Review petition

Last updated

In India, a binding decision of the Supreme Court/High Court can be reviewed in review petition. The parties aggrieved on any order of the Supreme Court on any apparent error can file a review petition. Taking into consideration the principle of stare decisis, courts generally do not unsettle a decision, without a strong case. This provision regarding review is an exception to the legal principle of stare decisis. [1] [ need quotation to verify ]

Contents

Article 137 of the Constitution provides that subject to provisions of any law and rule made under Article 145 the Supreme Court of India has the power to review any judgement pronounced (or order made) by it. Under Supreme Court Rules, 1966 such a petition needs to be filed within 30 days from the date of judgement or order. It is also recommended that the petition should be circulated without oral arguments to the same bench of judges that delivered the judgement (or order) sought to be reviewed. [2] [3]

It is not necessary for the court to accept every review petition. [4] Court may accept review petition only if it is filed on sufficient grounds which are:

  1. The discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made
  2. On account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record
  3. Any other sufficient reason

Furthermore, even after dismissal of a review petition, the SC may consider a curative petition in order to prevent abuse of its process and to cure gross miscarriage of justice. [2]

While a civil review petition can be moved in accordance with Order XLVII, Rule 1(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 a criminal review petition can be moved only on the ground of an error apparent on the face of the record. (Source: CPC, 1908 and CRPC, 1973)

Prominent cases

Dowry harassment case

IPC 498a review-On 23 April 2018, the Supreme Court heard arguments and reserved its judgement on a review petition filed against an earlier order of the Court which had outlawed immediate arrests under this provision of IPC 498a.On 14 September 2018, it set aside the earlier judgement and left it to the parliament to enact suitable guidelines.

2G spectrum case

On 2 March 2012, Govt of India filed a review petition in Supreme Court seeking partial review of the court's 2 February 2012 order which had quashed 122 licenses. [5] The Govt questioned Supreme Court's authority over ruling against the first-come first-served policy but stayed away from challenging the cancellation of 122 licences issued during the tenure of A Raja as Telecom Minister. [6] On the same day Sistema, majority shareholder in MTS India, too filed a review petition in Supreme Court. [7] The Supreme Court on 4 April 2012 accepted to hear Government's review petition on limited grounds and dismissed all other 10 review petitions. [8] Later on the Government of India applied for the withdrawal of the review petition and same was accepted by the Supreme Court of India [9]

NEET Case

On 18 July 2013, a 3-judge division bench of the SC by a 2:1 majority verdict had quashed National Eligibility Cum Entrance Test for admission to undergraduate medical/dental courses and Postgraduate medical/dental courses. The government of India subsequently filed a review petition. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the review petition on 23 October 2013. It recalled the 18 July order on 11 April 2016 and allowed the government to conduct NEET for admission to Undergraduate and Postgraduate medical and dental courses in the meantime. It decided to hear afresh on the validity of NEET. Another 3-judge bench of the Supreme Court after a fresh hearing upheld NEET by its judgement dated 29 April 2020.

Vodafone-Hutchison Tax Case

On 17 February 2012, Govt of India moved the Supreme Court seeking a review of its verdict holding that the Indian Income Tax Department does not have jurisdiction to impose Rs.11,000 crore as tax on the overseas deal between Vodafone and Hutchison. [10] [11] [12] On 20 March 2012, SC dismissed the review petition during an in-chamber proceeding saying the petition has no merit. [13] [14]

Mayawati disproportionate assets case

On 4 October 2012, based on a review petition filed by a person named Kamlesh Verma, the Supreme Court decided to review its earlier verdict in open court in a disproportionate assets case against Mayawati. [15] [16] [17] The case dates back to 2003 when CBI filed a case against Mayawati for owning assets disproportionate to her known sources of income. Mayawati described the CBI investigation against her as illegal. [18] The assets case was finally quashed on 6 July 2012—nine years later—by the Supreme Court; the court found that the case was unwarranted. [19] The CBI decided not to file an appeal. [20]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Central Bureau of Investigation</span> Crime investigating agency of India

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) is the domestic crime investigating agency of India. It operates under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions. Originally set up to investigate bribery and governmental corruption, in 1965 it received expanded jurisdiction to investigate breaches of central laws enforceable by the Government of India, multi-state organised crime, multi-agency or international cases. The CBI has attracted numerous controversies and criticisms due to various reports of irregular practises, excessive political influence, and a poor conviction rate. CBI is exempted from the provisions of the Right to Information Act. CBI is India's officially designated single point of contact for liaison with the Interpol.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Supreme Court of India</span> Highest judicial body in India

The Supreme Court of India is the supreme judicial authority and the highest court of the Republic of India. It is the final court of appeal for all civil and criminal cases in India. It also has the power of judicial review. The Supreme Court, which consists of the Chief Justice of India and a maximum of fellow 33 judges, has extensive powers in the form of original, appellate and advisory jurisdictions.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Mayawati</span> 18th Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh

Kumari Mayawati is an Indian politician who served as the 18th Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh from 1995 to 1995, 1997 to 1997, 2002 to 2003 and from 2007 to 2012. She is the national president of the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP), which focuses on a platform of social change for Bahujans, more commonly known as Other Backward Castes, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes as well as religious minorities since 2003. She had also served as a Member of Parliament, Rajya Sabha from 2012 to 2017 from Uttar Pradesh. Mayawati's rise from humble beginnings has been called a "miracle of democracy" by P. V. Narasimha Rao, former prime minister of India. In 1993, Kanshi Ram formed a coalition with the Samajwadi Party and Mayawati became the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh in 1995. She was the first female Scheduled Caste chief minister in India. In 1997 and in 2002 she was chief minister with outside support from the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), the second time only for a year up to 26 August 2003 due to BJP withdrawing support. Mayawati's tenure has attracted praise and criticism. Millions of Dalits across India popularly view her as an icon, and refer to her as Behen-ji and Iron lady. She has been praised for her fundraising efforts on behalf of her party and her birthdays have been widely celebrated by her supporters. On the contrary, the rise in her personal wealth and that of her party have been criticised as indicative of corruption.

The Comptroller and Auditor General of India is the supreme audit institution of India, established under Article 148 of the Constitution of India. They are empowered to audit all receipts and expenditure of the Government of India and the State Governments, including those of autonomous bodies and corporations substantially financed by the government. The CAG is also the statutory auditor of Government-owned corporations and conducts supplementary audit of government companies in which the government has an equity share of at least 51 percent or subsidiary companies of existing government companies. The CAG is also the statutory auditor of the Lokpal.

Section 377 of the British colonial penal code criminalized all sexual acts "against the order of nature". The law was used to prosecute people engaging in oral and anal sex along with homosexual activity. As per Supreme Court Judgement since 2018 Indian Penal Code Section 377 is used for Convictions of non consensual sexual activities among homosexuals with a minimum of ten years imprisonment extended to life imprisonment. It has been used to criminalize third gender people, such as the apwint in Myanmar. In 2018, British Prime Minister Theresa May acknowledged how the legacies of British colonial anti-sodomy laws continue to persist today in the form of discrimination, violence, and death.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Subramanian Swamy</span> Indian politician

Subramanian Swamy is an Indian politician, economist and statistician. Before joining politics, he was a professor of Mathematical Economics at the Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi. He is known for his Hindu nationalist views. Swamy was a member of the Planning Commission of India and was a Cabinet Minister in the Chandra Shekhar government. Between 1994 and 1996, Swamy was Chairman of the Commission on Labour Standards and International Trade under former Prime Minister P. V. Narasimha Rao. Swamy was a long-time member of the Janata Party, serving as its president until 2013 when he joined the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). He has written on foreign affairs of India dealing largely with China, Pakistan and Israel. He was nominated to Rajya Sabha on 26 April 2016 for a six-year term, ending on 24 April 2022.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Fodder Scam</span> Embezzlement scandal in Bihar state, India

The Fodder Scam was a corruption scandal that involved the embezzlement of about ₹9.4 billion from the government treasury of the north Indian state of Bihar. Among those implicated in the theft and arrested were then Chief Minister of Bihar, Lalu Prasad Yadav, as well as former Chief Minister, Jagannath Mishra. The scandal led to the end of Lalu's reign as Chief Minister. Dr. Dineshwar Prasad Sharma is also alleged to have received ₹300.60 crores from S. N. Sinha. On 23 December 2017, Lalu Prasad Yadav was convicted by a special CBI court while Jagannath Misra was acquitted.

The Taj Heritage Corridor case is an alleged scam wherein 2002–2003, the then Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh Mayawati and a minister in her government, Nasimuddin Siddiqui, were charged with corruption. The Taj Corridor project was intended to upgrade tourist facilities near the Taj Mahal and was to be implemented during her tenure as Chief Minister. The then BJP government at the Centre gave the Environmental Clearance required for the project near Taj Mahal. However, later on the BJP backed out and then started saying that the project was not cleared by the Environment Ministry and blamed Mayawati for starting construction work near the Taj Mahal.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Prashant Bhushan</span> Indian activist, lawyer and politician

Prashant Bhushan is an Indian public interest lawyer in the Supreme Court of India. He was a member of the faction of the India Against Corruption (IAC) movement known as Team Anna which supported Anna Hazare's campaign for the implementation of the Jan Lokpal Bill. After a split in IAC, he helped Team Anna form the Aam Aadmi Party. In 2015, he made several allegations against the party's leadership, its functioning and its deviation from the core ideology, values and commitments. He is one of the founders of Swaraj Abhiyan and Sambhaavnaa, an Institute of Public Policy and Politics.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Vinod Rai</span> Former Indian bureaucrat

Vinod Rai is a former IAS officer who served as the 11th Comptroller and Auditor General of India. He assumed office on 7 January 2008 till 22 May 2013. He is the current chairman of UN Panel of External Auditors and Honorary Advisor to the Indian Railways and a member of the Railway Kaya Kalp Council.

<i>Naz Foundation v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi</i> Indian LGBT Rights Case

Naz Foundation v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi (2009) is a landmark Indian case decided by a two-judge bench of the Delhi High Court, which held that treating consensual homosexual sex between adults as a crime is a violation of fundamental rights protected by India's Constitution. The verdict resulted in the decriminalization of homosexual acts involving consenting adults throughout India. This was later overturned by the Supreme Court of India in Suresh Kumar Koushal vs. Naz Foundation, in which a 2 judge bench reinstated Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code. However, even that was overturned by a 5 judge bench in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India in 2018, decriminalizing homosexuality once again.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">S. H. Kapadia</span> 38th Chief Justice of India

Sarosh Homi Kapadia was the 38th Chief Justice of India. He was the first chief justice born in independent India.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Adarsh Housing Society scam</span> Housing allocation scheme in Mumbai

The 2G spectrum case was a political controversy in which politicians and private officials of the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) coalition government India were allegedly involved in selling or allotting 122 2G spectrum licenses on conditions that provided an advantage to specific telecom operators. A. Raja, then Telecom Minister, was accused of selling 2G spectrum licenses at a very low cost which resulted in the loss of ₹1,760 billion in government revenue. Raja was also accused of not following rules and regulations as well as not recognizing any advice from the Ministries of Finance and Law and Justice of India while allotting 2G spectrum licenses to telecom operators. Series of allegations were made on allotting 2G spectrum licenses including allegations from Central Bureau of Investigation after investigating the case alleging Raja for intentionally advancing the cut-off date to favour some specific firms, which were allegedly ineligible for applying for telecom licenses, in return for bribes.

Polayil Joseph Thomas is a 1973 batch Indian Administrative Service officer from Kerala cadre. He was appointed as the 14th Chief Vigilance Commissioner of India, in an appointment that came under Supreme Court's review and later to be annulled by court as "non-est" in law. The appointment and the subsequent quashing led to several public debates with regard to the eligibility criteria for CVC's appointment, judicial activism, as well as the role played by mainstream media to hide several key facts that could establish his otherwise unblemished record in the civil services.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Asok Kumar Ganguly</span> Indian jurist (born 1947)

Asok Kumar Ganguly is an Indian jurist. He served as the chairman of the West Bengal Human Rights Commission and as a judge of the Supreme Court of India who delivered judgements in some high-profile cases like the 2G spectrum case.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ranjan Gogoi</span> 46th Chief Justice of India, Member of Rajya Sabha

Ranjan Gogoi is an Indian former advocate and judge who served as the 46th Chief Justice of India from 2018 to 2019, having previously served as a Judge of the Supreme Court of India from 2012 to 2018. He is currently a Member of the Rajya Sabha, having been nominated by President Ram Nath Kovind on 16 March 2020. Gogoi served as a judge in the Gauhati High Court from 2001 to 2010, and then was transferred as a judge to the Punjab and Haryana High Court from 2010 to 2011 where he later was the Chief Justice from 2011 to 2012. He is also a member of the Committee on External Affairs in the Rajya Sabha.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Disproportionate assets case against Jayalalithaa</span> Indian political scandal in 1991–96

Jayaram Jayalalithaa, commonly referred to as Jayalalithaa, was an Indian politician who was the six time Chief Minister of the Indian state of Tamil Nadu. She was initially convicted for misusing her office during her tenure of 1991–96. Subramanian Swamy was the chief petitioner. Some of the allegations involved spending on her foster son's lavish marriage in 1996 and her acquisition of properties worth more than ₹66.65 crore, as well as jewellery, cash deposits, investments and a fleet of luxury cars. This was the first case where a ruling chief minister had to step down on account of a court sentence. Ultimately, in May 2015, her conviction was overturned, she was acquitted of all charges, and she then died before the Supreme Court of India reviewed the case in 2017.

<i>Suresh Kumar Koushal v. Naz Foundation</i> Indian LGBT Rights Case

Suresh Kumar Koushal &Anr. v. NAZ Foundation &Ors.(2013) is a case in which a 2 judge Supreme Court bench consisting of G. S. Singhvi and S. J. Mukhopadhaya overturned the Delhi High Court case Naz Foundation v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and reinstated Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code. The Supreme Court of India decided to revisit this judgement after several curative petitions were filed against it, in 2017. Thereby in 2018, Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, a 5 judge bench of the Supreme Court overturned this judgement, decriminalizing homosexuality. Portions of Section 377 relating to sex with minors, non-consensual sexual acts such as rape, and bestiality remain in force.

Amarendra Sharan (1949–2019) was Additional Solicitor General of India from 2004 to 2009 and a designated senior attorney at the Indian Supreme Court. He appeared in a number of prominent cases including coal allocation and 2G scam cases on behalf of CBI, the Priyadarshi Mattoo case, and the re-investigation of Mahatma Gandhi's murder.

References

  1. ↑ When review petition can be filed in high court and supreme court
  2. 1 2 "Supreme Court of India Manual of Office Procedure" (PDF). Supreme Court of India. Retrieved 3 March 2012.
  3. ↑ "Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court". Supreme Court of India. Archived from the original on 6 March 2012. Retrieved 3 March 2012.
  4. ↑ "Review Petition to Supreme Court under Article 137 of the Constitution of India| Order 47 CPC| Download format". www.aaptaxlaw.com. Retrieved 4 May 2022.
  5. ↑ "Economic Times". Economic Times. 3 March 2012.
  6. ↑ "2G verdict: Auction can't be only way to allot natural assets, government says". Times of India. 3 March 2012.
  7. ↑ "2G licences cancellation: Sistema files review petition in Supreme Court". Economic Times. Archived from the original on 22 May 2012.
  8. ↑ "2G spectrum scam: Supreme Court dismisses all but one review petition Close". Economic Times. 4 April 2012.
  9. ↑ "Supreme Court accepts Centre's petition to withdraw review of 2G judgement".
  10. ↑ "Govt seeks review of Vodafone tax verdict". 18 February 2012. Retrieved 19 March 2012.
  11. ↑ "Centre seeks review of Vodafone verdict". 18 February 2012. Retrieved 19 March 2012.
  12. ↑ "Govt seeks review of Vodafone tax case verdict". 17 February 2012. Retrieved 19 March 2012.
  13. ↑ "Second slap: SC junks govt's Vodafone review petition". First Post. 20 March 2012. Retrieved 20 March 2012.
  14. ↑ "SC dismisses govt's review petition on Vodafone tax verdict". Indian Express. 20 March 2012. Retrieved 20 March 2012.
  15. ↑ "SC order on Review Petition (CRL.) No(s). 453 OF 2012". Supreme Court of India. Retrieved 4 October 2012.
  16. ↑ "SC agrees to hear review of quashing of Mayawati DA case". DNA. 4 October 2012. Retrieved 4 October 2012.
  17. ↑ "SC to hear review of quashing of Mayawati's assets case". Rediff.com. 4 October 2012. Retrieved 4 October 2012.
  18. ↑ Hasan, Masoodul (21 April 2010). "CBI probe in DA case illegal: Mayawati". Hindustan Times. Archived from the original on 22 October 2012. Retrieved 17 June 2012.
  19. ↑ "Court quashes FIR in Mayawati assets case". The Hindu. Chennai, India. 6 July 2012. Archived from the original on 8 July 2012. Retrieved 25 August 2023.
  20. ↑ "Assets case: Relief for Mayawati as CBI admits defeat". The Indian Express. 1 August 2012. Retrieved 1 August 2012.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.