A judgment of the High Court has gone against you. Two remedies suggest themselves at once: a review petition before the same High Court, or a special leave petition before the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution. They are not interchangeable, they answer different kinds of grievance, and choosing them in the wrong order can shut one of them for good. This explainer sets out what each remedy is actually for, and how a careful litigant sequences them.
Two remedies, two different questions
Review and special leave answer different questions. A review petition under Section 114 read with Order XLVII of the Code of Civil Procedure asks the High Court to look again at its own judgment on narrow, defined grounds. A special leave petition under Article 136 of the Constitution asks the Supreme Court to exercise an extraordinary, wholly discretionary power to take up the matter. Neither is a routine further appeal, and treating either as one is the commonest mistake made in the weeks after an adverse judgment.
Importantly, review of a High Court judgment lies before the High Court itself — usually before the same Bench that decided the matter. It is not a fresh forum; it is the same court being asked to correct itself within strict limits.
The narrow gate of review
Order XLVII permits review on three grounds only: the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within the applicant's knowledge or could not be produced when the decree was passed; a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; and any other sufficient reason, which courts read as something analogous to the first two. An error apparent must be self-evident — one that strikes the eye without a long process of reasoning. If two views are possible, there is no error apparent, and the review will fail.
A merits disagreement dressed up as a review petition wastes limitation time, invites dismissal and can attract costs. If the real complaint is that the High Court weighed the evidence wrongly or took a debatable view of the law, that is appellate territory, not review territory.
When review is the right first step
A clear factual slip
The judgment records a concession never made, misdescribes a document, or proceeds on a date or figure the record itself contradicts. The same court can correct this quickly.
An overlooked binding provision
A statutory provision or rule squarely governing the point was cited but not noticed, and its application admits of only one answer. That is a classic error apparent.
A computational error
Interest wrongly calculated, amounts added incorrectly, or relief granted inconsistently with the court's own findings. Arithmetic is the paradigm case for review.
Genuinely new evidence
Material that existed at the time, could not have been produced despite due diligence, and would change the result. The due-diligence element is strictly tested.
Where none of these is present, review adds delay without adding prospects, and the honest advice is usually to weigh Article 136 directly — remembering that the Supreme Court grants special leave sparingly, ordinarily where a substantial question of law or a grave miscarriage of justice is shown, not merely because the petitioner disagrees with the outcome.
The sequencing trap
The order of remedies has real consequences. The Supreme Court has cautioned litigants about approaching it first and returning to the High Court later. Two propositions can be stated with reasonable confidence. First, a dismissal of an SLP in limine — a simple refusal of leave without reasons — does not, by itself, bar a review before the High Court, because nothing has merged into any order of the Supreme Court. Second, once the Supreme Court dismisses with reasons, or grants leave and decides the appeal, the doctrine of merger operates: the High Court's judgment merges into the Supreme Court's order, and there is nothing left below for the High Court to review. Between these poles lies contested ground, and courts scrutinise a review filed after an unsuccessful SLP with visible reluctance.
Candour and the clock
An SLP is heard, at the threshold, largely on the petitioner's own papers. That is why the duty of candour is enforced strictly: any review filed, pending or decided must be disclosed, along with anything else material to the exercise of discretion. Suppression discovered later is treated as an abuse of process and can lead to dismissal on that ground alone, whatever the merits.
Limitation, meanwhile, does not pause while options are weighed. For SLPs generally, the period is ninety days from the impugned judgment under the Supreme Court Rules and the Limitation Act scheme. Time spent deliberating, seeking opinions or pursuing a review can be placed before the Court in an application for condonation of delay, but condonation is a matter of discretion, granted on a sufficient-cause standard, and the Supreme Court has repeatedly deprecated casual, unexplained delay — particularly by institutional litigants. The safe practice is to treat the SLP deadline as fixed from day one and to make every intermediate decision with that date in view.
The practical bottom line
Review is a scalpel: precise, narrow, and effective only on a defined class of defects in the High Court's own record. Article 136 is a plea to an extraordinary discretion, reserved for cases that genuinely call for the Supreme Court's intervention. Audit the judgment honestly, use the scalpel first where it truly applies, keep the Supreme Court clock running in parallel, and disclose everything when the petition is finally drawn. That sequence protects both remedies; the reverse order can forfeit one of them.
This article is for general information only and is not legal advice or a solicitation.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I file a review and an SLP at the same time?
Filing both simultaneously is unwise. The cleaner course is to exhaust the review first, if genuine review grounds exist, and then approach the Supreme Court against the final position, disclosing the review and its outcome. If an SLP is filed while a review is pending, the pending review must be candidly disclosed in the petition, since suppression can itself invite dismissal.
What happens to my review if my SLP is dismissed first?
Much depends on how the Supreme Court dealt with the SLP. A dismissal in limine, without reasons, does not by itself take away the High Court's review jurisdiction. But once the Supreme Court has spoken on the matter, courts approach a later review with caution, and a speaking dismissal or a decision on merits can attract the doctrine of merger, leaving the High Court nothing to review.
Does filing a review stop limitation for the SLP?
Limitation for the SLP runs from the impugned judgment under the scheme of the Supreme Court Rules and the Limitation Act. Time spent bona fide pursuing a review can be explained in an application for condonation of delay, but condonation is discretionary and never automatic, so the explanation must be full, honest and supported by dates.
Is a strong disagreement with the High Court's reasoning a ground for review?
No. Review under Order XLVII CPC is not a rehearing. A merits disagreement, however strongly felt, belongs in an appeal or a special leave petition. Review is confined to an error apparent on the face of the record, discovery of new and important matter or evidence not available earlier despite due diligence, or any other sufficient reason of an analogous kind.