Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

Recently, the bench of Justices Aniruddha Bose and Sudhanshu Dhulia held that Registry cannot be vested with power to decide whether a review petition, after being dismissed in open Court hearing, merited relook through the curative jurisdiction.

• The aforesaid observation was made in the matter of M/s Brahmaputra Concrete Pipe Industries Etc. v. The Assam State Electricity Board.

What was the Background of M/s Brahmaputra Concrete Pipe Industries Etc. v. The Assam State Electricity Board Case?

• The case concerns multiple appellants aggrieved by the Registrar (J-IV) of the Court's order of 31st October 2022, which refused to register a set of petitions labeled as “curative petitions”.
• The order, common to six similar petitions, including one from Brahmaputra Concrete Pipe Industries, cited Rule 5 of Order XV of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, allowing appeals against such refusals.
• The dispute originates from a suit filed under The Interest on Delayed Payments to Small Scale and Ancillary Industrial Undertakings Act, 1993.
• The suit, decreed by the Trial Court, was dismissed by the High Court, holding it not maintainable for transactions dating 23^rd September 1992, when the Act came into effect.
• Despite subsequent appeals and reviews, including one dismissed on 18th December 2019, the Registrar declined the curative petitions.
• Hence, the appellant filed an appeal before the Supreme Court.
  • The main point urged on behalf of the appellant is that the Registrar has no power or jurisdiction to decline registration of a curative petition and it should be decided by a Bench of this Court

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The court deliberated on the Registry's role in handling curative petitions lacking specific averments regarding review petition dismissal in open court.
• It emphasized that the Registry lacks authority to determine the merit of such petitions post-dismissal.
  • While the Registry typically handles defects in petitions, the absence of a necessary averment requires judicial consideration.
• Refusal to entertain curative petitions does not align with Order XV Rule 5, of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 nor does it fall under Registry's purview.
• The court cited Order LV Rule 2, emphasizing communication with the chamber judge for instructions.
• In the case discussed, the court overturned the impugned order but declined to remand, finding no grounds to invoke curative jurisdiction, thus disposing of the appeal accordingly.

What is a Curative Petition?

• About:
  • A curative petition serves as a unique judicial remedy available to rectify a perceived miscarriage of justice after the exhaustion of all other legal remedies.
• Origin:
  • The concept of the curative petition in India originated from the SC's judgment in the Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra (2002), which established the necessity for an additional safeguard against judicial errors.
  • The court recognized that even its judgments might be susceptible to oversight or error and therefore instituted the curative petition as a remedy of last resort.
• Constitutional Validity:
  • The curative petition finds its basis in Articles 137 and 142 of the Constitution of India, which empower the SC to review its own judgments or pass any decree or order necessary for doing complete justice in any case or matter pending before it.

What are Landmark Judgments Related to Curative Petition?

• Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra and Another (2002):
  • In this case SC gave the conditions for entertaining curative petition that are:
    • Specification of Requirements: Identify criteria for a curative petition under the court's inherent power to prevent floodgates for filing second review petitions in disguise.
    • Discretionary Review: Generally, the court should not reconsider a finalized order unless strong reasons exist to do so, avoiding enumerating all grounds for petition consideration.
    • Entitlement to Relief: Petitioners can seek relief if there's a violation of natural justice or apprehension of bias by a judge adversely affecting their interests.
    • Averments in Curative Petition: Grounds must be reiterated from the review petition, certified by a Senior Advocate.
    • Circulation and Review Process: Curative petitions are first circulated to senior judges and judges involved, then listed for hearing based on majority agreement, with the option for amicus curiae. Vexatious petitions may incur costs.
    • Registry Processing: The registry must process writ petitions even if lacking specific averments from review petitions.
• Union of India & Ors. v. M/s. Union Carbide Corporation & Ors. (2010):
  • In this case Constitution Bench of SC chose to examine the curative petition in spite of there being dismissal of the review petition in open Court hearing though ultimately the curative petition stood dismissed.