REVIEW PETITION

1. Context

2. What is a Review Petition

• The review petition is a petition in which it is prayed before the court of law to review its order or judgment which it has already pronounced. The court may accept a review petition when a glaring omission or patent mistake or a grave error has crept in earlier by judicial fallibility.
• When a review takes place, the court will not take fresh stock of the case but just correct grave errors that have resulted in the miscarriage of justice. Also, judicial review can only correct a "patent error" and not "minor mistakes of inconsequential import". 
• The provision of review is an exception to the principle of state decision. The principle of stare decision binds courts to follow legal precedents set by previous decisions.

3. Constitutional Provisions behind Review Petition

• Under Article 137 of the constitution of India and the rules made under Article 145, the supreme court of India has the power to review its judgment pronounced by it.
• As per Supreme court rules, a review petition is to be filed within 30 days of the pronouncement of judgment or order and that petition should be circulated without oral arguments to the same bench that delivered the judgment.

4. Procedure for review

• A review petition must be filed within 30 days of the pronouncement of the judgment. Except in cases of the death penalty, review petitions are heard through "circulation" by judges in their chambers. They are usually not heard in open court.
• Lawyers in review petitions usually make their case through written submissions, and not oral arguments. The same judges who passed the original verdict usually also hear the review petition.
• It is not necessary that only parties to a case can seek a review of the judgment on it. As per the Civil procedure Code and the Supreme Court Rules, any person aggrieved by a ruling can seek a review. However, the court does not entertain every review petition filed.

5. Should the court allow every review petition?

• The court does not entertain every review petition filed. It exercises its discretion to allow a review petition.
• Usually, the court allows a review petition only when it shows the grounds for seeking the review.

6. Grounds for review

1. The discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within the knowledge of the petitioner or could not be produced by him;
2. A mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; or
3. any other sufficient reason. In subsequent rulings, the court specified that "any sufficient reason" means a reason that is analogous to the other two grounds.

7. The success of Review Pleas

• It is rare for the Supreme Court to either admit reviews or overturn an original decision in a review.
• It did agree to review its 2018 verdict in the Sabarimala case but refused to review its ruling seeking a probe into the Rafale deal.
• As the court of last resort, the Supreme Court's verdict can not result in a miscarriage of justice.
• So, in Roopa Hurra v Ashok Hurra (2002), the court itself evolved the concept of a curative petition, which can be heard after a review is dismissed to prevent abuse of its process.
• A Curative petition is also entertained on very narrow grounds like a review petition and is generally not granted an oral hearing. It is yet to be seen if Bilkis Bano will take this route.

For Prelims & Mains