Curative Petition: Definition and Meaning

The Nirbhaya Case brought the issue of curative petitions to light when two of the prisoners appealed the Supreme Court's decision after their requests for mercy and a review were turned down.

What is Curative Petition?

A curative petition is the final legal remedy that can be argued for in any ruling or decision made by the Supreme Court, which is often decided by the judges present in the chamber. Such petitions hardly ever receive a hearing in open court. As a result, it is viewed as the very last and best alternative for resolving complaints.

The court uses the Latin maxim "Actus Curiae Neminem Gravabit," which indicates that no one will be affected by a court decision. The court should provide a ruling ensuring that none of the parties' interests are jeopardized. When the court is required to right a wrong committed against a party by the court's actions, the adage applies.

Background

The Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra dispute in 2002 marked the first documented instance of a curative petition. The issue of whether the harmed party was entitled to any redress in relation to the Supreme Court's final decision emerged.

The Supreme Court would therefore reconsider its ruling within the bounds of its authority in order to avoid abuse of its process and any instance of a miscarriage of justice. Consequently, the phrase "curative petition" was born. "In a healing appeal, the petitioner must present the justifications that are mentioned there, and those were included in the audit request that was granted justification."

The three senior-most designated authorities, or adjudicators, who deliver the legal verdict, then exchange the remedial appeal. There is no time limit for recording the corrective request. This is guaranteed under Article 137 of the Indian Constitution, which states that Article 145 of the Indian Constitution governs the making of laws and rules. It means that the Supreme Court has the authority to review every judgment that is articulated by it, to put it simply.

Conditions for Curative Petition

The following requirements have been established by the Supreme Court for hearing curative petitions −

• The petitioner must show that the natural justice standards were violated and that he is afraid of the judge's bias and an unfavorable ruling.

• The petition must explicitly state that the review petition raised the aforementioned grounds and that it was rejected by circulation.

• A curative petition must first be circulated to a bench of the three senior-most judges and, if available, the judges who made the pertinent judgment.

• The matter ought to be placed before the same bench if the majority of the judges concur that it has to be heard.

• The Bench may, at any time during the consideration of the curative petition, ask a senior lawyer to serve as an amicus curia (friend of the court).

• A curative petition is typically conducted by judges in the chamber unless a specific request for an open court hearing is made.

• The court may charge the petitioner with "exemplary expenses" if his plea is rejected.

Objective behind the Curative Petition

The main reason for granting such a petition is to reduce any abuse of the legal system and to correct serious errors and flaws in the judicial system.

• When the Supreme Court rules on the matter, the intriguing notion known as "interest republicaeut sits finis litium" becomes valid.

• According to this phenomenon, litigation should conclude after a protracted hierarchy of appeals for the benefit of the general public. But the founding fathers and mothers incorporated Article 137 of the Constitution, allowing a review of Supreme Court orders, out of concern for fairness.

Procedure of Curative Petition

A curative petition is permitted by Article 137 of the Indian Constitution. The article states that the Supreme Court has the authority to evaluate any decisions or orders it makes regarding legal issues and rules created in accordance with Text 145. A curative petition must be submitted no later than 30 days after the verdict is rendered.

• A petitioner cannot file a curative petition until the review petition has been rejected.

• The petitioner must also state or assert the specific reasons why the review petition was dismissed by circulation, and this must be supported by a senior attorney.

• If it can be demonstrated that the natural justice precepts have been broken, a curative petition is taken into consideration. The fact that the petitioner was not given due consideration by the court when the decision was issued is another factor to consider.

• The curative petition is addressed to a bench consisting of the three senior judges and, if possible, the judges who delivered the original sentence. If and only if a majority of the judges decide that the case merits a hearing, can the petition be scheduled before the same bench? Although curative petitions are typically reviewed by judges sitting in the chamber, an open-court hearing will be held if asked.

Conclusion

In the Indian legal system, a curative petition is a novel idea and judicial innovation. It is regarded as the very last and only option. However, if discussing the context of justice, such as in the Nirbhaya case, it offers a setback for the judges to deliver the verdict promptly. Inconsistencies abound in our judicial system. It provides a means for a criminal to avoid punishment.

The hearing request is regarded as unusual rather than typical. If the lawyer asserts that there was a violation of common equity norms and that the client was not given a chance to be heard by the court before making a request, it frequently helps those clients.

FAQs

Q1. What distinguishes a Curative Petition from a Review Petition?

Ans. The Supreme Court's interpretation of the review petition, which is incorporated in article 137 of the Indian Constitution, is what led to the formation of the curative petition, which is the primary distinction between the review petition and the curative petition.

Q2. What exactly happened in the Ashok Hurra v. Rupa Hurra case?

Ans. The Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra case, which occurred in 2002, included a marital dispute. The Supreme Court in this case considered whether the divorce order was genuine because Rupa Ashok Hurra withdrew her agreement for a mutual divorce, although having previously given it.