Curative petition

A Curative Petition is the final judicial remedy available in the Indian legal system for a person seeking redress against a final judgment or order of the Supreme Court. It represents the last procedural safeguard to prevent miscarriage of justice after all other legal avenues — including review petitions — have been exhausted. Introduced by judicial innovation rather than legislative enactment, the concept of the curative petition upholds the principles of natural justice and the inherent powers of the Supreme Court to do complete justice.

Background and Origin

The Constitution of India grants the Supreme Court final authority over all legal matters under Article 137, which provides for the filing of a review petition. However, once a review petition is dismissed, ordinarily no further appeal or reconsideration is permissible.
The concept of the curative petition was evolved by the Supreme Court itself in the landmark judgment of Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra and Another (2002) 4 SCC 388. In this case, the Court recognised that there must be a mechanism to prevent injustice caused by a final judgment delivered in violation of principles of natural justice or where there had been gross abuse of judicial process.
Hence, the Court created a constitutional innovation — the curative petition — under its inherent powers to rectify its own mistakes in exceptional circumstances.

Legal Basis and Constitutional Provision

The curative petition is not explicitly provided in the Constitution or any statute. Instead, it derives its legitimacy from:

• Article 137: Empowering the Supreme Court to review its judgments or orders.
• Article 142: Granting the Court power to do “complete justice” in any cause or matter pending before it.
• The Court’s inherent jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice.

Together, these provisions allow the Supreme Court to entertain a curative petition as a measure of last resort.

Grounds for Filing a Curative Petition

A curative petition can be filed only on very limited and exceptional grounds. The Supreme Court, in the Rupa Ashok Hurra case, laid down the following conditions:

1. Violation of Natural Justice: The petitioner must show that they were not given an opportunity of being heard, or that the judgment was delivered in their absence, leading to a violation of the right to fair hearing.
2. Judgment Affected by Bias: If a judge who participated in the decision was disqualified due to personal bias or had an interest in the case, it can be a ground for a curative petition.
3. Abuse of Judicial Process: When it is evident that the Court’s earlier judgment caused gross miscarriage of justice due to abuse or manipulation of judicial proceedings.
4. No Rehearing of the Case on Merits: The curative petition is not a second review and cannot be used merely to re-argue points already decided. It addresses procedural injustice, not substantive disagreement with the judgment.

Procedure for Filing a Curative Petition

The Supreme Court has framed procedural rules governing curative petitions based on the Rupa Ashok Hurra judgment.

1. Filing:
   • The petition must be filed only after the dismissal of a review petition in the same case.
   • It is to be certified by a senior advocate, confirming that it meets the requirements for filing.
2. Circulation and Consideration:
   • The petition is circulated in chambers to the three senior-most judges and the judges who delivered the original judgment, if available.
   • If the majority of judges find merit, the case may be listed for open-court hearing.
3. Bench Composition:
   • Usually, the same judges who passed the original judgment (if available) hear the curative petition, along with senior judges of the Supreme Court.
4. Filing Time:
   • There is no fixed time limit, but the petition must be filed within a reasonable period after the review petition’s dismissal.
5. Outcome:
   • If the Court finds that the earlier decision caused injustice, it can reopen and rehear the case and pass appropriate orders.
   • If no merit is found, the petition is dismissed at the preliminary stage.
6. Finality:
   • The decision in a curative petition is final and binding, with no further scope for appeal or reconsideration.

Significance of Curative Petitions

The curative petition serves as an extraordinary judicial remedy that ensures justice is not sacrificed at the altar of finality.
Its significance includes:

• Correction of grave errors: Provides a final opportunity to rectify judgments passed without fair hearing or affected by bias.
• Protection of fundamental rights: Ensures that constitutional guarantees such as equality and fair trial are upheld.
• Preservation of public faith in judiciary: Reinforces the idea that even the highest court can correct its own mistakes in the interest of justice.
• Doctrine of complete justice: Demonstrates the Supreme Court’s commitment to justice over procedural rigidity.

Limitations of Curative Petitions

Although crucial for justice, the curative petition is tightly restricted to prevent misuse.
Key limitations:

• It cannot be filed for mere dissatisfaction with a judgment or for re-argument on legal points.
• It does not reopen facts or evidence already examined.
• It is rarely entertained; only in cases where exceptional injustice is clearly demonstrated.
• The petitioner must provide strong supporting evidence of procedural irregularity or violation of natural justice.
• The Supreme Court discourages frequent filing of curative petitions to maintain the finality of judgments.

Notable Cases Involving Curative Petitions

1. Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra (2002): Established the concept and procedure for curative petitions in India.
2. Yakub Memon Case (2015): The curative petition filed by the 1993 Mumbai blasts convict was dismissed hours before his execution, reaffirming that curative petitions are meant only for rare cases.
3. Nirbhaya Case (2020): The convicts filed curative petitions before their execution, all of which were dismissed, as the Court found no procedural violation or miscarriage of justice.
4. Navneet Kaur v. State of Punjab (2014): The Supreme Court commuted the death sentence of Devinderpal Singh Bhullar to life imprisonment on a curative petition, citing delay and mental health grounds.

Distinction from Review Petition

Role in Indian Judiciary

The curative petition underscores the moral and constitutional responsibility of the Supreme Court to ensure justice. It represents the judiciary’s self-corrective mechanism, balancing the finality of decisions with the need for fairness.
It reflects the judiciary’s willingness to introspect and uphold the highest standards of justice, reinforcing the trust of citizens in the legal system.