Review Petition Standards

A Review Petition is a limited judicial remedy through which a court re-examines its own judgment/order to correct a serious error. It is not an appeal and cannot be used to re-argue the entire case. In India, the Supreme Court’s power of review comes from Article 137 of the Constitution of India, while civil review is mainly governed by Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

The basic principle is that finality of judgments must be respected, and review is allowed only in exceptional situations where failure to correct the mistake would result in injustice.

1. Constitutional Basis of Review

Article 137 – Constitution of India

Article 137 provides that the Supreme Court has the power to review any judgment or order made by it, subject to constitutional provisions and rules made under Article 145.

The power is discretionary and must be exercised cautiously.

Grounds / Standards for Review Petition

1. Error Apparent on the Face of Record

The most important ground is an obvious and self-evident error.

An error is apparent when:

• It is visible without detailed investigation.
• It does not require long arguments or re-appreciation of evidence.
• The judgment contains a clear mistake.

Example:

• Ignoring a binding Supreme Court precedent.
• Mathematical or factual mistake apparent from record.

A wrong decision on merits is generally not enough.

2. Discovery of New and Important Evidence

Review may be allowed when:

• Important evidence existed earlier,
• The party could not produce it despite due diligence,
• The evidence could materially affect the decision.

A party cannot simply introduce new material because it failed to present it earlier.

3. Any Other Sufficient Reason

This phrase has been interpreted narrowly.

It does not mean:

• another chance to argue,
• dissatisfaction with the judgment,
• rehearing of the case.

It means reasons similar to the recognized grounds.

4. Review Cannot Become an Appeal

The court does not sit as an appellate court while hearing review.

A review petition cannot be used to:

• reconsider findings,
• change legal conclusions merely because another view is possible,
• reopen concluded issues.

Important Case Laws

1. Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. v. Government of Andhra Pradesh (1964)

Principle:
The Supreme Court explained that an error apparent on the face of record must be obvious and not something requiring a detailed examination.

The Court held that:

• A mere erroneous decision is not sufficient.
• The error must be clear and apparent.

Importance:
This case established the narrow scope of review jurisdiction.

2. Northern India Caterers (India) Ltd. v. Lt. Governor of Delhi (1980)

Principle:
The Supreme Court held that review cannot be used as a method of rehearing the entire matter.

The Court observed:

• Review is not an appeal in disguise.
• The court cannot reconsider the whole case.

Importance:
It strengthened the rule of finality of judgments.

3. Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma (1979)

Principle:
The Supreme Court held that review power is limited.

The Court stated:

• Review is allowed only for discovery of new evidence or error apparent.
• A wrong decision cannot simply be corrected through review.

Importance:
This is one of the leading cases defining review standards.

4. Lily Thomas v. Union of India (2000)

Principle:
The Supreme Court explained that review jurisdiction cannot be exercised like appellate jurisdiction.

The Court held:

• The purpose of review is correction of mistakes.
• It cannot be used to substitute a different view.

Importance:
The case clarified the constitutional limits of Article 137.

5. Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati (2013)

Principle:
The Supreme Court gave detailed guidelines on when review is maintainable.

Review is permissible when:

1. There is a mistake or error apparent on record.
2. New important evidence is discovered.
3. Any similar sufficient reason exists.

Review is not maintainable when:

• A party wants rehearing,
• There are two possible interpretations,
• The court is asked to reconsider the merits.

Importance:
This case is a major authority on review petition standards.

6. State of West Bengal v. Kamal Sengupta (2008)

Principle:
The Supreme Court explained the meaning of “error apparent.”

The Court held:

• The error must be patent.
• It cannot be established by lengthy arguments.

Importance:
It provided practical guidance for courts dealing with review applications.

7. M. Nagraj v. Union of India (2006)

Principle:
The Supreme Court emphasized that review jurisdiction is exceptional.

The Court held:

• Judicial decisions cannot be reopened casually.
• Review cannot become a second round of litigation.

Importance:
It protected judicial finality.

Procedure and Limitations

Who can file?

A person aggrieved by the judgment/order may file a review petition.

Time limitation

Generally, review petitions before the Supreme Court are required to be filed within the prescribed limitation period under applicable rules.

Bench hearing review

Usually, review is considered by the same judges who delivered the original judgment, if available.

Review Petition vs Appeal

Conclusion

The standard for a review petition is extremely strict. Courts allow review only when there is:

1. Error apparent on the face of record,
2. Discovery of new important evidence, or
3. A similar exceptional reason requiring correction of injustice.

A review petition cannot be used as a second appeal or as a method to obtain a fresh hearing. The doctrine balances fairness and correction of mistakes with the need for finality of judicial decisions.