Author- Akanksha jamre a student at prestige institute of management and Research, Indore
Introduction
Over time, significant advancements in Indian jurisprudence have been made by the court or the legislative. It would never be enough to list all of the enormous expansion and development our legal system has seen throughout the years.
A notable case that appears to have altered the functioning of our legal system and confirmed the notion that the Indian judiciary will stop at nothing to achieve justice is the seminal ruling in Rupa Ashok Hurra versus Ashok Hurra and Others.
In a case that became well-known for causing marital strife, the woman renounced her permission that she had given while agreeing to a divorce by mutual consent when the issue of the legality of a divorce decision came before the Honourable Supreme Court of India (henceforth, “the Apex Court”).
The question of law aroused in this case –
Is there any recourse available to the aggrieved party, in terms of Article 32 or otherwise, against a final decision or order rendered by the Supreme Court following the dismissal of the Review Petition?
A historic ruling that created a new avenue for the administration of justice in this nation was rendered by a bench that included Chief Justice of India Justice S.P. Bharucha and his companion justices, Justices S.M. Qadri, U.C. Banerjee, Justice S.N. Variava, and Justice S.V. Patil.
The court stated that it would be pertinent to address Article 32[2] since the matter calls for the Apex Court’s jurisdiction.
Held: The writ jurisdiction of Habeas Corpus, Quo Warranto, Mandamus, Prohibition, and Certiorari is invoked by Article 32. The High Courts of India are essentially in the same situation as the court of Kings Bench in England with respect to writ jurisdiction. It is a well-established notion that within our constitutional framework, the minutiae surrounding prerogative writs in English law are meaningless. It is crucial to remember that a superior court issues a writ of certiorari to a lower court, which authorizes the record to be examined, so that the latter can obtain the records and review them in order to give an appropriate order.
What is a Curative Petition?
- Definition: A legal remedy accessible following the denial of a review plea against a final conviction is a curative petition.
Constitutionally speaking, a challenge to a final decision rendered by the Supreme Court is normally limited to review petitions and specific procedural grounds.
But in order to correct a serious injustice, the curative petition is a rarely employed judicial innovation.
- Goal: It seeks to stop judicial miscarriages and discourage judicial abuse.
- Decision-Making Process: Judges normally decide curative petitions in chambers, but they may also hold open hearings if necessary.
- Legal Basis: In the 2002 case of Rupa Ashok Hurra Vs. Ashok Hurra & another Case, the Supreme Court established the rules governing curative petitions.
Requirements for Considering a Curative Petition:
- Nature of Justice Violated-
It must be proven that natural justice principles were broken, such as when the petitioner wasn’t given a chance to be heard before the court issued an order.
- Suspicion of Bias-
If there are reasons to believe the judge is biased, such as when key facts are withheld, then it may be admitted.
Rules for submitting a curative petition:
- Senior Advocate Certification:
A certification from a senior advocate outlining significant grounds for consideration must be included with the petition.
- First Assessment:
It is initially distributed to the bench consisting of the three most senior judges and, if available, the judges who rendered the initial decision.
- Hearing
: An application is only scheduled for review, ideally before the same bench that rendered the original decision, if a majority of the judges determine that one is required.
Reasons for Rejection:
The Bench may penalize the petitioner if it determines at any point that the petition is lacking merit.
Function of Amicus Curiae:
At any point throughout the review of the curative petition, the bench may designate a senior attorney to serve as an Amicus Curiae.
Cost Implications:
If the court determines that the petition is baseless and unsubstantiated, the petitioner can be forced to pay exemplary costs.
Judicial Discretion:
The Supreme Court emphasizes that curative petitions should be rare and carefully handled in order to maintain the integrity of the legal system.
Importance of this judgement:
This ruling serves as a standard for judicial review. This case served as a reminder that the nation’s judiciary, in particular the Honourable Supreme Court, which is the highest court in the land, will stop at nothing to provide justice to the people. The court will do whatever it takes, including re-examining its own ruling, to ensure that the parties involved feel that justice has been served.
Nonetheless, the court has complete discretion over this. The Association for Victims of Uphaar Tragedy (AVUT), a group of victims of the 1997 Uphaar cinema fire tragedy, filed a curative petition. On February 20, 2020, a three-judge panel of the Apex court, consisting of Chief Justice S A Bobde, Justice N V Ramanna, and Justice Arun Mishra, dismissed the petition, sparing the Ansal brothers from additional jail time.
Curative petition regulations are quite strict since the petitioner must prove that the natural justice principles were actually broken.
On March 19, 2020, Pawan Gupta, one of the four death row inmates in the 2012 Nirbhaya gangrape and murder case, filed a curative petition with the Supreme Court challenging the denial of his juvenility claim. However, the petition was denied. The plea was rejected by a six-judge panel led by Justice N.V. Ramanna, who stated that no case had been established.
“The request for an oral hearing is denied. We have reviewed the pertinent documents and the petition for cure. We believe that no case is made out. Therefore, the curative plea is denied, the bench, which also included Justices Arun Mishra, R F Nariman, R Bhanumathi, Ashok Bhushan, and A S Bopanna, declared.
In light of this, it can be said that while a curative petition is an extremely necessary judicial remedy after all other remedies have been exhausted, it is solely dependent on judicial discretion and does not require any particular presumptions in order to be granted.
It is still possible, nevertheless, that the Ashok Hurra case ruling served as a model for India’s legal system.
Other Cases Related to Curative Petition:
Bhopal Gas Disaster Case:
Union of India v. Union Carbide: In 2010, the Union Government filed a curative petition to obtain further compensation for the victims of the Bhopal Gas Disaster. A five-judge bench denied the petition in 2023, ruling that the amount already awarded was adequate.
The Bench emphasized that a curative petition can only be considered in situations where there has been a flagrant injustice, fraud, or concealment of important information—none of which applied in this instance.
The 2014 case of Navneet Kaur v. State of the NCT of Delhi:
This case signaled a change in the use of the death penalty. Using a curative petition, the petitioner—who had been given a death sentence—successfully argued that mental illness and an excessively lengthy delay for a mercy petition were reasons to commute the sentence to life imprisonment.
Conclusion
Judges aren’t gods, despite what one might like to think. Since they are only human, mistakes will inevitably be made. The Indian Constitution allows for the review, appeal, and revision of decisions made by lower courts, but the Supreme Court is not permitted to overrule its own ruling. Nonetheless, it was crucial to present the idea that the Supreme Court might reconsider an order that they had issued since mistakes may be made by people. This is merely one more step toward achieving the goals of justice as a whole.
FQA
Q1. What distinguishes a curative petition from a review petition?
The primary distinction between a curative petition and a review petition lies in the fact that the former is established by the Indian constitution, while the latter is the result of the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the former, as stated in article 137.
Q2. What was the case of Ashok Hurra v. Rupa Hurra?
In this landmark case of Ashok Hurra vs. Rupa Hurra, there existed marital strife. The Supreme Court considered the case’s legitimacy of the divorce order after Rupa Ashok Hurra withdrew her permission, despite having previously granted her agreement for mutual divorce.
Q.3 what are the requirements for filing a curative petition?
There are 2 essentials that needs to be fulfilled
•Nature of Justice Violated-
It must be proven that natural justice principles were broken, such as when the petitioner wasn’t given a chance to be heard before the court issued an order.
•Suspicion of Bias-
If there are reasons to believe the judge is biased, such as when key facts are withheld, then it may be admitted.
Q4. What are the Constitutional Provisions related to Curative Petition?
Article 137 assures this petition
1.Article 145 of the Indian Constitution governs the making of laws and rules.
2.It means that the Supreme Court has the authority to review every judgment that is made by it.
