A Practical Guide for Litigants, Advocates and Advocates-on-Record
Legal position reviewed up to 11 October 2026
Introduction
A judgment or order passed by the Supreme Court of India ordinarily brings finality to the dispute decided by the Court. However, the Constitution recognises a limited power of review, permitting the Supreme Court to reconsider its own judgment or order in legally recognised circumstances.
A person dissatisfied with a Supreme Court judgment may wonder whether the matter can be reopened, whether a review petition can be filed, and whether the Court will grant another oral hearing.
These questions become especially important when a Special Leave Petition has been dismissed or an appeal has been decided against a party.
A review petition is not an ordinary appeal or an opportunity to repeat arguments already considered. Its scope is narrow, and strict procedural requirements apply.
This article explains the constitutional basis, permissible grounds, limitation period, filing procedure, role of the Advocate-on-Record and judicial principles governing review petitions before the Supreme Court.
It also explains the important distinction between review of a Supreme Court order and review of a High Court judgment after dismissal of an SLP.
1. What Is a Review Petition?
A review petition is a proceeding requesting a court to reconsider its own judgment or order on grounds recognised by law.
In the Supreme Court, the power of review flows from Article 137 of the Constitution of India, subject to applicable legislation and the Rules framed under Article 145.
Review jurisdiction is fundamentally different from appellate jurisdiction.
An appeal generally involves examination of the correctness of a decision by a higher judicial forum.
A review involves reconsideration by the court that passed the decision, within narrow legal limits.
The mere possibility that another interpretation of the law or evidence is available does not necessarily establish a ground for review.
2. Constitutional and Procedural Basis
Article 137 empowers the Supreme Court to review its judgments and orders, subject to the provisions of any law made by Parliament and Rules made under Article 145.
The procedural framework is contained in Order XLVII of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, as amended.
This Order deals with:
- Grounds on which review may be entertained.
- Certification by an Advocate-on-Record.
- Limitation for filing.
- Consideration through circulation.
- The Bench ordinarily examining the review.
- Restrictions upon repeated review applications.
The Supreme Court’s power is constitutional, but the exercise of that power is regulated by the applicable legal and procedural requirements.
3. What Are the Grounds for Review in Civil Proceedings?
Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules permits review in civil proceedings on the grounds recognised under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Those grounds principally concern:
Discovery of new and important matter or evidence
The applicant must establish that the material could not, despite the exercise of due diligence, have been produced earlier.
The subsequent discovery of evidence does not automatically justify review. Its relevance, importance and the explanation for non-production must be examined.
Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record
The applicant must identify an error of the legally recognised character.
Any other sufficient reason
This ground is interpreted in accordance with the governing judicial principles and does not create an unrestricted power to reopen concluded litigation.
The review petition should specifically identify the applicable ground and demonstrate how the case satisfies it.
4. What Is an Error Apparent on the Face of the Record?
An error apparent on the face of the record is an error that can be recognised without undertaking an elaborate process of reasoning or rehearing the entire dispute.
An obvious misapplication of a controlling legal provision or a clear mistake evident from the record may, depending upon the circumstances, justify consideration under review jurisdiction.
However, an issue involving prolonged arguments and competing interpretations is not necessarily an apparent error merely because one party considers the decision incorrect.
In Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati, (2013) 8 SCC 320, the Supreme Court explained the permissible scope of review and distinguished review from an appeal in disguise.
The Court identified circumstances in which review is impermissible, including attempts to reargue issues already decided or obtain a different result merely because another view is possible.
The review jurisdiction is intended to correct legally reviewable errors, not to provide an unrestricted second hearing.
5. Grounds for Review in Criminal Proceedings
A significant distinction exists between civil and criminal review petitions.
Under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules, an application for review in a criminal proceeding is entertained on the ground of an error apparent on the face of the record.
The civil-review grounds should therefore not be reproduced mechanically in a criminal review petition.
Counsel must identify the precise error alleged and explain why it satisfies the applicable rule.
A criminal review petition cannot ordinarily be used merely to seek a fresh appreciation of the entire evidence or repeat arguments already considered by the Court.
The nature of the criminal proceedings and the constitutional requirements of fairness must be considered within the applicable review framework.
6. What Is the Limitation Period for Filing a Review Petition?
Order XLVII Rule 2 of the Supreme Court Rules prescribes 30 days from the date of the judgment or order sought to be reviewed.
The review must be presented by way of a petition clearly setting out the grounds relied upon.
The prescribed period is substantially shorter than the general limitation applicable to many Special Leave Petitions.
A litigant should therefore examine the possibility of review promptly after the Supreme Court’s decision.
Where a review petition is proposed beyond the prescribed period, the question of condonation and the applicable legal requirements must be examined separately.
The existence of a power to condone delay, where legally available, does not mean that delay is automatically excused.
Practitioners should also independently verify relevant dates and applicable exclusions rather than assume that the limitation period runs from the date on which the litigant personally receives information about the decision.
7. What Is the Role of an Advocate-on-Record?
The Advocate-on-Record performs a distinct procedural function in proceedings before the Supreme Court.
Order XLVII Rule 1 requires a review application to be accompanied by a certificate of the Advocate-on-Record.
The certificate must confirm that the application is the first review application and that its grounds are admissible under the Rules.
This requirement is significant.
It places responsibility upon the Advocate-on-Record to examine whether the proposed review actually falls within the limited grounds recognised by law.
An AOR should therefore scrutinise the impugned judgment, relevant record, proposed review grounds and previous procedural history before certifying the petition.
The certification requirement should not be treated as a purely mechanical formality.
8. How Is a Review Petition Prepared?
The precise filing papers depend upon the nature of the proceeding and applicable Supreme Court Rules.
A review petition ordinarily requires careful preparation of the following material:
- Particulars of the judgment or order sought to be reviewed.
- Identification of the case in which the impugned decision was passed.
- A concise statement of the relevant procedural background.
- Clearly formulated and legally permissible grounds for review.
- Specific references to the alleged error or relevant new material.
- Supporting affidavit and documents, wherever required.
- The prescribed Advocate-on-Record certificate.
- Necessary applications relating to delay or procedural exemptions, where applicable.
- Other filing particulars and documents required by the current Registry instructions.
The petition should avoid unnecessary repetition of the original appeal or SLP grounds.
Each review ground should be linked to the precise portion of the judgment or record relied upon.
9. Are Review Petitions Heard in Open Court?
Ordinarily, review petitions are considered by circulation without oral arguments.
Order XLVII Rule 3 of the Supreme Court Rules provides this procedure unless the Court orders otherwise.
The petitioner may supplement the petition by additional written arguments in accordance with the Rule.
The Court may dismiss the review petition or direct notice to the opposite party.
The Rule also contemplates circulation, as far as practicable, to the same Judge or Bench that delivered the judgment or order sought to be reviewed.
A litigant cannot assume that filing a review petition automatically entitles the party to another oral hearing.
The possibility of an open-court hearing depends upon the applicable law and the Court’s directions.
10. What Happens When a Review Petition Is Considered?
Following filing and procedural scrutiny, the review petition proceeds in accordance with the applicable circulation or hearing procedure.
The Court may determine that the grounds do not justify review and dismiss the petition.
Alternatively, it may issue notice where the circumstances justify further consideration.
If review is allowed, the subsequent proceedings and directions depend upon the nature of the error identified and the terms of the Court’s order.
The grant of review should not be confused with an automatic final decision in favour of the review petitioner.
11. Can a Review Petition Be Filed Against Dismissal of an SLP?
A person aggrieved by an order dismissing an SLP may consider whether review of that Supreme Court order is maintainable.
However, the applicable review grounds remain narrow.
The fact that an SLP was dismissed does not itself establish an apparent error warranting review.
Counsel should examine whether leave to appeal was granted, the nature of the dismissal order, the reasons recorded and the precise legal error alleged.
Review of the Supreme Court’s own order must also be distinguished from review of the underlying High Court judgment.
These are different legal proceedings, even though they may arise from the same dispute.
12. Can a High Court Judgment Be Reviewed After the Supreme Court Dismisses an SLP?
This question requires careful examination of the doctrine of merger.
In Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala, (2000) 6 SCC 359, the Supreme Court explained that jurisdiction under Article 136 involves two distinct stages.
The first is the special-leave stage, at which the Court decides whether permission to appeal should be granted.
The second begins after leave is granted and the matter enters appellate jurisdiction.
Where the Supreme Court refuses special leave, the impugned judgment does not ordinarily merge into a Supreme Court appellate judgment.
Accordingly, dismissal of an SLP without grant of leave does not, merely by reason of the doctrine of merger, necessarily extinguish the High Court’s power to review its own judgment.
In Khoday Distilleries Ltd. v. Sri Mahadeshwara Sahakara Sakkare Karkhane Ltd., (2019) 4 SCC 376, the Supreme Court examined the maintainability of review proceedings following dismissal of SLPs and reaffirmed the relevant principles.
However, maintainability is not unconditional.
The review must satisfy the jurisdictional and procedural requirements applicable before the High Court. The nature of the Supreme Court’s dismissal order, including any declaration of law or express findings, must also be respected.
A litigant should not assume either that High Court review is always barred after dismissal of an SLP or that it is automatically maintainable in every such case.
13. What If the Supreme Court Grants Leave and Dismisses the Appeal?
Where special leave is granted and the Supreme Court subsequently decides the appeal, the doctrine of merger ordinarily applies.
The decision passed by the lower court merges into the appellate decision of the Supreme Court to the extent recognised by the governing law.
The legal consequences differ materially from dismissal of a petition at the special-leave stage.
In such a situation, the appropriate remedy must be examined with reference to the Supreme Court’s appellate judgment and the applicable review jurisdiction.
The distinction between refusal of special leave and disposal of an appeal after grant of leave is fundamental to determining the appropriate forum.
14. What Is the Effect of a Speaking Order Dismissing an SLP?
An order refusing special leave may be reasoned or unreasoned.
Even where the refusal is accompanied by reasons, it does not automatically become an appellate judgment attracting the doctrine of merger.
However, where the Supreme Court declares a proposition of law in its reasoned order, Article 141 of the Constitution may become relevant.
The findings and observations in such an order must also be considered in accordance with the requirements of judicial discipline.
Thus, the absence of merger does not permit another court to disregard binding declarations of law made by the Supreme Court.
These distinctions were explained in Kunhayammed and considered further in Khoday Distilleries.
15. Can a Second Review Petition Be Filed?
Order XLVII Rule 5 of the Supreme Court Rules provides that where a review application has been made and disposed of, a further application for review in the same matter shall not be entertained.
This reflects the principle of finality underlying the review jurisdiction.
A litigant cannot ordinarily submit repeated review petitions in an attempt to secure reconsideration of the same decision.
The procedural position must be distinguished from the exceptional curative jurisdiction recognised by the Supreme Court.
16. What Is a Curative Petition?
A curative petition is an exceptional proceeding seeking reconsideration of a final Supreme Court judgment or order after dismissal of review, subject to strict legal requirements.
The jurisdiction was recognised in Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra, (2002) 4 SCC 388.
Order XLVIII of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 contains the procedural framework concerning curative petitions.
A curative petition is not an ordinary second review or another opportunity to advance arguments already rejected.
Its scope is exceptional, and the governing requirements must be satisfied.
Review and curative petitions should therefore be treated as distinct legal remedies.
17. Does Filing a Review Petition Automatically Stay the Judgment?
No.
The mere filing of a review petition does not automatically suspend the operation or enforcement of the judgment or order sought to be reviewed.
Any interim protection requires an appropriate judicial order.
A litigant should not assume that execution, compliance obligations or further proceedings stand suspended merely because review has been sought.
Where interim protection is legally available and necessary, the appropriate application and relief must be considered in accordance with law.
18. Common Mistakes in Preparing Review Petitions
Certain mistakes may undermine the effective presentation of a review petition.
These include:
- Reproducing all grounds from the original appeal without identifying a reviewable error.
- Treating review as a second appellate hearing.
- Failing to identify the precise portion of the judgment containing the alleged error.
- Relying on material that was available earlier without adequately addressing due diligence.
- Confusing the civil and criminal review standards.
- Overlooking the 30-day limitation period.
- Failing to provide the prescribed Advocate-on-Record certificate.
- Confusing High Court review jurisdiction with review of the Supreme Court’s own order.
- Assuming an automatic right to an oral hearing.
- Assuming filing of review automatically stays the judgment.
Careful examination of these issues before filing may prevent unnecessary procedural objections and misconceived proceedings.
19. Frequently Asked Questions
Can every Supreme Court judgment be challenged through review?
The constitutional power of review exists, but relief is confined to the applicable grounds and procedural requirements.
Is review the same as an appeal?
No. Review is a limited reconsideration by the court that passed the judgment.
What is the ordinary limitation period?
Order XLVII Rule 2 prescribes 30 days from the judgment or order sought to be reviewed.
Will the Supreme Court hear oral arguments in every review petition?
No. Review petitions are ordinarily considered by circulation unless the Court orders otherwise.
Can an Advocate-on-Record file a review without certifying its grounds?
Order XLVII Rule 1 requires the prescribed AOR certificate.
Can a High Court review its judgment after the Supreme Court dismisses an SLP?
It may remain legally possible where leave was not granted, subject to the nature of the Supreme Court order, applicable review grounds and other legal requirements.
Can another review petition be filed after dismissal of the first?
Order XLVII Rule 5 restricts a further review application in the same matter.
Is a curative petition the same as a second review?
No. Curative jurisdiction is exceptional and subject to a separate legal framework.
20. Practical Checklist for Litigants and Advocates
Before preparing a review petition, the following matters should be examined:
- Identify the exact judgment or order sought to be reviewed.
- Confirm whether review lies before the Supreme Court or another court.
- Determine whether leave to appeal was previously granted.
- Examine whether the doctrine of merger is applicable.
- Identify the precise review ground recognised by law.
- Distinguish the applicable civil or criminal standard.
- Calculate limitation under Order XLVII Rule 2.
- Examine any necessary application concerning delay.
- Verify the record and proposed supporting documents.
- Obtain the required Advocate-on-Record certificate.
- Prepare concise written grounds identifying the alleged error.
- Examine the current Supreme Court filing requirements.
- Determine whether interim relief is necessary and legally available.
- Consider the ordinary procedure of review by circulation.
- Avoid repeated review proceedings contrary to the Rules.
This checklist is a general educational aid and does not replace the Supreme Court’s prescribed filing requirements.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s review jurisdiction is an important constitutional safeguard, but it operates within narrow legal and procedural boundaries.
Article 137 recognises the power of review, while Order XLVII of the Supreme Court Rules governs its exercise.
In civil matters, the applicable review grounds are linked to Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC. In criminal matters, the governing Supreme Court Rule requires an error apparent on the face of the record.
The ordinary limitation period is 30 days, and review proceedings are generally considered by circulation rather than through another oral hearing.
The distinction between refusal of special leave and disposal of an appeal after leave has been granted is particularly important when determining the possibility of review before the High Court.
For litigants, the principal lesson is that an unfavourable judgment does not automatically establish a ground for review.
For advocates, careful examination of jurisdiction, the doctrine of merger, admissible review grounds and the applicable procedural requirements remains essential.
Principal Legal References
Constitutional and Statutory Provisions
- Constitution of India — Articles 137, 141 and 145.
- Supreme Court Rules, 2013, as amended — Orders XLVII and XLVIII.
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Order XLVII Rule 1.
Judicial Decisions
- Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati, (2013) 8 SCC 320.
- Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala, (2000) 6 SCC 359.
- Khoday Distilleries Ltd. v. Sri Mahadeshwara Sahakara Sakkare Karkhane Ltd., (2019) 4 SCC 376.
- Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra, (2002) 4 SCC 388.
- Arun Dev Upadhyaya v. Integrated Sales Service Ltd., Supreme Court judgment dated 5 July 2023.
Official Legal Resources
Supreme Court Rules and Amendments
https://www.sci.gov.in/supreme-court-rules
Supreme Court Electronic Filing
https://www.sci.gov.in/e-filing
Supreme Court Filing Forms
Supreme Court Judgment Discussing Doctrine of Merger — 18 August 2023
https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2023/6758/6758_2023_3_1502_46202_Judgement_18-Aug-2023.pdf
Legal Information Notice
This article is intended solely for general legal awareness and professional information. It does not constitute legal advice concerning an individual case.
The applicable statutory provisions, Supreme Court Rules, amendments, practice directions, judicial decisions and specific procedural circumstances must be examined before instituting review proceedings.
JVR Law Office is an independent professional website and is not affiliated with or endorsed by the Supreme Court of India.