denied. However, this power is limited and exceptional, aimed at preserving the finality of judicial decisions while allowing the correction of manifest errors.

Constitutional Basis and Scope

Article 137 states:

“Subject to the provisions of any law made by Parliament or any rules made under Article 145, the Supreme Court shall have power to review any judgment pronounced or order made by it.”

This Article provides the Supreme Court with inherent authority to revisit its own decisions, but the exercise of this power is regulated by:

• Parliamentary legislation, if any, that prescribes the conditions or limitations of review; and
• Rules framed under Article 145, which govern the Court’s procedure for entertaining and disposing of review petitions.

The provision thus strikes a balance between two competing judicial principles — the finality of judgments and the need to ensure justice.

Nature of the Power of Review

The power of review under Article 137 is not equivalent to an appeal. While an appeal seeks a complete reconsideration of the merits of a case, a review is confined to examining errors or omissions within the judgment itself. It allows the Court to correct mistakes that are self-evident, without reopening the entire matter or re-evaluating all evidence.
This power flows from the inherent jurisdiction of the Court as the apex judicial body and is essential for maintaining public confidence in the integrity and reliability of its judgments.

Key Features of Article 137

1. The power is exclusive to the Supreme Court, though similar powers are available to High Courts under Article 226(3) and the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Section 114 and Order XLVII Rule 1).
2. The review can be sought only on limited and well-defined grounds.
3. The procedure and conditions for review are governed by the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, made under Article 145.
4. The review is heard, as far as possible, by the same Bench of judges that delivered the original judgment.
5. A review petition must be filed within 30 days from the date of the judgment or order, unless the Court grants an extension for valid reasons.

Grounds for Review

The Supreme Court has consistently held that the grounds for review under Article 137 are narrow and must be strictly construed. Based on judicial interpretation and the principles of natural justice, a review may be granted on the following grounds:

1. Discovery of new and important evidence or matter that could not be produced earlier despite due diligence.
2. Error apparent on the face of the record, meaning a mistake so obvious that it does not require elaborate argument or reasoning to establish.
3. Any other sufficient reason, which has been judicially interpreted to include circumstances analogous to the first two grounds.

These grounds are drawn from Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which serves as a guiding framework for review proceedings before the Supreme Court.

Procedure for Filing and Hearing a Review Petition

• A review petition must be filed within 30 days from the date of the original judgment or order.
• The petition is usually decided in chambers, without an oral hearing, except in cases of grave constitutional or legal significance.
• Normally, the same Bench that delivered the judgment hears the review petition to ensure continuity and consistency.
• In certain cases of constitutional or public importance, the Chief Justice may refer the review to a larger Bench for consideration.

If the review petition is dismissed, the litigant’s only remaining remedy is a curative petition, a judicial innovation established in 2002 (Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra), which provides a final opportunity to prevent miscarriage of justice after the exhaustion of review remedies.

Judicial Interpretation and Landmark Cases

The Supreme Court has elaborated the principles governing its power of review in several significant judgments:

• Union of India v. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd. (2013): The Court reaffirmed that the scope of review is extremely limited and cannot serve as an appeal in disguise. It clarified that review is permissible only in cases of patent error or discovery of new evidence.
• Northern India Caterers (India) Ltd. v. Lt. Governor of Delhi (1980): The Court observed that a review cannot be sought merely because the petitioner is dissatisfied with the judgment or desires a rehearing of the case.
• Sow Chandra Kante v. Sheikh Habib (1975): The Court emphasised that review power should be exercised sparingly and only to prevent manifest injustice.
• Lily Thomas v. Union of India (2000): The Court held that a review cannot be entertained merely because a different view is possible on the same facts.
• Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra (2002): This case gave rise to the concept of a curative petition, ensuring that the Supreme Court’s power to correct injustice extends even beyond review in exceptional cases.

Distinction Between Appeal and Review

This distinction underscores that the review mechanism under Article 137 is a tool of judicial discipline, not a substitute for appeal.

Constitutional and Legal Framework

The review jurisdiction under Article 137 is subject to:

• Rules under Article 145: These define the procedure for review petitions, as laid down in the Supreme Court Rules, 2013.
• Legislation by Parliament: Parliament may enact laws to further regulate or limit the review powers of the Supreme Court, though no such restrictive law currently exists.
• Judicial self-restraint: The Supreme Court itself limits its review jurisdiction to maintain the finality and credibility of its decisions.

Significance of Article 137

Article 137 holds considerable constitutional and moral significance in the Indian legal system:

• It provides a built-in mechanism for judicial accountability, allowing the Court to correct its own errors.
• It reinforces the principle of fairness, ensuring that no person suffers due to inadvertent judicial mistakes.
• It strengthens public faith in the judiciary by demonstrating that even the apex court is not infallible but self-correcting.
• It upholds the rule of law, ensuring that justice is not sacrificed at the altar of finality.

Limitations of the Review Power

• The jurisdiction is exceptional and limited; it cannot be invoked to reargue an already decided matter.
• A mere change of opinion or perception is not a ground for review.
• The power is subject to strict procedural compliance and time limits.
• Excessive or frivolous use of review petitions is discouraged by the Court through penalties or dismissal in limine.

Constitutional Significance

Article 137 embodies the principle of judicial humility and self-correction within India’s constitutional framework. It ensures that justice remains the ultimate goal of judicial functioning while maintaining the finality of judgments as a cornerstone of legal stability