Review Petition

06/03/2025

269 2 minutes read

Under Article 137 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court has the power to review any of its judgments or orders.

The Court has the power to review its judgements to correct a “patent error” and not “minor mistakes of inconsequential import”. A review is by no means an appeal in cover.
That means the Court is authorized not to take clean inventory of the case however to correct grave mistakes that have resulted in the miscarriage of justice.

As in line with the Civil Procedure Code and the Supreme Court Rules, any individual aggrieved by a ruling can seek for a review. This means that it isn’t important that only events to a case can seek a review of the judgment.
A Review Petition needs to be filed in 30 days of the date of judgment or order.
In certain circumstances, the court can condone the delay in filing the review petition if the petitioner can set up robust motives that justify the delay.

It needs to be cited that the Court does not entertain every review petition filed. It exercises activities its discretion to allow a review petition best while it shows the grounds for in search of the overview.
The Supreme Court has laid down three grounds for in search of a review of a verdict it has delivered:
- The discovery of latest and vital depend or proof which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not inside the information of the petitioner or couldn’t be produced by him;
- Mistake or blunders obvious on the face of the record; or
- Any different sufficient motive that is analogous to the other grounds.

Review petitions are normally entertained without oral arguments through lawyers. Thus, it’s heard “through circulation” by the judges of their chambers.
However, in exquisite cases, the court permits an oral hearing. In a 2014 case, the Supreme Court held that overview petitions in all dying penalty cases can be heard in open court by a Bench of 3 judges.
Review petitions also are heard by the same combination of judges who added the unique order or judgment that is sought to be reviewed.

In the Roopa Hurra v Ashok Hurra case (2002), the Court developed the idea of a healing petition, which may be heard after a review petition is disregarded. Anyhow, the Supreme Court’s verdict can not result in a miscarriage of justice.
A healing petition is also entertained on very narrow grounds like a review petition and is typically not granted an oral hearing.