Curative Petition: An overview
Curative petition is a judicially formulated mechanism
available to a party as the last recourse to approach the Supreme Court. The
term Curative Petition was devised by the Supreme Court in Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok
Hurra and Anr. (2002) 4 SCC 388. The Constitution of India guaranteed that the
Judgment of the Supreme Court is final and conclusive and is binding on all the
parties of the proceedings. The
Constitution provides under Article 137 to file review petition before the
Supreme Court if the appeal or any other proceedings is dismissed by the
Supreme Court. The situation of
injustice caused to the litigant due to the infirmities in the order of
dismissal of the Review petition is not addressed by the Constitution. To remedy
such situation the Supreme Court evolved the remedy of Curative Petition formulated
under Article 142 of the Constitution to ensure substantive justice.
The Supreme Court in Hurra’s case held that the curative petition is maintainable on two
grounds, namely violation of principles of Natural Justice and on the ground of
bias. In order to get relief the
petitioner has to establish that:-
(i)
He was
not a party to the case but the judgment adversely affected his interest
or
If he was party to
the case, he was not served with the notice of the proceedings and the matter
proceeded as if he had notice.
(ii)
In the
proceedings the judge failed to disclose his connection with the subject matter
or the parties giving scope for an apprehension of bias and the judgment
adversely affects the petitioner.
It is also stipulated by the Supreme Court that
in the curative petition, the petitioner shall aver specifically that the
grounds mentioned therein had been taken in the review petition and the same
was dismissed. It is also necessary that the curative petition shall contain a
certificate by a Senior Advocate with regard to the fulfillment of the above
said requirements.
Supreme Court has the jurisdiction to
exercise this inherent power for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the
process of the court. This has been recognized by Order XLVII Rule 6 of the
Supreme Court Rules, 1966. In A.R. Antulay v R.S. Nayak &
Anr 1988 AIR
1531, it is held that the superior court can always correct its own
error brought to its notice either by way of petition or ex debito justitiae.
Curative Petition is placed before three senior
most judges of the Supreme Court including the Judges, who were part of the
review petition. The decision in curative petition is discretionary and in very
few cases the Supreme Court had allowed Curative Petitions. In March 2013, the Supreme Court allowed a
curative petition against its 2009 judgment which held that if a woman kicked
her daughter-in-law or threatened her with divorce; it would not amount to
cruelty under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. In April 2010, the court
also corrected a mistake in its verdict that had led to wrongful detention of
four accused in a 21-year-old murder case without any hearing.
National
Commission for Women filed a curative petition against the judgment in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8
SCC 273 contending that it lacks sensitivity to women. The Supreme Court issued
guidelines to the police not to arrest the accused in dowry harassment cases
automatically without conducting some
investigation as to genuineness of allegation under Section 498A IPC and the
Magistrate cannot order detention of the accused mechanically and casually. The Supreme Court dismissed the curative petition
on the ground that the parameters drawn
in Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra and Anr.
(2002) was not made out in this case.
In
another instance the Supreme Court gave a fresh hope to lesbian, gay, bisexual
and transgender (LGBT) communities, as it ordered a review of a colonial-era law
that criminalizes consensual same sex relations between adults, by admitting a batch of six curative petitions, which sought
a review of a 2013 judgement upholding the 156-year-old law, and referred to a
five-judge constitution bench.
Prof.
(Dr.) K.K.Geetha
Dean,
School of Law
Comments
Post a Comment