Curative petition

Last updated

A curative petition is a concept that evolved by the Supreme Court of India in the matter of Rupa Ashok Hurra vs. Ashok Hurra and Anr. (2002) [1] in which the question was whether an aggrieved person is entitled to any relief against the final judgement or order of the Supreme Court after the dismissal of a review petition. [2] The Supreme Court held that to prevent abuse of its process and to cure gross miscarriage of justice, it may reconsider its judgements in exercise of its inherent powers. [3] For that purpose, the court has devised what has been termed as a curative petition in which [4] the petitioner is required to aver specifically that the grounds mentioned therein had been taken in the review petition filed earlier and that it was dismissed by circulation, which must be certified by a senior advocate. The curative petition is then circulated to the three most senior judges and to the judges who delivered the impugned judgement if available. No time limit is given for filing curative petition. [5] It is guaranteed under Article 137 of Constitution of India, which gives the power to the Supreme Court to review of its own judgements and orders.

Contents

The main difference between the review petition and curative petition is the fact that review petition is inherently provided in the constitution of India whereas the emergence of the curative petition is in relation with the interpretation of the review petition by the Supreme Court which is enshrined in article 137.

Requirements

To entertain a curative petition, the Supreme Court has laid down specific conditions:

  1. The petitioner must establish that there was a genuine violation of principles of natural justice and fear of the bias of the judge and judgement that adversely affected him.
  2. The petition must state specifically that the grounds mentioned had been taken in the review petition and that it was dismissed by circulation.
  3. The curative petition must accompany certification by a senior lawyer relating to the fulfillment of the above requirements.
  4. The petition is to be sent to the three senior most judges and judges of the bench who passed the judgement affecting the petition, if available.
  5. If the majority of the judges on the above bench agree that the matter needs hearing, it is sent to the same bench if possible.
  6. The court may impose "exemplary costs" to the petitioner if his plea lacks merit.

See also

Related Research Articles

Supreme Court of India Highest court of India

The Supreme Court of India is the supreme judicial body of India and the highest court of India under the constitution. It is the most senior constitutional court, and has the power of judicial review. The Chief Justice of India is the head and chief judge of the Supreme Court, which consists of a maximum of 34 judges and has extensive powers in the form of original, appellate and advisory jurisdictions. It is regarded as the most powerful public institution in India.

Nazim Hussain Siddiqui

Nazim Hussain Siddiqui a Pakistani jurist who served as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, from 31 December 2003 to 29 June 2005.

Public interest litigation (PIL) refers to litigation undertaken to secure public interest and demonstrates the availability of justice to socially-disadvantaged parties and was introduced by Justice P. N. Bhagwati. It is a relaxation on the traditional rule of locus standi. Before 1979 the judiciary and the Supreme Court of India entertained litigation only from parties affected directly or indirectly by the defendant. It heard and decided cases only under its original and appellate jurisdictions. However, the Supreme Court began permitting cases on the grounds of public interest litigation, which means that even people who are not directly involved in the case may bring matters of public interest to the court. It is the court's privilege to entertain the application.

The death penalty is a legal punishment in India, and is permissible for some crimes under the country's main substantive penal legislation, the Indian Penal Code, 1860, as well as other laws. Currently, there are around 403 prisoners on death row in India. The most recent executions in India took place in March 2020, when the four men convicted of the gangrape and murder of Jyoti Singh in Delhi in December 2012 were hanged in the Tihar Prison Complex in Delhi.

Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code is a section of the Indian Penal Code introduced in 1861 during the British rule of India. Modelled on the Buggery Act of 1533, it makes sexual activities "against the order of nature" illegal. On 6 September 2018, the Supreme Court of India ruled that the application of Section 377 to consensual homosexual sex between adults was unconstitutional, "irrational, indefensible and manifestly arbitrary", but that Section 377 remains in force relating to sex with minors, non-consensual sexual acts, and bestiality.

<i>Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala</i>

Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Anr., also known as the Kesavananda Bharati judgement, is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of India that outlined the basic structure doctrine of the Indian Constitution.

Yakub Abdul Razzaq Memon was an Indian extremist who was convicted over his involvement in the 1993 Bombay bombings by Special Terrorist and Disruptive Activities court on 27 July 2007. Yakub Memon was the brother of one of the prime suspects in the bombings, Tiger Memon. His appeals and petitions for clemency were all rejected and he was executed by hanging on 30 July 2015 in Nagpur jail.

<i>Naz Foundation v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi</i>

Naz Foundation v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi 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.

Anand Grover is a senior lawyer known for legal activism in Indian law relating to homosexuality and HIV. Along with his wife Indira Jaising, he is a founder-member of the Lawyers Collective. He was the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the right to health from August 2008 to July 2014. He is currently and acting member of the Global Commission on Drug Policy.

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.

Soumya murder case is a criminal case regarding the rape and murder of Soumya, a 23-year-old woman from Manjakkad near Shornur, while she was travelling in a passenger train from Ernakulam to Shornur on 1 February 2011.

Jagdish Singh Khehar 44th Chief Justice of India

Jagdish Singh Khehar was the 44th Chief Justice of India (CJI). Khehar is the first CJI from the Sikh community. He has been a judge in Supreme Court of India from 13 September 2011 to 27 August 2017 upon superannuation. He served for a brief period but gave many landmark Judgements such as the Triple Talaq and the Right to Privacy Judgement. He was succeeded by Justice Deepak Misra.

Dipak Misra 45th Chief Justice of India

Justice Dipak Misra is an Indian jurist who served as the 45th Chief Justice of India from 28 August 2017 till 2 October 2018. He is also a former Chief Justice of the Patna and Delhi High Courts. He is the nephew of Justice Ranganath Misra, who was the 21st Chief Justice from 1990 to 1991. He succeeded J. S. Khehar, the 44th Chief Justice.

National Judicial Appointments Commission

National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) was a proposed body which would have been responsible for the recruitment, appointment and transfer of judges and legal specialists in India. The Commission was established by amending the Constitution of India through the ninety-ninth constitution amendment with the Constitution Act, 2014 or 99th Constitutional Amendment Act-2014 passed by the Lok Sabha on 13 August 2014 and by the Rajya Sabha on 14 August 2014. The NJAC would have replaced the collegium system for the appointment of judges as invoked by the Supreme court via judicial fiat by a new system. Along with the Constitution Amendment Act, the National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, 2014, was also passed by the Parliament of India to regulate the functions of the National Judicial Appointments Commission. The NJAC Bill and the Constitutional Amendment Bill, was ratified by 16 of the state legislatures in India, and subsequently assented by the President of India Pranab Mukherjee on 31 December 2014. The NJAC Act and the Constitutional Amendment Act came into force from 13 April 2015.

<i>Shreya Singhal v. Union of India</i>

Shreya Singhal v. Union of India is a judgement by a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India in 2015, on the issue of online speech and intermediary liability in India. The Supreme Court struck down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, relating to restrictions on online speech, as unconstitutional on grounds of violating the freedom of speech guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. The Court further held that the Section was not saved by virtue of being a 'reasonable restriction' on the freedom of speech under Article 19(2). The Supreme Court also read down Section 79 and Rules under the Section. It held that online intermediaries would only be obligated to take down content on receiving an order from a court or government authority. The case is considered a watershed moment for online free speech in India.

Justice K. S. Puttaswamy is a retired Judge of the Karnataka High Court who was also the original petitioner, challenging the Government of India over making Aadhaar mandatory. He had filed a writ petition in 2012 and over the last five years, 26 other petitions have been tagged along with his, challenging the scheme.

<i>Suresh Kumar Koushal v. Naz Foundation</i>

Suresh Kumar Koushal and another v. NAZ Foundation and others is a 2013 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. But portions of Section 377 relating to sex with minors, non-consensual sexual acts such as rape, and bestiality remain in force.

<i>Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) and Anr. vs Union Of India And Ors.</i>

Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) and Anr. vs Union Of India And Ors is a landmark judgment of the Supreme Court of India, which holds that the right to privacy is protected as a fundamental right under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

The Supreme Court of India was in crisis after a press conference was given by Supreme Court judges Jasti Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi, Madan Lokur, and Kurian Joseph, in which they spoke against the Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra that he allocates certain politically controversial cases to such benches which gives favourable judgements towards a political party.

<i>Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India</i>

Navtej Singh Johar &Ors. v. Union of India thr. Secretary Ministry of Law and Justice is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of India in 2018 that decriminalised all consensual sex among adults, including homosexual sex.

References

  1. ↑ "Rupa Ashok Hurra vs Ashok Hurra And Another on 10 April, 2002". www.indiankanoon.org. Retrieved 10 July 2018.
  2. ↑ Anand, Utkarsh (29 July 2015). "Explained- 1993 Mumbai serial blast: What is curative petition?". The Indian Express. Retrieved 6 September 2019.
  3. ↑ "The curious case of a curative petition".
  4. ↑ "What is curative petition?".
  5. ↑ "Rupa Ashok Hurra vs Ashok Hurra & Anr" . Retrieved 7 May 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.