Review And Curative Petitions In Criminal Matters
1. What is a Review Petition?
A Review Petition is a statutory remedy provided under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (and under Supreme Court Rules) that allows a party to seek a reconsideration of a judgment or order by the same court which delivered the judgment.
It is an extraordinary remedy meant to correct apparent errors or mistakes in the judgment.
Grounds for review are very limited: typically, errors apparent on the face of the record, discovery of new and important evidence, or any mistake or irregularity.
Review Petition in Criminal Cases:
In criminal matters, a review petition can be filed against any final judgment or order of the Supreme Court.
It is not a second appeal or a rehearing.
The scope is limited and does not allow re-examination of facts or evidence unless there is an error apparent on the face of the record.
2. What is a Curative Petition?
The Curative Petition is an extraordinary remedy developed by the Supreme Court through judicial decisions to prevent abuse of process and to cure gross miscarriage of justice.
It is filed after dismissal of the review petition.
It is meant to curb harassment and ensure justice, especially in rare cases where the fundamental principles of natural justice are violated.
It is filed without limitation of time and is only entertained when the petitioner proves that:
The judgment was biased or influenced by extraneous considerations.
There was violation of principles of natural justice.
There is gross miscarriage of justice.
Important Case Laws on Review and Curative Petitions in Criminal Matters
1. Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra (2002) 4 SCC 388
This is the landmark case that laid down the detailed principles governing curative petitions.
The Supreme Court held that when a review petition is dismissed, the aggrieved party can file a curative petition if the matter involves:
Violation of principles of natural justice.
Gross miscarriage of justice.
Bias or abuse of the process of law.
The Court laid down guidelines to prevent abuse of the curative petition:
Curative petitions will be heard only after circulation to all the judges who participated in the original judgment.
The petition must be decided by a bench of not less than five judges.
No legal aid or costs are allowed.
This case firmly established the doctrine of curative jurisdiction to protect justice.
2. State of Rajasthan v. Balchand, AIR 1977 SC 2447
This case clarified the scope and limitation of review petitions.
The Court held that review petitions should only be entertained for errors apparent on the face of the record.
It reiterated that a review is not an appeal and the court should not re-examine evidence or reconsider the entire case.
The review petition in criminal cases is to correct manifest errors and not to re-litigate facts.
3. K.K. Verma v. Union of India, AIR 1979 SC 1101
This case reinforced the restrictive nature of review petitions.
It was held that:
Mere disagreement with the verdict is not a ground for review.
The court cannot reopen issues or consider new evidence unless it fits within the narrow grounds of review.
This case is important in criminal cases where accused often try to misuse review petitions to delay justice.
4. Union of India v. R. Gandhi, AIR 2010 SC 3429
This case dealt with the procedure for filing review and curative petitions.
The Court clarified that a review petition must be filed within 30 days of the judgment.
Curative petitions have no time limit but must be supported by convincing evidence of violation of natural justice or bias.
The Supreme Court emphasized that curative jurisdiction is the last resort.
5. M/s. Kanaiyalal Lalchand v. The Custodian, AIR 1968 SC 1419
This case highlighted the importance of the finality of judgments.
It was held that review petitions cannot be entertained on grounds that were already considered and rejected.
This applies in criminal matters to prevent endless litigation and ensure certainty.
6. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Synthetics Limited, AIR 1969 SC 126
The Court ruled that review petitions should not be used as an instrument to reargue the case.
The scope is limited to correction of palpable errors.
This principle is often cited to reject frivolous review petitions in criminal cases.
7. Narendra Kumar v. Union of India, (2004) 1 SCC 340
This case emphasized the importance of finality in criminal litigation.
The Supreme Court stressed that the criminal justice system cannot be allowed to be used as a tool for harassment by filing multiple review and curative petitions without any substantial ground.
The Court also reiterated that curative petitions are a rare remedy.
Summary of Key Points:
| Aspect | Review Petition | Curative Petition |
|---|---|---|
| Purpose | To correct errors apparent on the face of record | To cure gross miscarriage of justice or bias |
| Grounds | Errors apparent, new evidence, mistake | Violation of natural justice, bias, abuse of process |
| Time Limit | Generally 30 days | No time limit |
| Court to be Heard By | Same court (usually same judges) | Bench of at least 5 judges |
| Nature | Statutory remedy | Judicial innovation/remedy |
| Scope | Very limited | Very limited, extraordinary |
| Use | Not a re-appeal or re-hearing | Last resort to prevent injustice |
Concluding Remarks:
Both review and curative petitions are extraordinary remedies that act as safeguards to prevent miscarriages of justice.
They cannot be misused as tools for delaying the criminal justice process.
The Supreme Court’s stringent guidelines ensure that these petitions are entertained only in rare and exceptional cases.
These remedies uphold the finality of judicial decisions while allowing limited scope for correction of errors or injustice.
RELATED Blog
0 comments