CA Ashish Goyal
Abstract
A curative petition is one of the most exceptional remedies in the Indian judicial system. It enables the Supreme Court of India, in extremely rare cases, to reconsider its own final judgment even after dismissal of a review petition. Unlike appeals and review petitions, curative jurisdiction is not expressly provided in the Constitution. It was judicially evolved by the Supreme Court in Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra, (2002) 4 SCC 388, to prevent abuse of the Court’s process and to cure gross miscarriage of justice. The doctrine attempts to maintain a delicate balance between two competing principles: the finality of judgments and the Court’s duty to do complete justice. This article examines the constitutional foundation, historical development, procedural framework, leading precedents, practical benefits, risks of misuse, and important cases where relief has been granted or denied under curative jurisdiction.
1. Introduction
The Supreme Court of India is the final court of appeal. Ordinarily, once the Supreme Court decides a matter and dismisses a review petition, litigation comes to an end. This finality is necessary for certainty, judicial discipline and stability of legal rights. However, the legal system also recognises that even the highest court may, in exceptional cases, commit an error that causes grave injustice.
The curative petition is the judicial answer to this tension. It is not a routine remedy. It is not a second review. It is not an appeal in disguise. It is a narrow, extraordinary jurisdiction meant to correct a judgment where the Court’s process itself has resulted in gross miscarriage of justice.
The concept was formally recognised in Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra, where a Constitution Bench held that the Supreme Court may reconsider its final judgment in exercise of its inherent powers to prevent abuse of process and to cure gross miscarriage of justice. The Court traced this power to its status as a court of record under Article 129 and its power to do complete justice under Article 142 of the Constitution.
2. Constitutional Background: Finality, Review and Curative Jurisdiction
Article 141 of the Constitution declares that the law laid down by the Supreme Court is binding on all courts within India. Article 137 expressly gives the Supreme Court power to review its judgments or orders, subject to law and rules made under Article 145. Thus, the Constitution recognises review, but it does not expressly mention a curative petition.
Traditionally, the route was simple: after a judgment of the Supreme Court, an aggrieved party could file a review petition. If the review was dismissed, the matter ordinarily ended. This position served the principle of finality. However, the Supreme Court later recognised that absolute finality may sometimes perpetuate injustice. This was the reason for judicially creating a remedy beyond review, but only in the narrowest category of cases.
Order XLVII of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 deals with review. It provides that, unless otherwise ordered, a review is generally disposed of by circulation without oral arguments and, as far as practicable, before the same Bench that delivered the original judgment. Order XLVIII specifically deals with curative petitions and incorporates the principles laid down in Rupa Ashok Hurra.
3. Historical Evolution of Curative Jurisdiction
3.1 Pre-Rupa Hurra judicial anxiety
Before the formal recognition of curative petitions, the Supreme Court had already faced situations where its own earlier orders created serious procedural unfairness. One important pre-curative example is A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak, (1988) 2 SCC 602. In that case, the Supreme Court revisited an earlier direction that had deprived the accused of a statutory forum and procedural protections. The judgment demonstrated that even a final order of the Supreme Court could be recalled where it had caused violation of fundamental rights and procedural justice. (Indian Kanoon)
Although A.R. Antulay was not a curative petition case in the modern sense, it laid the jurisprudential foundation for the idea that the Supreme Court cannot be powerless where its own order results in manifest injustice.
3.2 The turning point: Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra
The doctrine was formally shaped in Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra, (2002) 4 SCC 388. The issue before the Constitution Bench was whether an aggrieved person is entitled to any relief against a final judgment or order of the Supreme Court after dismissal of a review petition.
The Court held that although finality of judgments is an important principle, it cannot be used to protect a decision that results in gross miscarriage of justice. The Court, therefore, evolved the curative petition as a limited remedy. It held that such jurisdiction may be invoked only to prevent abuse of the Court’s process or to cure gross miscarriage of justice.
The Court made it clear that the remedy would be available only in rare cases, such as where there was violation of natural justice or where a judge failed to disclose a relevant connection giving rise to apprehension of bias.
4. Legal Framework Under the Supreme Court Rules, 2013
Curative petitions are now governed by Order XLVIII of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013. The Rules substantially codify the principles laid down in Rupa Ashok Hurra.
Order XLVIII provides that a curative petition must specifically state that the grounds raised in the curative petition had been raised in the review petition and that the review petition was dismissed by circulation. It must be accompanied by a certificate from a Senior Advocate stating that the petition satisfies the requirements laid down in Rupa Ashok Hurra. It must also be accompanied by a certificate from the Advocate-on-Record stating that it is the first curative petition in the impugned matter.
The Rules further provide that a curative petition must be filed within a reasonable time from the date of the judgment or order passed in the review petition. It is first circulated to a Bench of the three senior-most judges and, if available, the judges who delivered the impugned judgment. Unless the Court orders otherwise, it is disposed of by circulation without oral arguments. If the Bench concludes by majority that the matter requires hearing, it may be listed before the same Bench as far as possible. The Court may impose exemplary costs if the petition is found to be without merit and vexatious.
5. Grounds for Filing a Curative Petition
A curative petition cannot be filed merely because the party believes the judgment is wrong. The permissible grounds are very narrow.
The principal grounds are:
| Ground | Explanation |
| Violation of natural justice | For example, where the petitioner was not heard though directly affected. |
| Apprehension of bias | Where a judge failed to disclose a relevant connection with the subject matter or parties. |
| Abuse of process of Court | Where the Court’s procedure itself caused serious injustice. |
| Gross miscarriage of justice | A grave and exceptional error affecting fundamental fairness. |
The expression “gross miscarriage of justice” is not a licence to reopen every final judgment. It refers to errors of such magnitude that allowing the judgment to stand would damage the credibility of justice itself.
6. Procedure for Filing a Curative Petition
The procedure may be summarised as follows:
1. The Supreme Court delivers a final judgment or order.
2. The aggrieved party files a review petition under Article 137.
3. The review petition is dismissed.
4. Only thereafter can a curative petition be filed.
5. The curative petition must mention that the grounds were raised in the review petition.
6. It must be certified by a Senior Advocate.
7. It must also contain an Advocate-on-Record certificate that it is the first curative petition in the matter.
8. It is circulated to the three senior-most judges and, if available, the original judges.
9. It is usually considered in chambers without oral hearing.
10. If the Bench finds merit, it may be listed for hearing.
11. If found vexatious, exemplary costs may be imposed.
Thus, the procedure itself is designed to filter out frivolous petitions.
7. Difference Between Review Petition and Curative Petition
| Basis | Review Petition | Curative Petition |
| Constitutional source | Article 137 | Judicially evolved; governed by Order XLVIII |
| Stage | Filed after final judgment | Filed after dismissal of review |
| Nature | Correction of apparent error | Correction of gross miscarriage of justice |
| Scope | Narrow but wider than curative | Extremely narrow |
| Bench | Generally same Bench, as far as practicable | Three senior-most judges and original judges, if available |
| Oral hearing | Usually by circulation, unless ordered | Usually by circulation, unless ordered |
| Certification | Advocate-on-Record certificate | Senior Advocate and Advocate-on-Record certificates |
| Purpose | Correct error apparent | Prevent abuse of process and grave injustice |
8. Leading Cases on Curative Petitions
8.1 Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra, (2002) 4 SCC 388
This is the foundational judgment. The Supreme Court held that a curative petition may be entertained after dismissal of review only to prevent abuse of process and to cure gross miscarriage of justice. The Court carefully limited the remedy to exceptional cases so that the finality of judgments is not destroyed.
8.2 Navneet Kaur v. State of NCT of Delhi, Curative Petition (Criminal), decided on 31 March 2014
In this case, Navneet Kaur, wife of Devender Pal Singh Bhullar, filed a curative petition seeking commutation of Bhullar’s death sentence on the ground of long delay in disposal of the mercy petition. The Supreme Court granted relief and commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment. The case is significant because it shows that curative jurisdiction can operate as a life-saving remedy in death penalty matters where supervening circumstances make execution unjust.
8.3 Union of India v. Union Carbide Corporation, Curative Petition in Bhopal Gas Tragedy matter
The Union of India filed curative petitions seeking enhancement of compensation arising out of the 1984 Bhopal Gas Tragedy settlement. In 2023, a Constitution Bench dismissed the curative petitions and refused to reopen the settlement after several decades. The Court held that the curative remedy could not be used to impose greater liability long after the settlement had attained finality. This case illustrates the Court’s reluctance to disturb final settlements unless the strict curative threshold is satisfied.
8.4 Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. v. Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 522
This is one of the most important recent cases where the Supreme Court allowed a curative petition in a commercial arbitration matter. The Court set aside its earlier judgment and restored the position resulting from the Division Bench judgment. The case concerned a large arbitral award against DMRC. The Supreme Court held that the earlier interference had resulted in grave miscarriage of justice and exercised curative jurisdiction.
This decision has generated debate. Supporters see it as a necessary correction of a serious injustice. Critics argue that reopening an arbitral award at the curative stage may create uncertainty in arbitration law and commercial finality.
8.5 Surendra Koli v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2025 INSC 1308
In 2025, the Supreme Court allowed Surendra Koli’s curative petition in the Nithari case and acquitted him in the remaining case in which his conviction had survived. The Court noted that in other connected cases based on similar evidence, Koli had been acquitted, and the conviction in the remaining case created an irreconcilable and arbitrary disparity. The decision is a powerful example of curative jurisdiction being used to prevent continued incarceration where the evidentiary basis had been rejected in companion cases.
8.6 Yakub Memon and Nirbhaya cases
Curative petitions were also filed in high-profile death penalty matters such as Yakub Memon’s case and the Nirbhaya case. These petitions were dismissed. Their dismissal demonstrates that the Supreme Court applies strict scrutiny and does not treat curative petitions as an automatic final round of litigation. The mere gravity of punishment or public importance of the case does not by itself justify curative interference.
8.7 AIIMS curative petition in minor’s pregnancy termination matter, 2026
In 2026, the Supreme Court declined to entertain a curative plea filed by AIIMS against an order permitting termination of pregnancy of a minor rape survivor. The Court emphasised that the choice rested with the girl and her family, while the medical institution’s role was to enable informed decision-making rather than override autonomy. This case shows that even institutional concerns may not justify curative intervention where the Court considers autonomy and dignity to be central.
9. Cases Where Relief Was Granted Under Curative Jurisdiction
Although curative petitions are rarely allowed, some cases show their practical importance.
| Case | Nature of relief | Significance |
| Navneet Kaur v. State of NCT of Delhi | Death sentence commuted to life imprisonment | Recognised delay in mercy petition as a supervening circumstance. |
| DMRC v. DAMEPL | Earlier judgment recalled; arbitral award effectively set aside | Important commercial law example of curative relief. |
| Surendra Koli v. State of Uttar Pradesh | Conviction set aside; acquittal granted | Prevented inconsistent and arbitrary criminal outcome. |
These cases show that the curative petition is not merely theoretical. In rare situations, it has resulted in substantial relief, including saving life and liberty.
10. Benefits of Curative Petitions
10.1 Protection against gross injustice
The most important benefit is that curative petitions allow the Supreme Court to correct grave injustice caused by its own final judgment. This is especially important in criminal cases, death penalty cases and cases involving fundamental rights.
10.2 Strengthening public confidence
A legal system earns legitimacy not by claiming infallibility, but by possessing the courage to correct itself. Curative jurisdiction signals that the Supreme Court is willing to revisit its own decision where justice so demands.
10.3 Harmonising finality with justice
Finality is important, but finality without justice can become oppressive. Curative jurisdiction provides a narrowly tailored exception. It does not destroy finality; it qualifies finality in the most exceptional situations.
10.4 Correcting procedural unfairness
Where a party was not heard, or where there was a real apprehension of bias, a curative petition allows the Court to restore procedural fairness.
10.5 Importance in death penalty jurisprudence
In capital punishment matters, the consequence is irreversible. Curative petitions provide an additional safeguard against execution where serious procedural or constitutional concerns remain.
11. Downsides and Criticism
11.1 Risk of endless litigation
The strongest criticism is that curative petitions may encourage litigants to treat Supreme Court judgments as never truly final. If used loosely, the remedy may create a fourth stage of litigation: appeal, review, curative petition and further applications.
11.2 Misuse as a delaying tactic
In some criminal cases, curative petitions are filed at the last moment, particularly before execution of death sentence. This may be legitimate in some cases but may also be used to delay enforcement of final judgments.
11.3 Uncertainty in commercial disputes
The DMRC v. DAMEPL decision has raised concern in arbitration and commercial law circles because curative interference after multiple rounds of litigation may affect certainty of arbitral awards and investor confidence. (Dispute Resolution Blog)
11.4 High threshold but flexible language
Terms such as “gross miscarriage of justice” and “abuse of process” are powerful but flexible. Their application depends on judicial discretion. This may create uncertainty about when curative jurisdiction will be invoked.
11.5 Institutional burden
The Supreme Court already faces a heavy docket. Entertaining curative petitions beyond the rarest cases may increase the burden on the Court and divert attention from pending matters.
12. Critical Analysis
The curative petition is both necessary and dangerous. It is necessary because no court, including the Supreme Court, is immune from error. It is dangerous because excessive use may weaken finality and certainty.
The true strength of curative jurisdiction lies in restraint. The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasised that it is not a regular remedy. The procedural safeguards under Order XLVIII reflect this restraint: certification by a Senior Advocate, circulation to the senior-most judges, absence of routine oral hearing, and possibility of exemplary costs.
At the same time, recent cases show that curative jurisdiction is evolving. Earlier, it was mostly discussed in the context of natural justice and death penalty. Now, cases like DMRC v. DAMEPL show its possible use in commercial matters. Cases like Surendra Koli show its importance where later developments reveal inconsistent outcomes in criminal trials.
The key question is not whether curative petitions should exist. They should. The real question is how narrowly they should be used. The answer lies in maintaining the Rupa Hurra standard: only where failure to interfere would perpetuate gross miscarriage of justice.
13. Suggestions for Reform
First, the Supreme Court may consider issuing more detailed guidelines on what constitutes “gross miscarriage of justice” in different categories of cases, such as criminal law, death penalty, civil disputes, constitutional matters and commercial arbitration.
Second, where curative petitions are dismissed, short reasoned orders may be useful in cases involving public importance. This would improve transparency without turning curative jurisdiction into a full appeal.
Third, last-minute filing of curative petitions in death penalty matters should be discouraged through procedural timelines, while ensuring that genuine claims are not shut out.
Fourth, in commercial matters, the Court should exercise added caution because finality and enforcement certainty are central to arbitration law.
Fifth, exemplary costs should be imposed in clearly frivolous curative petitions to deter misuse.
14. Conclusion
The curative petition is a unique Indian judicial innovation. It reflects the Supreme Court’s recognition that justice must not be sacrificed at the altar of technical finality. At the same time, it is not intended to give every losing litigant another chance.
The remedy was born in Rupa Ashok Hurra as an extraordinary jurisdiction to prevent abuse of process and cure gross miscarriage of justice. Its later development in cases such as Navneet Kaur, Union Carbide, DMRC v. DAMEPL and Surendra Koli shows both its power and its limits.
The curative petition is best understood as a constitutional safety valve. It must remain available, but only for the rarest cases. If used with restraint, it strengthens the rule of law. If used casually, it may weaken finality and certainty. The legitimacy of curative jurisdiction therefore depends on a careful balance: finality must be respected, but justice must remain supreme.
