REVIEW JURISDICTION OF SUPREME COURT OF INDIA: ARTICLE 137

INTRODUCTION

The Supreme Court of India is the highest court of the land as established by Part V,
Chapter IV of the Constitution of India. According to the Constitution of India, the role of
the Supreme Court is that of a federal court, guardian of the Constitution and the highest
court of appeal. Articles 124 to 147 of the Constitution of India lay down the composition
and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of India. Primarily, it is an appellate court which
takes up appeals against judgments of the provincial High Courts. But it also takes writ
petitions in cases of serious human rights violations or if a case involves a serious issue that
needs immediate resolution.

The Supreme Court has original, appellate, advisory and review jurisdiction.

Article 137 of the Constitution of India, 1950, provides that subject to provisions of any
law and rules made under Article 145, the Supreme Court has the power to review any
judgment pronounced or order made by it. Under Supreme Court Rules, 1966 such a
petition is to be filed within thirty days from the date of judgment or order and as far as
practicable; it is to be circulated, without oral arguments, to the same Bench of Judges who
delivered the judgment or order sought to be reviewed.

Under Article 145(e), the Supreme Court is authorised to make rules as to the conditions
subject to which the court may review any judgement or order.1 In exercise of this power,
Order XL has been framed.

The word “Review” in legal parlance connotes a judicial re-examination of the case.
Therefore, in order to rectify an error and prevent the gross miscarriage of justice, a provision
for review has been laid down under the Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure which
gives a substantive right of review and Order XLVII there under provides for the procedure.

Review Petition is dealt with under Section 114 and Order 47 of the CPC. Any party
aggrieved by an order or judgement may apply for reviewing the said order or judgement to
the same court. It can be filed where no appeal is preferred or in case there is no provision for
appeal.

Review Petition is a discretionary right of court. The grounds for review are limited. Review
is filed in the same court.
1
On the rule making power of the court, see Sec 1(f), infra

1|Page

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2169967

 REVIEW JURISDICTION OF SUPREME COURT OF INDIA: ARTICLE 137

Taking into consideration the principle of Stare Decisis i.e." to stand by that which is
decided", courts generally do not unsettle a decision, without a strong case. This provision
regarding review is an exemption to the legal principle of stare decisis. The term ‘review’ has
not been defined either in the Constitution or in any statute pertaining to review.

Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary defines the word ‘review’ as “re-examination or

reconsideration.” The basic philosophy inherent in the concept of review is acceptance of
human fallibility.

As the law stands in India ever since the adoption of the Indian Constitution, review is the
creation of statute. Even during times when there was no statutory provision and when no
rules were framed by the highest Court indicating the circumstances in which it could rectify
its orders, Courts had culled out such power in order to avoid abuse of process of Court or
miscarriage of justice.

A review cannot be sought merely for fresh hearing or arguments or correction of an

erroneous view taken earlier. The power of review can be exercised only for correction of a
patent error of law or fact which stares in the face, without any elaborate argument being
needed for establishing it. In Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma 2the
Supreme Court held that :- “It is true there is nothing in Article 226 of the Constitution to
preclude the High Court from exercising the power of review which inheres in every Court
of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable
errors committed by it. But, there are definitive limits to be exercise of the power of
review.

The power of review may be exercised on the discovery of new and important matter of
evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the
person seeking the review or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was
made; it may be exercised where some mistake or error apparent on the face of the
record is found, it may also be exercised on any analogous ground. But, it may not be
exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merit.”

2
(AIR 1979 SC 1047)

2|Page

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2169967

 REVIEW JURISDICTION OF SUPREME COURT OF INDIA: ARTICLE 137

REVIEW PETITION

Art.137. of the Constitution reads as:-

Review of judgments or orders by the Supreme Court. — Subject to the provisions of

any law made by Parliament or any rules made under article 145, the Supreme Court
shall have power to review any judgment pronounced or order made by it.

Under Supreme Court Rules, 1966 such a petition is to be filed within thirty days from the
date of judgment or order and as far as practicable; it is to be circulated, without oral
arguments, to the same Bench of Judges who delivered the judgment or order sought to be
reviewed.

The Apex Court has clarified that a review is by no means an appeal in disguise. The court
has justified review of its own judgement with the following remarks:

“Review literally and even judicially means re examination or re consideration. Basic

Philosophy inherent in it is the universal acceptance of human fallibility...Rectification of an
order thus stems from the fundamental principle that justice is above all. It is exercised to
remove the error and not for disturbing finality.”3

Review is a serious matter; it is not rehearing of the appeal all over again. A Judgement once
delivered is final. A departure from that principle can be justified only when circumstances of
a substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do so.4

Since the Power given under the Article is subject to the any law made by the Parliament or
any other rules made there under by the Apex Court, the Power is to be exercised under the
rules made by the court in pursuance of Art.145 of the Constitution on the grounds
mentioned under Or. XLVII, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. Therefore, the
review will lie in the Supreme Court on:

1. Discovery of new and important matter or evidence: - Since review of the judgment is
neither an appeal nor a second inning to the Party who has lost the case because of his
negligence or indifference, the Party seeking review on this ground must show that there was
no remission on his part in adducing all possible evidence at the trail. In addition to this the
evidence upon which the review is sought must be relevant and of such a character that if it

3
S.Nagraj vs State of Karnataka (1993)
4
Northern indian carters vs Lt. Governor of Delhi, 1980

3|Page
 REVIEW JURISDICTION OF SUPREME COURT OF INDIA: ARTICLE 137

would have been brought into the notice of the court, it might have possibly altered the
judgment.

2. Error apparent on record: - Since the word “Error apparent on the face of record has not
been defined anywhere under the Code or the Constitution, it has to be determined sparingly
and with great caution by the judiciary. However, it is to be mentioned that no error could be
said to be an error apparent on the face of record where one has to travel beyond the record to
see the correctness of the judgment. Therefore, the error must be self evident and should not
require an examination or argument to establish it.

3. Other Sufficient reason:- Since the “Other sufficient reason” has to be decided by the
court, the apex court in order to prevent the misuse of this clause and relying on the judgment
of Privy Council5 and Federal Court6 has held that “……. a reason sufficient on grounds
should be at least analogous to those specified in the rule above…”

DISCOVERY OF NEW AND IMPORTANT MATTER OF EVIDENCE

The court will review its judgement if its attention was not drawn to a material statutory
provision during the first hearing, or if a manifest wrong has been done and it is necessary to
pass an order to do full and effective justice.7 A review proceeding cannot be equated with
the original hearing of the case and finality of the judgement delivered by the court will not
be considered except where a glaring omission or a patent mistake or like grave error has
crept in earlier by judicial fallibility.

Thus review of a judgement or order has been allowed if the order sought to be reviewed is
based on a decision per incuriam , or an incorrect facts or assumption of law or a non
consideration of a contention made or if the judgement is inconsistent with the operative
portion or an interim order which was granted subject to the outcome of the appeal or to
clarify an ambiguity.

Discovery of new evidence must contain:-

1. The relevancy of the same and

5
Chhaju Ram V Neki AIR 1922 PC 112
6
Hari Shankar V Anath Nath AIR 1949FC106
7
O N Mohindroo vs Dist Judge, Delhi, 1971

4|Page
 REVIEW JURISDICTION OF SUPREME COURT OF INDIA: ARTICLE 137

2. Be such of a character that, if it had been given in a suit it would have altered the
judgment.

It must at least be such as presumably to be believed and if so, it would be conclusive. The
discovery afore stated is not only a discovery of new and important materials or evidence,
that would entitle a party to apply for review, but the discovery of any new materials or
evidence; and important matter must be one which was not within the knowledge of the
party when the decree was made. The person seeking the review should prove strictly the
diligence as clearly spelt out in the above rule which he claims to have exercised and also that
the matter or evidence to which he wishes to have access to is, if not absolutely conclusive, at
any rate, nearly conclusive. It is not only the discovery of new and important evidence that
entitles a party to apply for a review, but the discovery of any new and important matter
which was not within the knowledge of the party when the decree was made. The party
seeking a review should prove strictly the diligence he claims to have exercised and also that
the matter or evidence which he wishes to have access to is, if not absolutely conclusive, at
any rate, nearly conclusive. A bare assertion in the affidavit that the party could not trace the
documents earlier will not do. It is not the proper function of a review application to
supplement the evidence or to make it serve the purpose of merely introducing evidence
which might possibly have had some effect upon the result." As was held in the case of n
Ramaswami Padayachi v. Shanmuga Padayachi8

In a review application a party cannot be allowed to introduce fresh documents merely to

supplement evidence which might possibly have had some effect on the result. A review
cannot be sought merely for fresh hearing or arguments or correction of an erroneous view
taken earlier. The power of review can be exercised only for correction of a patent error of
law or fact which stares in the face, without any elaborate argument being needed for
establishing it.

The discovery of new evidence or material by itself is not sufficient to entitle a party for
review of a judgment or order. It has to be established that due diligence was exercised and
despite that, the evidence or material sought to be produced at the stage of review could not
be produced before the order was passed. It is not the case of the review petitioner that these
documents were not within the knowledge of the Petitioner.

8
[(1959) 2 Mad LJ 201

5|Page
 REVIEW JURISDICTION OF SUPREME COURT OF INDIA: ARTICLE 137

In G.L.Gupta vs D.N. Mehta9, the supreme court reviewed its earlier decision in a criminal
appeal because a statutory provision of the foreign exchange act which had a vital bearing on
the case, was not brought to its notice. The court modified its sentence to imprisionment.

ERROR APPARENT ON RECORD

The expression “error apparent on the face of the record “ is an error which is based on clear
ignorance or disregard the provisions of the law. The error should be something more than a
mere error; it must be one manifest on the face of the record. An error is not apparent of the
record if it is not self evident and if it requires an examination or argument to establish it.1011

A patent, manifest and self evident error which does not require elaborate discussion of
evidence or argument to establish it, it can be said to be an error apparent on the face of
record.

In the case of Sarala Mudgal vs Union of India12, the court refused to review its earlier
judgement as there was no error apparent on the face of the record, no new material had come
into light after the judgement. The earlier judgement was not violative of any of the
fundamental rights guaranteed to the citizens. Review petition cannot be exercised merely
because there is a possibility of taking a different view.

In case of Tungabhadra Industries(Pvt.) ltd V. Government of Andhra Pradesh 13 has

observed:

“ ….. A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is

reheard and corrected, but lies only for patent error. We do not consider that this furnishes a
suitable occasion for dealing with this difference exhaustively or in any great detail, but it
would suffice for us to say that where without any elaborate argument one could point to the
error and say here is a substantial point of law which stares one in the face, and there could
reasonably be no two opinions entertained about it, a clear case of error apparent on the face
of record would be made out.”

9
AIR 1971 SC 2162
10
P.N. Eswara Iyer Vs Registar, Supreme Court of India
11
M.P. jain pg 382, volume 1
12
M.P.jain pg 382 ,Volume I
13
AIR 1964 SC1372

6|Page
 REVIEW JURISDICTION OF SUPREME COURT OF INDIA: ARTICLE 137

Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC a judgment may be open to review inter alia if there is a
mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. An error which is not self evident
and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on
the face of the record justifying the court to exercise its power of review under Order 47 Rule
1 CPC. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC it is not permissible
for an erroneous decision to be heard and corrected. A review petition, it must be
remembered has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be appeal in disguise. An error
which is not self evident and has to be dictated by a process of reasoning can hardly be said
to be an error apparent on the face of the record.

Not considering the Law laid down by Supreme Court will amount to an error apparent
14
on face of record and is a ground for Review. The term ‘Sufficient reason’ is wide
enough to include a misconception of fact or law by a court 15The objective of Review is
to do away with quickly the Injustice which may be necessitated by way of invoking the
doctrine “actus curie neminem gravabit’ 16which means that no act of court should harm a
litigant and it is the bounden duty of the courts to see that if a person is harmed by mistake of
the court, he should be restored quickly to the position he would have occupied but for the
mistake. Hon’ble Supreme Court has stated “basic philosophy is universal acceptance of
human fallibility” 17

In the case of Smti meera bhanja vs. smti nirmala kumari (choudhury)18, it was held by
the learned single judge that “The Supreme Court further pointed out that ‘error apparent on
the face of record’ means an error which strikes one on mere looking at record and would not
require any long drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two
opinions.

The Supreme Court also pointed out that review court should not reappreciate the evidence
and arrive at different findings and if it is done, the review court must be deemed to exceed
its jurisdiction.”

14
[2004(2) MPLJ 492 (498 para 10)]
15
[AIR 2005 Supreme Court 592 (605-para 88-90)].
16
AIR 2005 Supreme Court 592 (605-para 88-90)]
17
[1993 Supp (4) SCC 595 (619-para 19)].
18
1995 SC 455

7|Page
 REVIEW JURISDICTION OF SUPREME COURT OF INDIA: ARTICLE 137

OTHER SUFFICIENT REASONS

The expression ‘any other sufficient reason’ in Order XLVII Rule 1of the C.P.C. has
been given an expanded meaning, and a decree or order passed under misapprehension of
true state of circumstances has been held to be sufficient ground to exercise the power.

The court has emphasized that the basic fundamental of the administration of justice is that
no man should suffer because of the mistake of the court. Ex Debito Justitiate , the court
must do justice to him. If a man has been wronged, so long as it lies within the human
machinery of administration of justice, the wrong must be remedied. Some of the situations
where the court may exercise such a power are:-

1. Violation of a fundamental right

2. Violation of the principles of natural justice
3. Mistake of the court
4. Judgement was obtained by fraud
5. The court made the earlier order without jurisdiction

It is now well settled that the words "any other sufficient reason" in Order 47, Rule 1, Civil
Procedure Code, should be interpreted as amounting to a reason sufficient on grounds, at least
analogous to those specified immediately previously. It is loosely said that this means that the
sufficient reason must be ejusdem generis to the reasons previously stated. The words
"analogous reason" are however wider and mean a reason having resemblance or
similar in certain circumstances to the reasons previously stated. Thus, an excusable
failure to bring to the notice of the Court the relevant material is covered by the terms of
Order 47, rule, 1 Civil Procedure Code. The mistake of the counsel would be a sufficient
ground for granting review as "any other sufficient cause.

19
Board of Control for Cricket in India v. Netaji Cricket Club , wherein it has been held
that the words ‘sufficient reasons’ in Order 47, rule 1, Civil Procedure Code are wide enough
to include a misconception of fact of law or by a court or even by an advocate and an
application of review may be necessitated by way of invoking the doctrine actus curiae
neminem gravabit which means an act of court shall prejudice no man. The reason behind
this law is that law has to bend before justice.

19
AIR 2005 SC 592

8|Page
 REVIEW JURISDICTION OF SUPREME COURT OF INDIA: ARTICLE 137

Reference has been made to decision of the Supreme Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. A.J.
20
Thomas Court in Lily Thomas v. Union of India,21, wherein it has been observed that if
the court finds that the error pointed out in the review petition was under a mistake and the
earlier judgment would not have been passed but for erroneous assumption which in fact did
not exist and its perpetration shall result in miscarriage of justice, nothing would preclude the
court from rectifying the error.

The court has described its review power as follows in LILY THOMAS CASE22 :-

“....the power to review can be exercised for correction of a mistake and to substitute a
view. Such Powers can be exercised within the limits of the statue dealing with the
exercise of power. The mere possibility of two views on the subject is not a ground for
review.”

20
ACJ 471
21
AIR 2000 SC 1650
22
(2000) 6 SCC 224

9|Page
 REVIEW JURISDICTION OF SUPREME COURT OF INDIA: ARTICLE 137

DOCTRINE OF CURATIVE PETITION

The Supreme Court even after the express mention of the power of review under
Art.137 of the Constitution, in order to rectify an error committed by the judges of the
highest court , while disposing a bunch of petitions went a step ahead and laid down the
doctrine of Curative Approach. The Constitutional Bench, headed by the then CJI S.P
Barouche unanimously held that in order to rectify the gross miscarriage of justice even after
the final judgment, which cannot be reviewed could be questioned in a curative petition to
seek a second review on grounds of miscarriage of justice. However, the court has laid
down certain specific conditions for the court to entertain such a petition under its
inherent power to prevent floodgates of unnecessary petitions seeking their second
review.

Therefore, the petitioner has to establish that there was a genuine violation of principle of
natural justice, fear of the bias of the judge and judgment that adversely affected him. In
addition to this the petition must accompany certification by a Senior Lawyer relating to the
fulfillment of the requirements.

In a judgement of far reaching consequences in Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra23,a five
judge constitution bench of the Supreme court has unanimously held that in order to rectify
gross miscarriage of justice in its final judgement which cannot be challenged the court will
allow curative petition by the victim of miscarriage of justice to seek a second review of the
final order of the court. It was of the view “that though the judges of the highest court do
their best subject to the limitation of human fallibility yet situations may arise, in the
rarest of rare cases, which would require reconsideration of a final judgement to set
right miscarriage of justice.”

The court observed that it would be the legal and moral obligation of the apex court to
rectify error in such a decision that otherwise would remain in the cloud of uncertainty.
This judgement was given in a bunch of petitions on the question whether a petitioner could
question a final judgement even after the dismissal of the review petition. The courts concern
for reordering justice in a cause was not less important than the principle of certainty in its
judgements because there could be grounds that such a decision was in violation of natural
justice and that there was an abuse of the court’s judicial process. In the decision of the

23
AIR 2002 SC 1771

10 | P a g e
 REVIEW JURISDICTION OF SUPREME COURT OF INDIA: ARTICLE 137

Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra, justice quadric observed that “we are persuaded to
hold that the duty to do justice in these rarest of rarest cases shall have to prevail over
the policy of certainty of judgements as though it is essential in public interest that a
final judgement of the final court in the country should not be open to challenge.

To entertain the curative petitions, the court has laid down certain specific conditions. Its laid
down in order to prevent floodgates of unnecessary petitions seeking their second review.

Such a Curative Petition under the Court’s inherent power can be filed, seeking review of a
decision which has become final after dismissal of a review petition under article 137 on very
strong grounds, such as,

1. Variation of the principle of natural justice-the right to be heard, as for example when
the affected person was not served notice or not heard during the proceedings
2. A judge who participated in the decision-making process didnot disclose his links
with a party to the case i.e. the question of bias
3. Abuse of the process of the court

The requirements which are needed in order to accept the curative petitions are:-

 Court reaffirms that litigants are barred on challenging final decisions.

 In cases of miscarriage of justice it would be its legal and moral obligation to rectify the
error.
 The petitioner will have to establish that there was a genuine violation of principles of
natural justice and fear of the bias of the judge and judgement that adversely affected him.
 The curative petition must accompany certification by a senior lawyer relating to the
fulfilment of the requirements.
 The petition is to be sent to the three judges of the bench who passed the judgement
affecting the petition.
 If the majority of the judges on this bench conclude that the matter needed hearing before
the same bench which may pass appropriate order it should be listed.
 They could also impose “exemplary costs” of the petitioner if his pleas lacked merit.

11 | P a g e
 REVIEW JURISDICTION OF SUPREME COURT OF INDIA: ARTICLE 137

PROCEDURE FOR HEARING OF REVIEW APPLICATION

(i) A review application shall ordinarily be heard by the same Bench which has passed the
Order, however, the Chairman, may for reasons to be recorded in writing, direct it to be heard
by any other Bench.

(ii) Unless otherwise ordered by the Bench concerned, a review application shall be disposed
of by circulation and the Bench may either dismiss the application or direct notice to the
opposite party.

(iii) Where an application for review of any order has been made and disposed of, no further
application for review shall be entertained in the same matter.

(iv) No application for review shall be entertained unless it is supported by the duly sworn
affidavit indicating therein the source of knowledge, personal or otherwise, and also those
which are sworn on the basis of the legal advise. The counter affidavit in review application
shall also be a duly sworn affidavit wherever any averment of fact is disputed.

(v) The decision on the review application shall be treated as part of the Judgement/Order
made in the main application and shall be read together.

(vi) Every application for review, as soon as it is registered, shall be posted before the Bench
which passed the order, the review of which is sought for.

(vii) Where any Member of the Bench, which passed the order, ceases to hold office on
account of retirement, resignation or removal or absent on leave for a long period, so as to
render it impossible to constitute the Bench, the review application shall be posted before the
other Member/s of the Bench, which passed the order.

(viii) Where both or all the Members of the Bench, which passed the order, the review of
which is sought for, cease to hold office on account of retirement, resignation or removal or
absent on leave for a long period, so as to render it impossible to constitute the Bench, the
review application may be posted before such other Members, as the Chairman may by order
nominate.

Provided, however, if it is a Bench consisting of the Members, one such Member shall be a
Judicial Member and if it is a Bench of more than two Members, the majority of the Members
shall be Judicial Members.

12 | P a g e
 REVIEW JURISDICTION OF SUPREME COURT OF INDIA: ARTICLE 137

LIMITATION

No application for review shall be entertained unless it is filed within thirty days from the
date of receipt of copy of the order sought to be reviewed.

FORM

An application, for review of the order under Rule 3 shall be in Form No.1 appended to the
regulations.

ENCLOSURES TO THE REVIEW APPLICATION:

An application for review shall be accompanied by :

(a) two copies of paper book containing the application for review and the order of the
Tribunal, the review of which is sought for, and any other document or documents on which
the applicant relies, typed on one side in good quality paper of substantial thickness, duly
indexed, paginated and stitched in paper book form.

(b) Sufficient copies of the application for review for service on the respondents impleaded
therein.

13 | P a g e
 REVIEW JURISDICTION OF SUPREME COURT OF INDIA: ARTICLE 137

FORMAT OF REVIEW PETITION

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) NO. OF 2011

IN THE MATTER OF:

Petitioners

Versus

Respondents

AFFIDAVIT

I, _____________________ s/o of _________________, aged about ___ years, resident of

______________ ___ ___ _ ___________________ do hereby state on solemn affirmation as
under:

1. That I am the Petitioner/ Pairokar of the Petitioner in the aforesaid case and as such I am
fully conversant with the facts and proceedings of the case.

2.That I have read and understood the contents of Para 1 to ___ and pages ___ to ___ of the
accompanying Review Petition and pages A to __ of the List of Dates and I say that the facts
stated therein are true and correct to my knowledge and belief.

3.That I have read and understood the contents of the I.As. and I say that the contents thereof
are true and correct to my knowledge and belief.

4.That the annexures filed alongwith the Review Petition are true and correct copies of the
respective originals.

5.That I have not filed any other Review petition in this Hon’ble Court against the impugned
judgment.

14 | P a g e
 REVIEW JURISDICTION OF SUPREME COURT OF INDIA: ARTICLE 137

DEPONENT

VERIFICATION:

I, the deponent abovenamed, do hereby state on solemn affirmation that the contents of the
paras 1 to 5 are true and correct to my knowledge and I believe the same to be true and
thatnothing material has been concealed therefrom.

Verified at __________ on ___________ 2011.

DEPONENT

15 | P a g e
 REVIEW JURISDICTION OF SUPREME COURT OF INDIA: ARTICLE 137

REVIEW PETITION LAWS IN UNITED STATES AND UNITED

KINGDOM

IN CASE OF UNITED STATES24

A party in a case dismissed by the Clerk pursuant to Rule 45 (i) may move for
reconsideration by the Clerk. If the Clerk denies such reconsideration, the matter will be
referred for decision by a judge. A party in a case decided by a single judge may move for
reconsideration by the single judge. A party in a case decided by a panel may move for
reconsideration by the panel. A party in a case decided by the full Court may move for
reconsideration by the full Court.

A party may not move for reconsideration

(A) of a matter if that party has previously filed a motion for reconsideration of that
matter and the Court has denied that motion, or

(B) of the denial of a motion under subsection (b) or (c) for a panel decision or a full-
Court decision, as the case may be.

A motion for single-judge reconsideration, a motion for a panel decision, or a motion for both
single-judge reconsideration and a panel decision, must be filed not later than 21 days.

No response to a motion under this rule may be filed unless it is requested by the Court, but a
motion for a panel or full-Court decision or a motion for reconsideration under section (a)(1)
ordinarily will not be granted without such a request. A motion for reconsideration will be
decided by the judge or panel that rendered the decision. A motion for a panel decision will
be referred to a panel. A motion for a full-Court decision or for reconsideration of a full-
Court decision will be referred to all of the judges in regular active service. Consideration by
the full Court requires the vote of at least one half of the judges in regular active service who
are not disqualified.

IN CASE OF UNITED KINGDOM25

It is a complicated procedure and legal advice should be sought. Legal aid is available for
judicial review cases.

24
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode38a/usc_sec_38a_00000035----000-.html
25
http://www.elc.org.uk/pages/lawukjudicial%20review.htm

16 | P a g e
 REVIEW JURISDICTION OF SUPREME COURT OF INDIA: ARTICLE 137

An application for initial permission should be made to the High Court, which will only grant
permission if there is an arguable case and the applicant has not unduly delayed in seeking
permission.

The opponent in the case is served with the claim form and has the opportunity to file an
acknowledgement of service not more than 21 days afterwards.

The timetable laid down in Court rules requires that an application for permission to be made
expeditiously and in any event within three months of the decision complained of. The Court
will sometimes exercise its power to extend that period.

An application for permission is usually considered on papers by a single Judge.There is no

right to an oral hearing as such, although if permission is refused then the applicant may
request reconsideration by way of oral hearing at that stage.

17 | P a g e
 REVIEW JURISDICTION OF SUPREME COURT OF INDIA: ARTICLE 137

CONCLUSION

To prevent the miscarriage of justice the constitutional framers while keeping in mind
possible human mistakes even by the Judges of the highest Court, have provided scope of
rehearing of a case by the same judge who has decided it under Art.137 of the Constitution.
However, it is to be noted that the power of review is not an inherent power of the Court; it
must be conferred by law either specially or by necessary implication. However, at the same
time, it must be remembered that the power of review inheres in every court to prevent
miscarriage of justice or correct grave and palpable errors committed by it.

Doctrine of curative approach laid down by the apex court to prevent miscarriage of justice
may not be in consonance with the Constitution and violates the Doctrine of Separation of
Powers which is the basic structure of the Constitution.

Further, it is necessary to mention here that the Constitution also provides the mechanism for
constitutionalism. The Supreme Court being the apex Court of the country is obliged to
interpret and implement the law made by the legislature. However, the court under Art.142 of
the Constitution can fill in the gaps of law and declare the law in its absence to meet the end
of the Justice i.e. Under the impugned article though the court has an inherent power to pass
any order to meet the end of the Justice, it should be exercised either in the absence of law
and in the circumstances where the situation so demands or where any law made by the
Parliament or other authorities is in derogation of the spirit of the Constitution. Therefore,
under the guise of “Interest of Justice” the court should not step into the arena of
COLORABLE LEGISLATION i.e. indirectly doing something which cannot be done
directly.

Hence, it is necessary to mention here that since the Constitution already provides the scope
of review under Art.137 it may not seem to be reasonable to lay down the formulae for
second review particularly when there is no eminent necessity or demand to do so.

18 | P a g e
 REVIEW JURISDICTION OF SUPREME COURT OF INDIA: ARTICLE 137

BIBLIOGRAPHY

DICTIONARY AND LEXICONS

1. Aiyar Ramanatha P., The Law Lexicon, 2nd Edition, Reprint 2006, Wadhwa Nagpur.

2. Garner Bryan A., Blacks law Dictionary, 7th Edition, 1990, West.

3. Kirkpatrick, Betty, The Concise Oxford Thesaurus, A Dictionary of Synonyms, 2004.

4. The New International Webster’s Comprehensive Dictionary, 2004.

BOOKS

1. Jain M.P., Indian Constitutional law, Lexis Nexis Butterworths Wadhwa, Sixth
Edition Reprint 2011.
2. Pandey J.N., The Constitutional law of India, Central Law Agency, Fourty Eighth
Edition

RESEARCH PAPERS

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1560036 i.e. a paper on Comparision on

Curative Petiton and Second Review Petition

19 | P a g e
 REVIEW JURISDICTION OF SUPREME COURT OF INDIA: ARTICLE 137

WEBLIOGRAPHY

1. http://airwebworld.com/articles/index.php?article=1091
2. http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/handbook3rdedition.pdf
3. http://stpam.org/str/when-review-petition-can-be-filed-high-court-and-supreme-court
4. http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/1580952/
5. http://voiceofdharma.org/books/tcqp/chii8.htm
6. http://www.accidentsclaimsjournal.com/caseResource/2012%20ACJ%20468.pdf
7. http://indiankanoon.org/doc/80351/
8. http://www.lawisgreek.com/not-considering-law-laid-down-supreme-court-error-
apparent-face-record
9. http://delhidistrictcourts.nic.in/may05/ANIL%20KUMAR%20VS.%20UOI.htm
10. http://cercind.gov.in/2012/orders/Signed_Order_in_Review_Petition_No._213-
2010_in_Petition_No._242-2009.pdf
11. http://delhidistrictcourts.nic.in/Mar08/Krishna%20Bus%20Service%20Vs.%20Satvir
%20Singh.pdf
12. http://www.answeringlaw.com/php/displayContent.php?linkId=1063
13. http://kat.kar.nic.in:8080/rules_review.htm
14. http://indialawyers.wordpress.com/2012/02/25/review-petitions-not-favourable-to-
courts-though-they-accept-human-fallibility/

20 | P a g e