Curative Petitions In Criminal Procedure
What is a Curative Petition?
A Curative Petition is a rare and extraordinary remedy available in the Indian legal system. It is filed after a review petition has been dismissed by the Supreme Court, and the petitioner seeks to prevent a miscarriage of justice in a case where the fundamental principles of justice have been violated.
It is considered the last judicial resort.
Designed to curb gross miscarriage of justice and ensure judicial accountability.
It applies only to Supreme Court judgments.
Origin and Scope of Curative Petitions
Developed through judicial pronouncements, not expressly provided in any statute.
Introduced to deal with cases where the review petition fails, but there is a compelling reason to revisit the case.
It is filed directly in the Supreme Court.
Only entertained when glaring injustice is evident, and principles of natural justice are violated.
Conditions for Entertaining Curative Petition
The petitioner must establish genuine violation of principles of natural justice.
The case must be rare or exceptional.
There should be no delay or laches in filing the petition.
It must be filed after dismissal of the review petition.
The petition must be circulated among the judges who delivered the judgment, and if they differ or are unable to hear, a larger bench may be constituted.
Curative Petitions in Criminal Procedure Context
Mostly filed against conviction, acquittal, or sentences passed by Supreme Court in criminal cases.
Used to prevent miscarriage of justice where new evidence surfaces or a significant error in law or fact occurred.
Does not affect the finality of Supreme Court decisions unless the petition is accepted.
Landmark Case Laws on Curative Petitions
1. Rupa Ashok Hurra vs. Ashok Hurra (2002)
Key Points:
This landmark case formally recognized the remedy of Curative Petition.
The Supreme Court held that when review petitions fail, curative petitions can be filed to cure gross miscarriage of justice.
Laid down guidelines for filing curative petitions.
Emphasized that it is an extraordinary remedy and courts should be extremely cautious before admitting it.
Petitioner must demonstrate that the judgment suffers from violation of principles of natural justice or bias.
Significance:
Established the legal framework for curative petitions in India.
2. Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) vs. Cricket Association of Bihar (2016)
Key Points:
The Court reaffirmed the limited scope of curative petitions.
Stated that a curative petition is not a regular appeal or review but a remedy to address procedural irregularities or gross miscarriage.
Underlined the requirement of judicial conscience and fairness.
Significance:
Reiterated the strict threshold for curative petitions.
3. Kihoto Hollohan vs. Zachillhu and Others (1992)
Key Points:
Although primarily a case on the Speaker’s powers and constitutional validity, it touched upon the need for finality in judicial decisions.
The judgment emphasized that extraordinary remedies like curative petitions are not to be used to re-open settled issues except in extreme circumstances.
Significance:
Supported the principle of judicial finality in curative petitions.
4. Union of India vs. R. Gandhi (2010)
Key Points:
Curative petitions should not be used to bypass or delay justice.
The Court insisted on adherence to procedure and rejected petitions that do not fulfill strict requirements.
Reiterated that curative petitions are not a tool for re-litigating settled matters.
Significance:
Preserved the sanctity of curative petitions as extraordinary relief.
5. Prashant Bhushan vs. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India (2018)
Key Points:
This case involved a contempt petition and touched upon the limitations of curative petitions.
The Court reiterated that curative petitions must be filed in cases where there is a gross miscarriage of justice, not merely dissatisfaction with the judgment.
Emphasized judicial discipline and restraint in entertaining curative petitions.
Significance:
Clarified boundaries of curative petitions.
6. Nandini Satpathy vs. P.L. Dani (1978)
Key Points:
While predating the formal recognition of curative petitions, this case laid emphasis on the principle of natural justice, which is the cornerstone of curative petitions.
Affirmed the need to rectify judgments where natural justice is violated.
Significance:
Foundational for judicial principles underpinning curative petitions.
Summary Table: Curative Petition Case Laws
| Case | Key Points | Significance |
|---|---|---|
| Rupa Ashok Hurra vs. Ashok Hurra (2002) | Established the remedy and guidelines for curative petitions | Legal framework for curative petitions |
| BCCI vs. Cricket Association of Bihar (2016) | Reaffirmed limited scope and strict threshold | Protection against frivolous petitions |
| Kihoto Hollohan vs. Zachillhu (1992) | Emphasized finality of judicial decisions | Ensured judicial finality |
| Union of India vs. R. Gandhi (2010) | Curative petitions must not delay justice | Strict procedural adherence |
| Prashant Bhushan vs. Supreme Court (2018) | Clarified boundaries and judicial restraint | Maintained judicial discipline |
| Nandini Satpathy vs. P.L. Dani (1978) | Emphasized natural justice principle | Foundational principle |
Conclusion
Curative Petitions serve as the last judicial remedy to prevent miscarriage of justice.
They are strictly regulated and only entertained under exceptional circumstances, primarily involving violation of natural justice or bias.
The Supreme Court has emphasized judicial restraint, finality, and adherence to procedure in curative petitions.
Though not frequently granted, curative petitions provide an important safeguard in the criminal justice system to protect rights when all other remedies fail.
RELATED Blog
0 comments