The recent decision of the Supreme Court to reassess its Sabarimala verdict has brought into focus the procedures and legal mechanisms involved in a review of court judgments or orders. This article aims to provide an accessible explanation of this complex process, starting with the Constitutional provision that allows for such a review, followed by the scope of a review, the procedures for filing a review petition, and finally, the options available if a review petition fails.
Constitutional Provision for Judgment Review
Article 137 of the Indian Constitution empowers the Supreme Court to review any of its judgments or orders. However, it’s important to note a distinction here: whereas a judgment denotes a final decision in a case, an order is an interim ruling subject to the final judgment.
Scope of Court’s Power to Review
The power to review rulings is utilised by the court to rectify “patent errors”, not minor omissions of little consequence. This makes a review distinct from an appeal, as it focuses on correcting grave errors leading to miscarriage of justice, rather than re-evaluating the entire case.
Filing a Review Petition: Procedure and Timeline
According to the Civil Procedure Code and Supreme Court Rules, anyone adversely impacted by a ruling can file for a review, not just the parties directly involved in the case. The petition must be submitted within 30 days of the judgment or order. In some cases, the court may excuse a delay in filing if the petitioner provides compelling reasons.
| Key Points |
|---|
| A review petition must be filed within 30 days of the judgment or order. |
| The court could condone delay in filing under certain circumstances. |
Grounds for Considering Review Petition
The court exercises discretion in accepting a review petition, based on the grounds presented. The Supreme Court has identified three reasons to review a verdict:
1. New and significant evidence or information that was unknown or inaccessible to the petitioner through due diligence.
2. A clear mistake or error apparent in the case record.
3. Any other sufficient reason analogous to the first two.
Court’s Procedure for Review Petitions
Typically, review petitions are considered without oral arguments by lawyers, instead being reviewed “through circulation” among the judges in their chambers. In exceptional cases, oral hearings may be allowed. Notably, in 2014, it was ruled that review petitions in death penalty cases would be heard in open court by a panel of three judges. Additionally, the original panel of judges who issued the ruling or judgment under review usually hear the review petitions.
Options if the Review Petition Fails
In the event of a review petition failing, there is still recourse via a curative petition, as established in the Roopa Hurra vs Ashok Hurra case (2002). However, this petition can only be heard after a review petition has been dismissed and it operates on narrow grounds akin to those of a review petition. Generally, these petitions do not gain an oral hearing. This final measure ensures the Supreme Court’s verdicts do not result in miscarriages of justice.