Curative Petitions In Criminal Cases
What is a Curative Petition?
A Curative Petition is a rare and extraordinary remedy available in the Indian judicial system. It is filed after a review petition has been dismissed by the Supreme Court, and it serves as a last resort to prevent miscarriage of justice.
It is intended to cure gross miscarriage of justice that may occur despite dismissal of the Review Petition.
The concept was evolved by the Supreme Court itself through judicial interpretation, not originally provided by any statute.
It is not an appeal or a regular review but a mechanism to protect the right to life and liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
When can it be filed?
Only after the Review Petition is dismissed.
When there is a genuine violation of the principles of natural justice or a fundamental error that may cause miscarriage of justice.
It can be filed only in the Supreme Court against its final judgments.
Procedure
The curative petition is filed by a party who is aggrieved by the final judgment.
It is circulated among the senior-most judges (usually a bench of five senior judges).
The court hears the petition only if it finds substantial grounds to reconsider the judgment.
It is meant to prevent abuse of process of law and to uphold the principles of justice.
Important Case Laws on Curative Petitions in Criminal Cases
1. Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra (2002) - Landmark Judgment
Facts: The petitioner’s Review Petition against the Supreme Court judgment was dismissed.
Issue: Whether a Curative Petition is maintainable as a remedy after dismissal of Review Petition.
Judgment: The Supreme Court recognized the concept of Curative Petition for the first time and laid down guidelines:
Curative petition is an extraordinary remedy.
It is maintainable only when Review Petition is dismissed.
The petition should not be used as a routine measure.
It must be circulated among the senior-most judges.
Significance: Established the concept and procedure for Curative Petitions in Indian criminal and civil jurisprudence.
2. Jaya Bachchan v. Union of India (2003)
Facts: A case involving election laws where a Review Petition was dismissed, and a Curative Petition was filed.
Issue: Whether the Curative Petition can be entertained in the absence of violation of natural justice or grave error.
Judgment: The Court held that Curative Petition cannot be entertained if there is no violation of principles of natural justice or fundamental error leading to miscarriage of justice.
Significance: Reinforced the threshold and limited scope of Curative Petitions.
3. K.K. Verma v. Union of India (2005)
Facts: In a criminal case, the petitioner filed a Curative Petition after dismissal of the Review Petition.
Issue: Whether the curative petition can be used to challenge the correctness of the judgment on grounds of fact or law.
Judgment: The Supreme Court held that curative petition is not a substitute for a review petition and cannot be used to re-agitate the matter or challenge the correctness of the judgment unless there is gross miscarriage of justice.
Significance: Emphasized the limited scope and exceptional nature of the curative petition.
4. Javed Akhtar v. Union of India (2009)
Facts: The petitioner sought to file a curative petition after a criminal conviction.
Issue: Whether the curative petition can be used to question the finality of conviction on grounds of bias or denial of natural justice.
Judgment: The Supreme Court held that if there is a violation of principles of natural justice or a biased approach, the curative petition can be entertained.
Significance: Highlighted protection of fundamental rights through curative petition in criminal cases.
5. Harish Uppal v. Union of India (2003)
Facts: Petition filed seeking guidelines for fair trial and to address the issue of bias in courts.
Issue: Whether curative petitions can be filed to correct judgments influenced by bias.
Judgment: The Court recognized curative petition as a tool to ensure justice in cases where bias or gross miscarriage of justice is alleged.
Significance: Expanded the scope to address judicial bias through curative petitions.
Summary of Curative Petition in Criminal Cases
| Aspect | Details |
|---|---|
| Nature | Extraordinary and last judicial remedy |
| When to file | Only after dismissal of Review Petition |
| Purpose | Prevent gross miscarriage of justice and violation of natural justice |
| Court | Supreme Court only |
| Scope | Limited to violation of natural justice, bias, or fundamental errors |
| Procedure | Petition circulated among senior-most judges for hearing |
| Not allowed | For re-arguing issues already decided or dissatisfaction with the judgment |
RELATED Blog
0 comments