Context:

The Supreme Court refused to review its 2018 judgment which decriminalized adultery.

‘Review Petition’

• Under Article 137, the Supreme Court has the power to review any of its judgments or orders.
• 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.
• The court has the power to review its rulings to correct a “patent error” and not “minor mistakes of inconsequential importance”.
• 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”.

Grounds for seeking review of an SC verdict

• In a 2013 ruling, the Supreme Court itself laid down three grounds for seeking a review of a verdict it has delivered —
  • The discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within the knowledge of the petitioner or could not be produced by him
  • Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record
  • Or any other sufficient reason
• In subsequent rulings, the court specified that
• Any sufficient reason
• Means a reason that is analogous to the other two grounds.

Review petition fails

• As the court of last resort, the Supreme Court’s verdict cannot result in a miscarriage of justice.
• In RoopaHurra v Ashok Hurra (2002), the concept of a curative petition was evolved  Curative petition 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.