Curative Petitions: Supreme Court clarifies procedure when Review Petition is dismissed after Open Court Hearing (26 February 2024)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 26 February 2024

Citation: 2024 INSC 145

Judges: Aniruddha Bose, J., Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.

Can a curative petition be rejected by the registry of the Supreme Court if the review petition was dismissed after an open court hearing, rather than by circulation? The Supreme Court addressed this procedural question in a recent judgment, clarifying the powers of the registry and the necessary steps for filing curative petitions in such cases. The Court held that the registry cannot reject a curative petition on this ground alone and outlined the correct procedure to be followed. This judgment impacts the process of seeking further review of Supreme Court decisions.

Case Background

The case originated from a suit filed by M/S Brahmaputra Concrete Pipe Industries (the appellant) under “The Interest on Delayed Payments to Small Scale and Ancillary Industrial Undertakings Act, 1993” (the 1993 Act). The appellant sought interest on delayed payments. The Trial Court decreed the suit in favor of the appellant, but the High Court dismissed it on appeal, holding that the 1993 Act did not apply to transactions before 23.09.1992, when the Act became operational.

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision on 23.01.2019. A review petition was also dismissed on 18.12.2019 after an open court hearing. Subsequently, the appellant filed a curative petition, which was rejected by the Registrar of the Supreme Court. This rejection led to the current appeal before the Supreme Court.

Timeline:

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court’s power to review its judgments is derived from Article 137 of the Constitution of India, which states:

“Subject to the provisions of any law made by Parliament or any rules made under Article 145, the Supreme Court shall have the power to review any judgment pronounced or order made by it.”

Article 145 of the Constitution empowers the Supreme Court to make rules for regulating its practice and procedure. The Supreme Court Rules, 2013 (the 2013 Rules) were framed under this power.

The concept of a “curative petition” was established in the case of Rupa Ashok Hurra vs. Ashok Hurra and Another [(2002) 4 SCC 388] by a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court. The Court held that a curative petition could be entertained to prevent abuse of the court’s process and to cure a gross miscarriage of justice, based on its inherent powers under Articles 129 and 142 of the Constitution.

Order XLVIII of the 2013 Rules deals with the procedure for filing curative petitions. Rule 2(1) of Order XLVIII specifies that:

“The petitioner, in the curative petition, shall aver specifically that the grounds mentioned therein had been taken in the Review Petition and that it was dismissed by circulation.”

Rule 5 of Order XV of the 2013 Rules states:

“The Registrar may refuse to receive a petition on the ground that it discloses no reasonable cause or is frivolous or contains scandalous matter but the petitioner may within fifteen days of the making of such order, appeal by way of motion, from such refusal to the Court.”

Arguments

Appellants’ Submissions:

• The Registrar has no power to decline registration of a curative petition; it should be decided by a Bench of the Supreme Court.
• The requirement to aver that the review petition was dismissed by circulation should not be the sole determinant of a curative petition’s maintainability.

Respondents’ Submissions:

• Since the review petition was dismissed in open court after oral submissions, it does not satisfy the conditions for a curative petition as laid down in Rupa Ashok Hurra.
• There was a delay in filing the curative petition (ten months after the dismissal of the review petition).
• The judgment in Rupa Ashok Hurra needs to be reconsidered.

Amicus Curiae’s Submissions:

• The requirement that the review petition was dismissed by circulation should not be the sole factor in determining the maintainability of a curative petition.
• The Court has the power to excuse compliance with any of the rules under Order LV Rule 2 of the 2013 Rules.
• The Registry should take instructions from a Judge in chambers when an application is made to excuse compliance with the rules.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:

✓ Whether the Registrar has the power to decline registration of a curative petition solely on the ground that the petition does not contain an averment that the review petition was dismissed by circulation.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

Cases:

• Rupa Ashok Hurra vs. Ashok Hurra and Another [(2002) 4 SCC 388] – Supreme Court: Established the concept and conditions for filing a curative petition.
• P.N. Eswara Iyer and Others vs. Registrar, Supreme Court of India [(1980) 4 SCC 680] – Supreme Court: Discussed the distinction between an original hearing and a review hearing.
• Rama Rao Poal vs. Samaj Parivartana Samudaya [Curative Petition (Civil) D. No.35404/2015] – Supreme Court: A Coordinate Bench held that the question of maintainability of a curative petition should be decided by the concerned Bench.
• Mohd. Arif vs. Registrar, Supreme Court of India [(2014) 9 SCC 737] – Supreme Court: Observed that a limited oral hearing should be given to a convict at the stage of review in death sentence cases.
• Union of India & Ors. vs. M/s. Union Carbide Corporation & Ors. [Curative Petition (Civil) Nos.345-347 of 2010] – Supreme Court: A five-judge bench examined a curative petition despite the dismissal of review petitions in open court.

Constitutional Provisions:

• Article 137 of the Constitution of India: Grants the Supreme Court the power to review its judgments.
• Article 145 of the Constitution of India: Empowers the Supreme Court to make rules for regulating its practice and procedure.

Authority Analysis

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The Court relied on the principles laid down in Rupa Ashok Hurra [(2002) 4 SCC 388]* but clarified that the absence of an averment regarding dismissal by circulation is not grounds for rejection by the registry. The Court distinguished P.N. Eswara Iyer [(1980) 4 SCC 680]* as it was delivered in a different context. The Court followed the principle in Rama Rao Poal [Curative Petition (Civil) D. No.35404/2015]* that the question of maintainability should be decided by a Bench. The Court cited Mohd. Arif [(2014) 9 SCC 737]* to show that oral hearings are sometimes required. The Court cited Union of India & Ors. vs. M/s. Union Carbide Corporation & Ors. [Curative Petition (Civil) Nos.345-347 of 2010]* as an instance where the Court examined a curative petition despite the dismissal of review petitions in open court.

The Court held that the Registrar cannot reject a curative petition solely because it lacks the averment that the review petition was dismissed by circulation. The Court emphasized that this is a judicial function and not an administrative one. The Court clarified that the correct procedure for a curative petition arising from an order dismissing a review petition upon hearing in open court is to include a plea seeking excuse from compliance with the requirement to aver that the review petition was dismissed by circulation. The Registry should then obtain instructions from a Judge in chambers.

The Court also held that the limitation period for filing a review petition cannot be extended to apply to curative petitions. The Court stated that a curative petition has to be filed within a reasonable time from the date of judgment or order passed in a review petition.

The Court observed, “Registry cannot be vested with power to decide whether a review petition, after being dismissed in open Court hearing, merited relook through the curative jurisdiction. As we have already observed, that would be a judicial exercise.”

The Court further stated, “Failure to make averment in terms of Rule 2(1) of Order XLVIII of the 2013 Rules is not one of the conditions which vests the Registry with power to refuse to receive a curative petition in itself.”

The Court also clarified, “We are of the view that a curative petition arising from an order dismissing a review petition upon hearing in open Court must contain a plea or prayer seeking excuse from compliance of making averment as contained in Order XLVIII Rule 2(1) of the 2013 Rules.”

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s reasoning was primarily driven by the need to ensure that the registry does not overstep its administrative functions and encroach upon judicial decision-making. The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to the principles of natural justice and ensuring that all parties have a fair opportunity to be heard. The Court also sought to balance the need for procedural compliance with the need to address potential miscarriages of justice.

The Court’s decision reflects a concern that the registry’s actions should not impede access to justice, particularly in cases where a party seeks to invoke the curative jurisdiction of the Court. The Court’s reasoning also highlights a commitment to the principle that substantive justice should not be sacrificed for procedural technicalities.

Logical Reasoning

Key Takeaways

• The Registrar of the Supreme Court cannot reject a curative petition solely on the ground that the review petition was not dismissed by circulation.
• Curative petitions arising from the dismissal of a review petition after an open court hearing must include a plea seeking excuse from compliance with the requirement to aver that the review petition was dismissed by circulation.
• The Registry must obtain instructions from a Judge in chambers when such a plea is made.
• The limitation period for filing a review petition does not apply to curative petitions, which must be filed within a reasonable time.
• This judgment clarifies the procedure for filing curative petitions and ensures that the registry does not overstep its administrative functions.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the Registrar’s order declining registration of the curative petitions. However, the Court did not remand the matter to the Registrar or the Chamber Judge, and instead, dismissed the curative petitions on merits.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the Registrar of the Supreme Court does not have the power to reject a curative petition solely on the ground that the review petition was not dismissed by circulation. This judgment clarifies the procedure for filing curative petitions and ensures that the registry does not overstep its administrative functions. The Court has not changed any previous position of law, but has clarified the procedure for filing curative petitions when the review petition was dismissed after open court hearing.

Conclusion

In summary, the Supreme Court held that the Registrar of the Supreme Court cannot reject a curative petition solely because the review petition was dismissed after an open court hearing. The Court clarified the procedure for filing such petitions, requiring a plea for excuse from compliance with the rule regarding dismissal by circulation. This judgment reinforces the principle that the registry’s role is administrative and that judicial decisions on maintainability must be made by a Bench of the Court, ensuring a balance between procedural rules and access to justice.