Mahima Sachdeva, Amity Institute Of Advanced Legal Studies
ABSTRACT
A curative petition under the Constitutional Law is the last resort in the Constitution which can help in saving of a life of an innocent and even of a criminal if that petition is much impactful that it can affect the jury and is convincible in such a manner that even the Court cannot reject it. It is a remedy or redressal of grievances in Court post a plea of Review when that plea is dismissed. This concept has been originated from a case and a landmark judgement Rupa Ashok Hurra and Anr. Basically, it works as a prevention for injustice and in preventing abuse of the process and was developed by the apex Court. It can also be called as a second-time review, but it is not considered as a right like that of review. This is because the Court only consider the petition or allow it when the Court finds it suitable and the requirements that are laid down must be fulfilled. It is a kind of statutory right for appeal for the aggrieved parties. We usually assume that any decision made by the Supreme Court will be ‘supreme’ or ‘final’ but for justice Article 137 of the Indian Constitution was incorporated providing that the Supreme Court has power to review any judgement or order made by it but limited to the provisions of any law made by the Parliament. A curative petition is decided by the Supreme Court in Chamber unless there is an urgent or exceptional request for an open-court hearing. My research basically throws light on various topics as to why Curative Petition and what role does it play and why is it so different from other pleadings or petitions filed in the apex Court with respect to certain judicial pronouncements. What all merits and demerits are there for filing a curative petition. what can be concluded by these issues or questions after going through the research. It has been described how curative petition works as a natural justice for all- the apex Court as well as a human being. A convict and a victim, from a culprit to an innocent. Article 137 of the Indian Constitution as well as Article 145 of the Indian Constitution both plays a very vital role in this doctrine and its evolution. It is also observed that the doctrine works on the principle of ‘Actus curiae neminem gravabit’ stating that nothing done by the Court shall not prejudice anyone or can lead to a wrong criticism. This maxim is applied when the Court is obligated to change any of its ‘wrong’ decision taken for any aggrieved party but the wrong word here does not mean that the parties can fully come and file a plea marking every decision wrong. That wrong and whether that plea shall be entertained or no has to be decided by the jury itself.
