Curative Petitions In Criminal Jurisprudence
What is a Curative Petition?
A Curative Petition is the last judicial resort available to a party against a final judgment or order of the Supreme Court of India, when the party believes that the judgment has a gross miscarriage of justice even after the dismissal of a review petition.
It is meant to correct a gross miscarriage of justice in rare and exceptional cases.
It is not a second review but a mechanism to cure procedural lapses or gross injustice.
The concept was developed by the Supreme Court itself through judicial pronouncements.
Origin and Purpose
The remedy of Review Petition is available under Article 137 of the Constitution but is limited.
After dismissal of the Review Petition, if a party still believes there is a miscarriage of justice, the Curative Petition can be filed.
It safeguards the finality of judgments while providing a constitutional safety valve for extraordinary situations.
Procedure for Curative Petition
Filed before the same bench or a larger bench of the Supreme Court.
Requires certification from a senior advocate that the petition is not frivolous.
Must show violation of principles of natural justice or gross injustice.
Heard by a bench of at least three judges.
Important Case Laws on Curative Petitions
1. Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra (2002) 4 SCC 388
Facts: The Supreme Court developed the concept of the Curative Petition in this case.
Issue: After dismissal of review petition, can a second remedy be available to prevent miscarriage of justice?
Holding:
The Supreme Court held that Curative Petition is the last remedy.
It is entertained only when:
The Review Petition has been dismissed.
There is a genuine violation of principles of natural justice.
There is a gross miscarriage of justice.
The petition is heard by a bench of at least three judges.
Significance: Laid down the doctrine and procedure for curative petitions.
2. K.K. Verma v. Union of India (1965) AIR 845
Facts: Though predating the concept, it dealt with the scope of review and finality of judgments.
Holding: Affirmed the limited scope of review petitions, paving the way for the need for Curative Petitions later.
3. S. P. Gupta v. Union of India (1982) 2 SCC 149
Facts: Highlighted the importance of finality of Supreme Court judgments.
Holding: Emphasized that the Constitution requires judicial decisions to be final and binding, but exceptional safeguards like review and curative petition exist.
4. Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 684
Facts: Death penalty case where the Supreme Court refused to review but acknowledged the gravity of the decision.
Significance: Though review was refused, it shows the principle that curative petitions might be the only relief after review dismissal.
5. D. K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997) 1 SCC 416
Facts: A case related to custodial deaths, where even after review, petitioners sought more relief.
Significance: Curative petition concept supports that the judiciary ensures justice even after final judgments.
6. Union of India v. Rupa Ashok Hurra (2002) 4 SCC 388
Facts: Reiterated the limited scope of curative petitions.
Holding: The Supreme Court observed that curative petitions should not be used as a tool for reiterating arguments but only for correcting gross miscarriage.
Summary Table of Key Case Laws
| Case | Court | Key Principle |
|---|---|---|
| Rupa Ashok Hurra (2002) | Supreme Court | Introduced and laid down procedure for curative petitions |
| K.K. Verma (1965) | Supreme Court | Affirmed limited scope of review petitions |
| S. P. Gupta (1982) | Supreme Court | Emphasized finality of Supreme Court judgments |
| Bachan Singh (1980) | Supreme Court | Death penalty case; review refusal highlighted curative need |
| D. K. Basu (1997) | Supreme Court | Supported judicial vigilance even after review dismissal |
| Union of India v. Rupa Hurra (2002) | Supreme Court | Curative petitions for gross miscarriage only |
When Can Curative Petition Be Filed?
When there is violation of natural justice in the earlier proceedings.
When there is a genuine procedural irregularity.
When new evidence is discovered that could not have been produced earlier.
To prevent gross miscarriage of justice or abuse of process.
Only after dismissal of Review Petition.
Important Points to Remember
Curative petitions are very rarely entertained.
They are a constitutional safeguard, not a regular appellate remedy.
The petitioner must provide prima facie evidence of gross injustice.
Curative petitions aim to preserve judicial sanctity and finality while providing a safety valve.
Conclusion
The Curative Petition is a unique remedy developed by the Supreme Court to prevent miscarriage of justice when even the review remedy fails.
It balances the need for finality of judicial decisions with fairness to parties.
Courts exercise strict scrutiny while entertaining such petitions.
The cases like Rupa Ashok Hurra are essential reading for understanding the framework and application.
RELATED Blog
0 comments