Source: The Indian Express

Introduction

On 24^th January 2024, the Supreme Court will be considering the curative petition filed by the Maharashtra government, challenging the court’s decision to strike down the Maratha quota.

What is the Background?

• On May 5, 2021, a five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court had struck down the Maharashtra State Reservation for Socially and Educationally Backward Classes Act, 2018, which provided reservation to the Maratha community for admission in educational institutions and government jobs.
• A review petition filed by the state government was also dismissed on 21^St April 2023.
• Thereafter, the aforesaid curative petition has been filed before the Supreme Court.

What is a Curative Petition?

• The concept of curative petition is contained in Article 137 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI). It deals with the review of judgments or orders by the Supreme Court. It states that -
  • 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.
• A curative petition is one which requests the apex court to review its own decision after a review petition has been dismissed.
  • These petitions are heard by the top three judges of the Supreme Court including the Chief Justice of India and the judges who dismissed the review petition.
• The Court considers such petitions only in rare circumstances to prevent frivolous litigation.
• It is the last and final option available for redressal of grievance is generally considered in-chamber unless a prima facie case is made out for reconsideration of the verdict.
• The concept of curative petition originated in the case of Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra and Anr. (2002).
  • In this case, the question before the 5-Judge Constitution Bench was whether an aggrieved person is entitled to any relief against the final judgment/order of the Supreme Court after the dismissal of a review petition.
  • The Supreme Court recognized Curative Petition as a final remedy to reconsider dismissed review petitions and may reconsider its judgements in exercise of its inherent powers.

What are Objectives of Curative Petition?

• The concept of curative petition was recognized to rectify gross miscarriage of justice in the final judgment of the Supreme Court which cannot be challenged again.
  • In the case of Union of India v. Union Carbide (2023), the Supreme Court narrowed the scope of the curative jurisdiction and held that it can be entertained when there is a gross miscarriage of justice, fraud or suppression of material facts.
• It aims to minimize any abuse of the processes of law and prevents misuse of justice.

What are the Conditions for Curative Petition?

For the purpose of entertaining the curative petitions, the Supreme Court has laid down the following specific conditions:

• The petitioner must establish that the principles of natural justice were violated, and he has been adversely affected by the judgment.
• The petition shall state specifically that the grounds mentioned had been taken in the review petition and that it was dismissed by circulation.
• A curative petition must be first circulated to a bench of the three senior-most judges of the Supreme Court and the judges who had passed the concerned judgment, if available.
• If the majority of the judges conclude that the matter needs hearing, then it is listed before the same Bench.
• The Bench at any stage of the curative petition can ask a senior counsel to assist it as amicus curiae (friend of the court).
• A curative petition is usually decided by judges in the chamber unless a specific request for an open-court hearing is allowed.
• If the plea lacks merit, the court can impose exemplary costs to the petitioner.

Conclusion

In the Indian legal system, a curative petition is a novel idea and judicial innovation. It provides a way to be heard and gives fair chances of representation in court. It prevents any fallacy that would arise in the procedure followed or pronouncing the verdict.