Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra and Another
"Under Article 142, the Supreme Court possesses inherent curative jurisdiction to reopen its final judgments after review dismissal strictly to cure patent violations of natural justice or judicial bias."
Issues Before the Court
- (i)
Does the Supreme Court possess any inherent or residual jurisdiction to reconsider its own final judgment after a Review Petition under Article 137 has been dismissed?
- (ii)
How can the conflicting principles of finality of judicial decisions and the eradication of grave miscarriage of justice be harmonized under the Constitution of India?
Law & Rules Applicable
- (i)
Constitution of India, Article 137 (Review of judgments or orders by Supreme Court).
- (ii)
Constitution of India, Article 142 (Enforcement of decrees and orders of Supreme Court and orders as to doing complete justice).
- (iii)
Maxim: Interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium (It is in the interest of the State that there be an end to litigation) & Actus curiae neminem gravabit (An act of the court shall prejudice no one).
Application to Facts & Circumstances
In a bitter matrimonial battle, a decree of divorce by mutual consent was granted by the Supreme Court invoking Article 142, despite the wife having withdrawn her consent before the statutory period elapsed. A review petition was subsequently dismissed, leaving no further statutory avenue of appeal.
The 5-judge Constitution Bench recognized that while finality of litigation is indispensable for legal certainty, the duty to do complete justice under Article 142 and prevent abuse of the court's process is paramount.
The Court formulated the 'Curative Petition' remedy, restricting its invocation to extremely rare and exceptional circumstances: (1) Genuine violation of natural justice (e.g., petitioner was not served or heard), or (2) Where a judge failed to disclose a conflict of interest leading to apprehension of bias.
To prevent frivolous filings, the Court instituted strict procedural filters: The petition must be certified by a designated Senior Advocate confirming the grounds, and circulated first to a bench of the three senior-most judges plus the surviving judges who delivered the impugned judgment.
Conclusion & Ruling
- (i)
The Supreme Court established the Curative Petition as an extraordinary final remedy under Article 142 to rectify gross miscarriage of justice and procedural bias.
- (ii)
Strict prerequisites, including Senior Advocate certification and closed chamber circulation, ensure that the remedy is never abused as an appeal in disguise.
- (iii)
The curative petition in the underlying matrimonial dispute was allowed, correcting the procedural defect.