When the Supreme Court dismisses a matter, the litigation is, for almost all purposes, over. Yet the Constitution itself contemplates one further step: Article 137 preserves the Court's power to review its own judgments and orders, subject to its Rules. The review jurisdiction is real but deliberately narrow — it exists to correct demonstrable error, not to permit a disappointed party to reargue the case. Understanding what a review petition can and cannot achieve saves clients both money and false hope.
The constitutional and procedural frame
Three layers govern review in the Supreme Court. Article 137 confers the power, “subject to the provisions of any law made by Parliament or any rules made under Article 145.” Order XLVII of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 supplies the procedure: the grounds, the thirty-day limitation, filing before the same Bench as far as practicable, and disposal by circulation. And the Court’s settled practice supplies the temperament: review is an exception to finality, granted sparingly and only where the error is self-evident, not one that must be hunted down by a process of elaborate reasoning.
| Element | Position in the Supreme Court |
|---|---|
| Source of power | Article 137 of the Constitution |
| Procedure | Order XLVII, Supreme Court Rules, 2013 |
| Limitation | Thirty days from the judgment or order |
| Civil grounds | New and important matter or evidence; error apparent on the face of the record; other sufficient reason |
| Criminal grounds | Error apparent on the face of the record only |
| Mode of hearing | Circulation in chambers, without oral argument; open-court hearing in death sentence reviews |
| Bench | The same judges, as far as practicable |
What counts as an error apparent
The phrase does most of the work in review practice, and it is narrower than litigants hope. An error apparent on the face of the record is one that leaps from the record without long debate: the Court proceeded on a statutory provision that had been repealed, overlooked a binding precedent squarely cited, recorded a concession never made, or decided the matter on a factual premise contradicted by the record itself. What does not qualify is equally well settled: a different possible view of the evidence, a fresh argument that could have been raised earlier but was not, dissatisfaction with the weight given to a contention, or the hope that a differently-composed Bench might think differently. A review petition drafted as a better version of the dismissed appeal is the surest candidate for dismissal by circulation, often with a single line.
Correction of a demonstrable, self-evident error; a response to genuinely new material that diligence could not have produced earlier.
A rehearing, a second appeal in disguise, a chance to re-argue what was considered, or a forum for points deliberately held back.
How the petition moves
The death sentence exception, and what lies beyond
Because the ordinary mode of disposal is on paper, the Court has carved out one humane exception: a petitioner seeking review of a judgment imposing the death sentence is entitled to an oral hearing in open court before a Bench of adequate strength. The irreversibility of the penalty justifies the departure from chambers practice.
When review fails, the judgment is final. The curative petition remains as an extraordinary, last-resort jurisdiction — confined to grounds such as breach of natural justice or a judge’s undisclosed interest, requiring certification by a Senior Advocate, and circulated to the senior-most judges of the Court. It is not a third round of merits; it exists to prevent abuse of process and gross miscarriage of justice, and relief under it is rare enough to be newsworthy when granted.
Decide on review immediately after judgment — the thirty-day clock and the need for the same Bench both reward speed.
Anchor every ground to the record: page, paragraph, and the precise overlooked provision or authority.
Resist the temptation to re-argue; two tight grounds outperform twenty recycled ones.
Advise clients candidly on the statistics: review is designed to fail in the ordinary case, and its real function is to catch the extraordinary one.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the time limit for filing a review petition in the Supreme Court?
Order XLVII of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 requires a review petition to be filed within thirty days from the date of the judgment or order sought to be reviewed. Delay can be condoned only on a proper application showing sufficient cause, and the Registry treats the period strictly, so the decision to seek review must be taken quickly.
Is a review petition heard in open court?
Ordinarily no. Review petitions are circulated to the judges in chambers and decided without oral argument, as far as practicable by the same Bench that delivered the judgment. The settled exception is a review against the imposition of the death sentence, where an oral hearing in open court is afforded given the irreversibility of the punishment.
On what grounds can the Supreme Court review its judgment?
In civil proceedings, on grounds analogous to Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure: discovery of new and important matter or evidence which could not earlier be produced despite due diligence, a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or any other sufficient reason. In criminal proceedings, review lies only on the ground of an error apparent on the face of the record.
What happens if the review petition is dismissed?
The judgment attains complete finality for the parties. The only remaining recourse is the curative jurisdiction — an exceptional remedy entertained on very limited grounds such as violation of natural justice or undisclosed bias, certified by a Senior Advocate and considered by the senior-most judges. It succeeds only in the rarest cases.