REVIEW AND CURATIVE PETITION - POLITY
News: SC
junks govt plea for more Bhopal relief
What's in the news?
● The
Supreme Court dismissed the Centre’s 2010 curative petition that sought
additional compensation of more than Rs 7,000 crore from the Union Carbide
Corporation (UCC) for victims of 1984 Bhopal gas tragedy, which had left nearly
3,000 people dead and lakhs affected.
● The
court also censured the Centre over its failure to make an insurance policy,
and called it “gross negligence on part of the Union of India”.
Bhopal Gas Tragedy:
● The
Bhopal disaster, also known as the Bhopal gas tragedy, was a chemical accident
that occurred at the Union Carbide India
Limited (UCIL) pesticide facility in Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, India, during
the night of December 2-3, 1984.
Impacts of Bhopal Gas Tragedy:
● The
1984 Bhopal gas tragedy which killed thousands of people is among the world's "major industrial accidents"
of the 20th century, according to a UN report.
● The
survivors continue to suffer from many diseases, including cancer, tumours and
lung problems, caused by the inhalation of the poisonous gas thirty-five years
ago.
Review Petition and Curative Petition:
Review Petition:
● A
judgment of the Supreme Court becomes the law of the land, according to the
Constitution.
● It
is final because it provides certainty for deciding future cases.
● However,
the Constitution gives, under Article
137, the Supreme Court the power to review any of its judgments or orders.
Circumstances of Review Petition:
● This
departure from the Supreme Court’s final authority is entertained under specific, narrow grounds.
● So,
when a review takes place, the law is that it is allowed not to take fresh
stock of the case but to correct grave
errors that have resulted in the miscarriage of justice.
● In
a 1975 ruling, Justice Krishna Iyer
said a review can be accepted “only where a glaring omission or patent mistake
or like grave error has crept in earlier by judicial fallibility”. Thus, it is
generally rare for the Supreme Court to admit reviews.
Grounds for Review Petition:
In
a 2013 ruling, the Supreme Court
itself laid down three grounds for seeking a review of a verdict it has
delivered such as
In
subsequent rulings, the court specified that “any sufficient reason” means a
reason that is analogous to the other two grounds.
Who can file a review petition?
● It
is not necessary that only parties to a case can seek a review of the judgment
on it.
● As
per the Civil Procedure Code and the Supreme Court Rules, any person aggrieved by a ruling can seek a review.
● However,
the court does not entertain every review petition filed.
What is the procedure the court uses to consider a
review petition?
● As per 1996 rules framed
by the Supreme Court, a review petition must be filed within 30 days of the
date of judgment or order.
● In
certain circumstances, the court can condone a delay in filing the review
petition if the petitioner can establish strong reasons that justify the delay.
● The
rules state that review petitions would ordinarily be entertained without oral
arguments by lawyers.
● It is heard “through
circulation” by the judges in their chambers.
● Review
petitions are also heard, as far as practicable, by the same combination of
judges who delivered the order or judgment that is sought to be reviewed.
● If
a judge has retired or is unavailable, a replacement is made keeping in mind
the seniority of judges.
In
exceptional cases, the court allows an oral hearing. In a 2014 case, the Supreme Court held that review petitions in all
death penalty cases will be heard in open court by a Bench of three judges.
What if a review petition fails?
Curative Petition:
● As
the court of last resort, the Supreme Court’s verdict cannot result in a
miscarriage of justice.
● In
Rupa Hurra vs Ashok Hurra (2002),
the court itself evolved the concept of a curative petition, which can be heard
after a review is dismissed to prevent abuse of its process.
● A
curative petition is also entertained on very narrow grounds like a review
petition, and is generally not granted an oral hearing. It is yet to be seen if
Bilkis Bano will take this route.