Review petition means a petition filed before a court of law requesting it to review an order or judgement that it has already issued. A review petition can be filed by parties who are aggrieved by a Supreme Court order based on an apparent error. Under Article 137 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court has the discretionary jurisdiction to examine its own decisions. The UPSC Indian Polity and Governance Syllabus include Review Petition which is described in this article.

What is a Review petition?

• According to the Constitution, a Supreme Court decision becomes the law of the land. It is final because it ensures that future cases will be decided with certainty.
• The Supreme Court, however, has the power to review any of its judgments or decisions under Article 137 of the Constitution.
• This power, however, is subject to the Supreme Court's Rules issued under Article 145, as well as the terms of any law adopted by parliament.
• Furthermore, according to the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, a review Petition must be submitted within 30 days after the judgement or order being reviewed and must be heard by the same Bench that rendered the decision.
• So, when a review is conducted, the law allows it to fix egregious errors that have resulted in a miscarriage of justice rather than taking a fresh look at the case.
• The court has the authority to examine its decisions in order to fix a "patent error," not "minor trivial errors."
• A review can be permitted "only where a blatant omission, patent mistake, or comparable egregious error has crept in earlier by judicial fallibility," according to a 1975 judgment by Justice Krishna Iyer.
• The provision for review is an exception to the Doctrine of stare decisis. The principle of stare decisis requires courts to observe legal precedents established by earlier decisions.

Who can file the review petition?

• Any individual who is aggrieved by a judgment can request a review under the Civil Procedure Code and the Supreme Court Rules.
• Only parties to a lawsuit are required to request a review of the judgment.
• The court is not obligated to hear every review petition that comes before it.
• It has the authority to grant a review petition only if there are valid grounds for the request.

What are the grounds for the Review petition?

• It should be emphasised that the Court does not hear every review petition that is filed. It only allows a review petition if the reasons for seeking the review are demonstrated.
• The Supreme Court has established three grounds for seeking a review of a decision it has rendered:
  • The finding of new and significant information or evidence that, after reasonable diligence, was not known to or could not be produced by the petitioner.
  • A mistake or error noticeable on the face of record.
  • Any other sufficient cause comparable to the first two.

What is the procedure used by the court to consider a review petition?

• The Supreme Court established rules in 1996 that require a review petition to be filed within 30 days of the date of the decision or decree.
• An order is an intermediate rule that is subject to the eventual result in a matter, whereas a judgement is a final decision.
• In some cases, the court will excuse a petitioner's delay in submitting a review petition if the petitioner can show compelling reasons for the delay.
• According to the guidelines, review petitions are usually heard without oral arguments from lawyers.
• The judges hear it "via circulation" in their chambers.
• As much as possible, review petitions are heard by the same panel of judges who rendered the order or decision that is being challenged.
• If a judge retires or becomes unavailable, a successor is appointed, taking into account the judges' seniority.
• The court will allow an oral hearing in extraordinary circumstances.
• In a 2014 judgment, the Supreme Court ruled that all death penalty review petitions will be reviewed in open court by a three-judge panel.

Example

• In the recent past, Vodafone Idea and Bharti Airtel filed a review petition in the Supreme Court on the AGR ruling, requesting that "arithmetic flaws" in the computation of AGR dues be corrected.
• Supertech Ltd, a real estate developer, filed a review case against the Supreme Court's decision to destroy its twin 40-story structures in Noida.
• The Supreme Court also agreed to review its Sabarimala Judgement.

Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v The State of Maharashtra

• On March 20th, 2018, the Supreme Court issued a judgement that sparked great outrage among members of the SC/ST community.
• In Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v The State of Maharashtra, a two-judge bench resolved to remove the prohibition on anticipatory bail in cases of atrocities under the SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989, and to establish rules for conducting arrests under the Act.
• As a result of the public outrage, the Centre petitioned the Supreme Court for a review of its ruling in this matter.
• The Court heard and admitted the review petition, which is still pending, though the interim request for a stay of the guidelines issued in this case was denied.

Conclusion

Under Article 137 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court has the discretionary jurisdiction to examine its own decisions. Parties that are aggrieved by a Supreme Court order due to an apparent error can submit a review petition.

FAQs

Question: What is a review petition?

Question: Under what conditions can a review petition be filed?

Question: What is the time limit for filing a review petition?

Question: Who can file a review petition?

Question: Is the decision on a review petition final?

MCQs

1. Under which Article of the Constitution can the Supreme Court review its own judgments?

A) Article 136

B) Article 137

C) Article 139

D) Article 141

2. What is the time limit for filing a review petition in the Supreme Court?

A) 15 days

B) 30 days

C) 60 days

D) 90 days

3. Which of the following is NOT a valid ground for filing a review petition?

A) Apparent error on the face of the record

B) Personal dissatisfaction with the judgment

C) Discovery of new evidence

D) Prevention of miscarriage of justice

4. What is the next legal remedy if a review petition is dismissed by the Supreme Court?

A) Filing a new petition

B) Filing a curative petition

C) Appealing to the President of India

D) No further remedy is available

5. In which case was the concept of curative petitions introduced by the Supreme Court?

A) Keshavananda Bharati Case

B) Rupa Ashok Hurra Case

C) Golaknath Case

D) Maneka Gandhi Case

GS Mains Questions and Model Answers

Q1: Discuss the significance of the review petition in ensuring justice under the Indian judicial system.

Answer: The review petition is a vital judicial mechanism under Article 137 of the Constitution, allowing the Supreme Court to revisit its judgments to correct apparent errors or prevent miscarriage of justice. This provision upholds the principles of natural justice and reinforces the credibility of the judiciary. By enabling parties to seek rectification of oversight or legal errors, the review petition acts as a safeguard against judicial fallibility. However, it is subject to strict procedural rules, ensuring that only genuine cases are entertained. Review petitions cannot be filed out of mere dissatisfaction with a judgment, and their scope is limited to rectifying glaring errors. The provision ensures a balance between judicial finality and fairness, thereby strengthening public confidence in the judiciary.

Q2: Analyze the difference between review petitions and curative petitions in the Indian judiciary.

Answer: Review petitions and curative petitions are legal remedies available under the Indian judiciary to rectify judicial errors. A review petition, governed by Article 137 of the Constitution, allows the Supreme Court to review its judgments to correct apparent errors or prevent injustice. It must be filed within 30 days of the judgment and is subject to strict conditions, such as the presence of a glaring error on the record.

In contrast, a curative petition is an extraordinary remedy introduced in the Rupa Ashok Hurra Case (2002) to address gross miscarriages of justice after the dismissal of a review petition. It is entertained only in rare cases when all other legal remedies are exhausted. Unlike review petitions, curative petitions require certification by senior advocates and approval from a bench of the highest judges. Both provisions uphold judicial accountability but differ in scope, timing, and applicability.

Q3: Evaluate the limitations of review petitions in the context of the Indian judicial system.

Answer: Review petitions play a critical role in ensuring judicial accountability, but they have inherent limitations. Firstly, their scope is narrow, as they are restricted to correcting apparent errors on the face of the record. Mere dissatisfaction with a judgment or re-interpretation of evidence is not grounds for filing a review petition. Secondly, procedural constraints, such as the 30-day time limit, may prevent some parties from seeking relief.

Furthermore, the success rate of review petitions is low, as courts rarely reverse their judgments. The subjective interpretation of “apparent error” can also limit access to justice. Additionally, the finality of decisions may lead to criticism, particularly in cases where review petitions are summarily dismissed without detailed reasoning. Despite these challenges, review petitions remain a crucial mechanism for safeguarding fairness in the judiciary, complemented by curative petitions to address gross miscarriages of justice.

Previous Year Questions on  Review Petition

1. UPSC CSE 2020

Question: Explain the constitutional provisions that allow the Supreme Court to review its own judgments.

Answer: Article 137 of the Indian Constitution empowers the Supreme Court to review its judgments or orders to correct errors or prevent miscarriage of justice. This provision ensures judicial accountability and fairness, subject to procedural rules outlined in the Supreme Court Rules.

2. UPSC CSE 2019

Question: Discuss the role of judicial review in upholding the rule of law in India.

Answer: Judicial review ensures the rule of law by enabling courts to assess the constitutionality of legislative and executive actions. It maintains checks and balances, prevents abuse of power, and upholds citizens’ rights, contributing to a robust and impartial judiciary.