When the Supreme Court of India pronounces a judgment, it is generally considered final and binding. Yet, what if a grave injustice still remains even after exhausting appeals and review petitions? In such rare and exceptional cases, the Indian judiciary provides one last legal remedy — the curative petition.

What Is a Curative Petition?

A curative petition is a special legal mechanism that allows a litigant to request the Supreme Court to reconsider its own final judgment, even after a review petition has been dismissed. It is not an ordinary appeal or review — it is meant to be invoked only when there has been a gross miscarriage of justice and no other remedy is available.

Simply put, it’s the judicial equivalent of a final emergency brake — used only when every other safeguard has failed.

Origin of Curative Petitions

The concept of curative petitions is not expressly mentioned in the Constitution. It was evolved by the Supreme Court itself to prevent injustice arising from its own final verdicts.

The landmark case that introduced this remedy was Rupa Ashok Hurra vs. Ashok Hurra & Anr. In this case, the Court held that it had inherent powers, under Article 142 of the Constitution, to ensure complete justice. The bench laid down the procedure and conditions for filing a curative petition, making it an extraordinary judicial tool to correct its own mistakes.

Constitutional & Legal Basis

Although not written directly into the Constitution, curative petitions draw authority from:

  • Article 137 – Power of the Supreme Court to review its judgments or orders.
  • Article 142 – Power to do complete justice in any cause or matter.
  • Articles 32 & 136 – Fundamental right to constitutional remedies and the Court’s special leave jurisdiction.

This combination of provisions enables the Court to revisit its own final decision if fairness demands it.

Eligibility & Procedural Requirements

The Supreme Court, in Rupa Ashok Hurra, laid down strict conditions for filing a curative petition:

  1. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice – For example, if a party was not given a fair hearing.
  2. Bias of a Judge – If it is proven that a judge had a conflict of interest in the case.
  3. Proof of Gross Injustice – Not just disagreement with the verdict, but undeniable miscarriage of justice.
  4. Certification by a Senior Advocate – The petition must be accompanied by a senior lawyer’s certification that the case meets the exceptional criteria.
  5. Circulation to a Bench – The petition is first circulated to the same judges who passed the original judgment, and if possible, heard in chambers.

Review Petition and Curative Petition

A review petition is filed under Article 137 of the Constitution to request the Supreme Court to reconsider its own judgment on limited grounds such as an error apparent on the face of the record, discovery of new evidence, or other sufficient reasons.

Steps Involved

  1. Must be filed within 30 days from the date of judgment.
  2. Usually heard by the same bench that delivered the judgment, without open court hearings (unless exceptional).
  3. The Court may:
    • Uphold its original decision, or
    • Modify/overturn it if a clear error is found.

If the review petition is dismissed and a litigant still believes there has been a grave miscarriage of justice, they may file a curative petition—a remedy evolved in Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra under Articles 137.

A curative petition requires certification by a senior advocate, is first circulated to the original bench (if available), and is entertained only in cases of violation of natural justice, proven bias, or undeniable injustice. While both remedies have a low success rate, curative petitions are even rarer, serving as the judiciary’s last-resort safeguard against irreversible harm.

Conclusion

Curative petitions stand as a testament to the Supreme Court’s recognition that even the highest court is not infallible. They embody the principle that justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done. However, their strict conditions ensure that they are not misused as yet another appeal but remain a last-resort lifeline for those facing the gravest injustices.

In a constitutional democracy like India, where the judiciary is both powerful and accountable, the curative petition serves as a rare yet essential reminder: the doors of justice are never completely closed.