A Practical Guide for Litigants, Advocates and Advocates-on-Record
Legal position reviewed up to 11 October 2026
Introduction
The Supreme Court of India is the final court of appeal under the Indian judicial system. Its judgments ordinarily attain finality, and parties are expected to comply with the decisions pronounced by the Court.
However, an important constitutional question arises when a final Supreme Court judgment is alleged to have resulted in a grave miscarriage of justice, even after the Court has dismissed a review petition.
Does the law provide any further remedy? Can the Supreme Court reconsider a final decision after the dismissal of review? If so, what grounds must be established, and what procedure must be followed?
The answer lies in the exceptional jurisdiction known as the curative petition.
Unlike an appeal or an ordinary review petition, a curative petition is not intended to provide another opportunity to argue the merits of a concluded dispute. Its purpose is to address certain exceptional situations in which the finality of judicial proceedings must yield to the imperative of preventing a gross miscarriage of justice.
The jurisdiction was recognised by a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra, (2002) 4 SCC 388, and subsequently incorporated into the procedural framework of Order XLVIII of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013.
This article examines the legal basis, permissible grounds, maintainability, limitation, filing requirements, procedure and leading judgments governing curative petitions.
1. What Is a Curative Petition?
A curative petition is an exceptional proceeding invoking the inherent jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to reconsider a final judgment or order after the ordinary remedy of review has been exhausted.
The remedy derives its name from its purpose: to cure a serious defect in the administration of justice that cannot appropriately remain uncorrected merely because the ordinary judicial process has reached finality.
The Supreme Court recognised that finality is essential to the administration of justice. Litigation cannot continue indefinitely, and successful parties must ordinarily be able to rely upon judgments that have become conclusive.
At the same time, the Court acknowledged that circumstances might arise in which adherence to finality could perpetuate a grave miscarriage of justice.
Curative jurisdiction seeks to reconcile these competing considerations.
It does not create a general right to challenge every unsuccessful judgment after the dismissal of review.
2. Constitutional Basis of Curative Jurisdiction
Unlike the express power of review under Article 137 of the Constitution, curative jurisdiction was recognised through the Supreme Court’s inherent constitutional powers.
In Rupa Ashok Hurra, the Constitution Bench considered the scope of the Court’s inherent authority, particularly under Articles 129 and 142.
Article 129 recognises the Supreme Court as a court of record, while Article 142 empowers the Court to make orders necessary for doing complete justice in matters before it.
The Constitution Bench concluded that the Court possesses limited inherent authority to reconsider its final judgment to prevent abuse of its process and cure a gross miscarriage of justice.
The jurisdiction is therefore distinct from the ordinary power of review.
Article 137 expressly governs review, whereas curative jurisdiction is an exceptional inherent power recognised in constitutional jurisprudence.
3. What Is the Governing Procedural Law?
The procedure is contained in Order XLVIII of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, as amended.
Order XLVIII expressly makes curative petitions subject to the principles laid down in Rupa Ashok Hurra.
The Rules address several important requirements, including the relationship between review and curative proceedings, certifications by a Senior Advocate and an Advocate-on-Record, the requirement of filing within a reasonable time, and the manner in which the petition is considered.
A practitioner must examine both the Rules and the binding judicial decisions because the procedure cannot be understood merely by reading the Rules in isolation.
4. What Grounds May Justify a Curative Petition?
The Constitution Bench in Rupa Ashok Hurra identified exceptional circumstances in which relief may be available.
Violation of principles of natural justice
A serious violation of natural justice may justify consideration of curative relief.
For example, a person may have been adversely affected by a judgment without having been made a party to the proceedings, or a party may have been proceeded against without proper notice.
The defect must be examined in the context of the proceedings and its effect on the administration of justice.
An ordinary complaint that a party’s arguments were not accepted is not equivalent to denial of natural justice.
Apprehension of judicial bias
Curative jurisdiction may also arise where a Judge who participated in deciding the matter failed to disclose a relevant connection with the parties or subject matter, giving rise to a legally sustainable apprehension of bias.
The existence of such a connection and its consequences must be established with appropriate material.
An unsupported allegation of bias cannot be treated as sufficient.
Gross miscarriage of justice
The broader constitutional concern underlying curative jurisdiction is the prevention of a gross miscarriage of justice.
The grounds identified in Rupa Ashok Hurra should not be treated as an unrestricted statutory catalogue, nor should the jurisdiction be expanded into a general power to reopen any judgment believed to be erroneous.
The Supreme Court has emphasised that curative intervention remains exceptional and must be justified by considerations of a sufficiently serious character.
5. Is Every Incorrect Judgment Open to Curative Review?
No.
The distinction between a legally incorrect judgment and a judgment warranting curative intervention is fundamental.
A party may believe that the Court incorrectly interpreted a statute, appreciated evidence improperly or adopted an erroneous view of the facts.
Such disagreement, by itself, does not establish maintainability of a curative petition.
Curative jurisdiction is not an additional appellate forum.
The petitioner must demonstrate circumstances that satisfy the exceptional constitutional standard.
This limitation protects the finality of Supreme Court judgments and prevents an endless succession of applications for reconsideration.
6. Must a Review Petition Be Filed Before a Curative Petition?
The curative process ordinarily follows the dismissal of a review petition.
Order XLVIII Rule 2(1) requires the curative petitioner to state specifically that the grounds relied upon had been raised in the review petition and that the review petition was dismissed by circulation.
This requirement serves an important purpose.
The petitioner should not ordinarily reserve a ground during review and then seek to introduce it for the first time in curative proceedings.
Consequently, where a possible curative issue arises, the formulation of the review grounds becomes especially significant.
The practitioner must examine the actual history of the review proceedings and the applicable judicial decisions before determining maintainability.
7. What If the Review Petition Was Dismissed After an Open-Court Hearing?
This is an important procedural question.
The literal wording of Order XLVIII Rule 2(1) refers to dismissal of the review petition by circulation.
However, the Supreme Court examined the situation where a review petition had instead been dismissed following an open-court hearing in Brahmaputra Concrete Pipe Industries v. Assam State Electricity Board, 2024 INSC 145.
The Court held that the Registry could not simply refuse registration on that ground in the manner adopted in the case.
Where the review was dismissed after open-court hearing, the curative petitioner must seek exemption from compliance with the relevant averment required by Order XLVIII Rule 2(1).
The application should request appropriate directions through the procedure contemplated by Order LV Rule 2, including placement before the Judge in Chambers.
The judicial decision on that application is distinct from an administrative decision by the Registry.
Therefore, dismissal of review in open court should not be described as an absolute and automatic prohibition against every curative petition. Equally, it does not create an automatic entitlement to curative reconsideration.
8. What Is the Limitation Period for Filing a Curative Petition?
Order XLVIII Rule 3 provides that a curative petition must be filed within a reasonable time from the date of the judgment or order passed in the review petition.
The Rule does not prescribe a fixed period of 30, 60 or 90 days.
This is different from the limitation prescribed for review petitions under Order XLVII.
In Brahmaputra Concrete Pipe Industries, 2024 INSC 145, the Supreme Court clarified that the 30-day period prescribed for review petitions cannot simply be extended to curative petitions.
The question whether a curative petition has been filed within reasonable time must be considered in the circumstances of the particular case.
The absence of a fixed statutory period should not be interpreted as permission to approach the Court after an unlimited delay.
A prospective petitioner should act promptly and carefully explain the chronology of the proceedings and any substantial delay.
9. Is Certification by a Senior Advocate Mandatory?
Yes.
Order XLVIII Rule 2(2) requires a curative petition to be accompanied by a certificate of a Senior Advocate stating that the petition satisfies the requirements identified in Rupa Ashok Hurra.
This requirement is substantive.
The Senior Advocate must examine whether the proposed petition genuinely meets the exceptional standards governing curative jurisdiction.
The certificate is not intended to be a routine endorsement of the petitioner’s dissatisfaction with the judgment.
The Senior Advocate should evaluate the original judgment, the review proceedings, the proposed grounds and the material supporting the alleged miscarriage of justice.
The certificate provides an important professional safeguard against misuse of the jurisdiction.
10. Is a Separate Advocate-on-Record Certificate Required?
Yes.
Order XLVIII Rule 2(3) also requires a certificate from the Advocate-on-Record confirming that the proposed petition is the first curative petition in the impugned matter.
The two certificates serve different purposes.
The Senior Advocate certifies compliance with the substantive requirements of curative jurisdiction.
The Advocate-on-Record certifies the specified procedural fact concerning the filing of the first curative petition.
One certificate does not automatically replace the other.
The Advocate-on-Record should independently verify the relevant filing history and ensure that the petition satisfies the applicable procedural requirements.
11. How Is a Curative Petition Prepared and Filed?
Preparation of a curative petition requires particular attention to the procedural history of the case.
The filing ordinarily involves examination and preparation of:
- The original Supreme Court judgment or order sought to be reconsidered.
- The review petition and the order disposing of review.
- The precise curative grounds and their relationship with grounds raised in review.
- Relevant portions of the record supporting the alleged violation of natural justice, apprehension of bias or other exceptional miscarriage of justice.
- A properly formulated statement explaining maintainability.
- The certificate of a Senior Advocate under Order XLVIII Rule 2(2).
- The certificate of the Advocate-on-Record under Order XLVIII Rule 2(3).
- A chronology explaining compliance with the reasonable-time requirement.
- Any application seeking exemption from a procedural requirement, where legally maintainable.
- Supporting affidavits, documents and other filing material required under the applicable Rules and Registry instructions.
The petition should avoid reproducing the entire appeal or review petition without explaining the distinctive basis for curative jurisdiction.
Every ground should be supported by a specific reference to the judicial record or relevant material.
12. Which Bench Considers a Curative Petition?
Order XLVIII Rule 4 provides a special consideration procedure.
A curative petition is first circulated to the three senior-most Judges of the Supreme Court and the Judges who delivered the judgment complained of, if available.
The petition is ordinarily dealt with by circulation, without oral arguments, unless the Court orders otherwise.
The petitioner may supplement the petition by additional written arguments in accordance with the Rule.
The Court determines whether the matter warrants further consideration under the prescribed procedure.
A litigant cannot assume that a curative petition will automatically be listed for oral hearing.
This special procedure reflects the exceptional nature of the remedy and the need for careful institutional scrutiny before a final judgment is reopened.
13. Can the Supreme Court Order an Oral Hearing?
The ordinary procedure is consideration by circulation.
An oral hearing is not available merely because the petitioner requests one.
Where the requisite judicial determination is made that further hearing is necessary, the matter may be listed in accordance with the Rules and the Court’s directions.
The Bench considering the matter may also seek assistance from a Senior Advocate acting as amicus curiae.
The conduct and extent of any further hearing remain matters for judicial determination.
14. Can the Supreme Court Impose Costs?
Yes.
The governing principles recognise the possibility of imposing exemplary costs where a curative petition is found to be without merit and vexatious.
This consequence is intended to discourage misuse of an extraordinary jurisdiction.
A litigant should not initiate curative proceedings merely to delay compliance with an unfavourable judgment or prolong litigation.
The decision to institute such proceedings requires a serious assessment of the legal grounds and supporting material.
15. Does Filing a Curative Petition Automatically Stay the Judgment?
No.
Filing a curative petition does not automatically suspend the operation, enforceability or consequences of the Supreme Court judgment.
Any interim protection must arise from an appropriate judicial order.
Therefore, parties should not assume that execution proceedings, payment obligations or other directions stand suspended simply because a curative petition has been lodged.
The availability and appropriateness of interim relief must be considered separately under the governing law.
16. What Did the Supreme Court Decide in Rupa Ashok Hurra?
In Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra, (2002) 4 SCC 388, a Constitution Bench considered whether the Supreme Court could reconsider its own final judgment after dismissal of review.
The Court recognised that judgments of the highest court must ordinarily attain finality.
Nevertheless, it acknowledged that exceptional circumstances may require intervention to prevent abuse of process or a gross miscarriage of justice.
The decision identified serious violations of natural justice and apprehension of bias arising from undisclosed judicial connections among the circumstances warranting consideration.
It also prescribed procedural safeguards, including prior review, certification by a Senior Advocate and initial consideration by senior Judges.
This judgment remains the foundation of curative jurisdiction in India.
17. Significance of the 2024 Brahmaputra Concrete Judgment
In Brahmaputra Concrete Pipe Industries v. Assam State Electricity Board, 2024 INSC 145, the Supreme Court examined the procedural treatment of curative petitions following dismissal of review petitions in open court.
The Registry had declined registration because the review petitions had not been dismissed by circulation.
The Supreme Court explained that such a situation required judicial consideration of an appropriate exemption request rather than the particular administrative refusal adopted by the Registry.
The Court also clarified the distinction between the fixed limitation applicable to review petitions and the reasonable-time requirement governing curative petitions.
The judgment is important for Advocates-on-Record because it addresses the respective functions of the Registry and the Court when a filing raises a question about compliance with Order XLVIII.
18. Significance of the Delhi Metro Curative Judgment, 2024
The decision in Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. v. Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd., 2024 INSC 292, is a significant modern illustration of the exercise of curative jurisdiction.
The dispute arose from an arbitration award and subsequent judicial proceedings concerning the Delhi Airport Metro project.
The Supreme Court ultimately exercised curative jurisdiction to interfere with its earlier judgment in the exceptional circumstances identified in the decision.
The judgment demonstrates that curative jurisdiction may have substantial consequences even in commercial and arbitration disputes.
However, it should not be interpreted as allowing routine reopening of arbitral awards or final Supreme Court judgments.
The significance of the decision lies in the Court’s application of the exceptional standard to the particular judicial error and miscarriage of justice it identified.
19. Difference Between Review Petition and Curative Petition
| Particular | Review Petition | Curative Petition |
|---|---|---|
| Constitutional basis | Article 137 | Inherent jurisdiction associated with Articles 129 and 142 |
| Principal procedure | Order XLVII | Order XLVIII |
| Nature | Limited reconsideration | Exceptional reconsideration after review |
| Filing time | Ordinarily 30 days | Within reasonable time after review order |
| Senior Advocate certificate | Not prescribed as the special curative certificate | Required |
| AOR certificate | Required under review rules | Separate first-curative certificate required |
| Oral hearing | Ordinarily by circulation | Ordinarily by circulation |
| Governing standard | Civil or criminal review grounds | Exceptional miscarriage-of-justice principles |
The two remedies should not be treated as interchangeable.
20. Common Mistakes in Curative Petitions
Common procedural and substantive mistakes include:
- Treating a curative petition as an ordinary second review.
- Repeating rejected grounds without establishing exceptional circumstances.
- Failing to connect curative grounds with the earlier review proceedings.
- Omitting the Senior Advocate certificate.
- Omitting the separate Advocate-on-Record certificate.
- Assuming that the 30-day review limitation also governs curative petitions.
- Assuming that no limitation requirement exists at all.
- Ignoring the special procedure where review was dismissed in open court.
- Seeking oral hearing as an automatic entitlement.
- Assuming that filing a curative petition stays the judgment.
- Making unsupported allegations concerning judicial bias.
- Using curative proceedings merely to delay implementation of a final judgment.
A carefully prepared petition must address maintainability before attempting to persuade the Court on the substantive grievance.
21. Frequently Asked Questions
Can a curative petition be filed immediately after a Supreme Court judgment?
A curative petition ordinarily follows the dismissal of review and must satisfy the requirements of Order XLVIII.
Can every unsuccessful review petitioner file a curative petition?
Dismissal of review does not itself establish an entitlement to curative relief. The exceptional grounds and procedural requirements must be met.
Is the filing period 30 days?
No fixed 30-day period is prescribed for curative petitions under Order XLVIII. The requirement is filing within a reasonable time from the review order.
Is a Senior Advocate’s certificate compulsory?
Yes. Order XLVIII Rule 2(2) requires certification by a Senior Advocate.
Is an Advocate-on-Record certificate also necessary?
Yes. A separate certificate confirming that it is the first curative petition in the matter is required under Order XLVIII Rule 2(3).
Can curative proceedings arise after an open-court dismissal of review?
The Supreme Court addressed this situation in Brahmaputra Concrete Pipe Industries. Appropriate exemption and judicial consideration may be necessary; the situation should not be treated as an automatic entitlement or an absolute bar.
Does the Court grant an oral hearing in every curative petition?
No. The ordinary procedure is consideration by circulation.
Can a curative petition be used to challenge an arbitration-related Supreme Court judgment?
The jurisdiction is not categorically excluded merely because the underlying dispute concerns arbitration. However, the exceptional curative standard must be satisfied.
22. Practical Checklist for Litigants and Advocates
Before proposing a curative petition, the following questions should be carefully examined:
- Has the Supreme Court already disposed of the review petition?
- What was the exact nature of the review order?
- Were the proposed curative grounds raised in review?
- Is there a substantial violation of natural justice, apprehension of bias or another legally recognised exceptional ground?
- Is the grievance genuinely of the character required for curative jurisdiction?
- Can the allegations be substantiated from the judicial record?
- Has the reasonable-time requirement been considered?
- Has a Senior Advocate examined the proposed grounds and issued the required certificate?
- Has the Advocate-on-Record verified the filing history and prepared the separate certificate?
- Are procedural exemptions necessary?
- Does the petition accurately disclose the complete procedural history?
- Have current Registry requirements and practice directions been checked?
- Is there a legally sustainable basis for seeking interim relief?
- Have the risks of an adverse costs order been considered?
This checklist is for general informational purposes. The actual requirements must be examined in the circumstances of each case.
Conclusion
The curative petition represents one of the most exceptional remedies recognised by the Supreme Court of India.
It reflects the principle that the finality of judicial proceedings is fundamental, but the Court retains limited inherent jurisdiction to prevent a gross miscarriage of justice.
The foundation of this jurisdiction lies in Rupa Ashok Hurra, while Order XLVIII of the Supreme Court Rules prescribes important procedural safeguards.
The decisions in Brahmaputra Concrete Pipe Industries and Delhi Metro Rail Corporation demonstrate the continuing relevance of the remedy and the importance of carefully distinguishing exceptional curative jurisdiction from routine reconsideration of final judgments.
For litigants, the principal lesson is that an unfavourable Supreme Court judgment does not by itself justify a curative petition.
For advocates and Advocates-on-Record, proper assessment of maintainability, review history, certification requirements, reasonable time and the exceptional nature of the alleged injustice is indispensable.
Principal Legal References
Constitutional Provisions
- Constitution of India — Articles 129, 137, 142 and 145.
Supreme Court Rules
- Supreme Court Rules, 2013, as amended — Orders XLVII, XLVIII and relevant provisions of Order LV.
Leading Judicial Decisions
- Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra, (2002) 4 SCC 388.
- Brahmaputra Concrete Pipe Industries v. Assam State Electricity Board, 2024 INSC 145, judgment dated 26 February 2024.
- Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. v. Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd., 2024 INSC 292, judgment dated 10 April 2024.
Official Legal Resources
Supreme Court Rules and Amendments
https://www.sci.gov.in/supreme-court-rules
Supreme Court Judgment — Brahmaputra Concrete Pipe Industries, 26 February 2024
https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2022/36401/36401_2022_5_1501_50787_Judgement_26-Feb-2024.pdf
Supreme Court Judgment — Delhi Metro Rail Corporation, 10 April 2024
https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2022/23751/23751_2022_1_1501_52296_Judgement_10-Apr-2024.pdf
Legal Information Notice
This article is published exclusively for general legal awareness and professional information. It does not constitute legal advice for an individual case.
The applicable Supreme Court Rules, amendments, practice directions, judicial decisions and particular procedural circumstances must be independently examined before initiating any proceedings.
JVR Law Office is an independent professional website and is not affiliated with or endorsed by the Supreme Court of India.