How to File a Review Petition in the Supreme Court: Grounds, Time Limit and Procedure

An error apparent on the face of the record is one that is evident without an elaborate argument: for instance, a decision rendered in ignorance of a statutory provision that governed the question, a factual premise contradicted by the record, or a conclusion on a point that was conceded or never argued. It is not an error that can be established only by a long process of reasoning on a question on which two views are reasonably possible.

The Court has described the threshold in strong terms. In Sow Chandra Kante v. Sheikh Habib, it said: "A review of a judgment is a serious step and reluctant resort to it is proper only where a glaring omission or patent mistake or like grave error has crept in earlier by judicial fallibility." In Northern India Caterers (India) Ltd. v. Lt. Governor of Delhi, it held that a party is not entitled to seek review merely to obtain a rehearing and a fresh decision, and that departure from the finality of a judgment requires circumstances of a substantial and compelling character.

Because a review petition is usually read in chambers without oral argument, it must make the error obvious on the page. A useful structure is to quote the relevant passage of the judgment, set beside it the provision, document or earlier decision that it overlooked or contradicts, and explain in a few sentences why the conclusion cannot stand with it. If the error can only be demonstrated through a long chain of reasoning, it is probably not an error apparent on the face of the record.

Petitions that attack the judgment on every point tend to obscure the one ground that might succeed. It is better to raise the strongest grounds clearly, while still including any ground that may later be needed for a curative petition.

In civil proceedings, review is available where new and important matter or evidence is discovered which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within the petitioner's knowledge or could not be produced when the decision was made. The petitioner must show both that the evidence is of real importance, such that it would probably have affected the result, and that its absence earlier was not due to the petitioner's own lack of diligence. Evidence that was available but not produced, or that only adds to what was already before the Court, does not qualify.

The Explanation to Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that the reversal or modification of the law on which a judgment was based, by a later decision of a superior court in another case, is not a ground for reviewing it. In Beghar Foundation v. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.), the majority of a Constitution Bench applied this principle in dismissing petitions for review of the Aadhaar judgment, notwithstanding that a related question about Money Bills had been referred to a larger Bench in another case; one Judge dissented, holding that the petitions should await that decision.

Because a sentence of death is irreversible, review petitions in such cases are treated differently. In Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq v. Registrar, Supreme Court of India, a Constitution Bench held that review petitions arising from death sentences must be heard orally in open court, by a Bench of at least three Judges, with a limited time for oral arguments. Petitions in these cases should be prepared with particular care, including any material on sentencing that was not before the Court.

An order dismissing a special leave petition can itself be the subject of a review petition in the Supreme Court, though the grounds remain narrow. Because an order refusing leave does not merge the High Court's judgment into the Supreme Court's order, the Court held in Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala, and reaffirmed in Khoday Distilleries Ltd. v. Sri Mahadeshwara Sahakara Sakkare Karkhane Ltd., that the High Court may still entertain a review of its own judgment. Where the error lies in the High Court's judgment rather than in the Supreme Court's order, a review in the High Court may be the more appropriate remedy.

If a review petition is dismissed, the only further remedy is a curative petition, recognised in Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra and governed by Order XLVIII of the Supreme Court Rules. It lies only on narrow grounds, such as a violation of natural justice or an undisclosed connection of a Judge giving rise to an apprehension of bias, and the petitioner must state that those grounds were taken in the review petition. The guide to curative petitions explains the requirements.

Parties sometimes seek to reopen a judgment through an application described as one for 'clarification' or 'modification'. In Delhi Administration v. Gurdip Singh Uban, the Court held that an application that in substance seeks review cannot be used to bypass the review procedure, and that such applications deserve to be rejected outright. A genuine clarification, such as correcting an obvious slip or explaining how a direction is to be carried out, is different, but it should not be used to argue that the decision was wrong.