Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra, (2002) 4 SCC 388

Bench

A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court comprising:

• Chief Justice S.P. Bharucha
• Justice S.S.M. Quadri
• Justice U.C. Banerjee
• Justice S.N. Variava
• Justice Shivaraj V. Patil

Facts

• The case arose from a matrimonial dispute between Rupa Ashok Hurra and Ashok Hurra, who had been separated for several years.
• Initially, both parties consented to a mutual divorce. However, Rupa Hurra later withdrew her consent, leading to a legal dispute over the validity of the divorce decree.
• The matter escalated through various courts and ultimately reached the Supreme Court of India, where the primary issue was the validity of the divorce decree granted earlier.
• After the Supreme Court’s final judgment, Rupa Hurra sought to challenge it, even after her review petition was dismissed, raising questions about the availability of any further relief.

Issues

1. Whether an aggrieved person is entitled to any relief against the final judgment or order of the Supreme Court after the dismissal of a review petition.
2. Whether the Supreme Court has the inherent power to reconsider its judgments to prevent abuse of its process and to cure gross miscarriage of justice.

Ratio Decidendi (Legal Reasoning)

1. Inherent Powers of the Supreme Court
   • The Supreme Court acknowledged that it possesses inherent powers to reconsider and rectify its judgments to prevent miscarriage of justice. This is crucial to maintain public confidence in the judiciary and ensure fairness.
2. Introduction of the Curative Petition
   • To address situations where gross miscarriage of justice occurs, the Court introduced the concept of a Curative Petition. This allows the Court to re-examine its final judgments in exceptional cases, even after the dismissal of a review petition.
3. Conditions for Filing a Curative PetitionThe Court specified that a Curative Petition can be filed under the following conditions:
   • Violation of Principles of Natural Justice: If the petitioner was not given a fair hearing or was unaware of the proceedings that led to the judgment.
   • Apprehension of Bias: If the judgment was passed by a judge who had a conflict of interest or bias, affecting the impartiality of the decision.
   • Certification by a Senior Advocate: The petition must include a certification by a senior advocate, affirming that the grounds mentioned are substantial.
   • First Raised in Review Petition: The grounds for filing the Curative Petition should have been initially raised in the review petition, which was subsequently dismissed.

Observations of the Court

• The Court emphasized that the Curative Petition is not a regular remedy but an exceptional one, invoked only in cases where there is a gross miscarriage of justice.
• It underscored the importance of finality of judgments for legal certainty but recognized that procedural fairness and justice are paramount.
• The Court also noted that frivolous curative petitions would be discouraged, and exemplary costs could be imposed to prevent misuse of this remedy.

Decision of the Court

• The Supreme Court held that an aggrieved person could file a Curative Petition even after the dismissal of a review petition, but only on limited grounds such as violation of principles of natural justice or bias in adjudication.
• The Court laid down specific guidelines for entertaining Curative Petitions to ensure they are filed in exceptional circumstances and not as a matter of routine.

Important Terms

1. Curative Petition: A legal mechanism devised by the Supreme Court to reconsider its final judgments to prevent miscarriage of justice, even after the dismissal of a review petition.
2. Principles of Natural Justice: Fundamental legal principles ensuring fairness, impartiality, and the opportunity to be heard in legal proceedings.
3. Review Petition: A petition filed for re-examination of a court’s judgment, typically on the grounds of apparent errors or new evidence.
4. Miscarriage of Justice: A situation where a grossly unfair outcome occurs in a judicial proceeding, leading to the conviction or punishment of an innocent person.
5. Inherent Powers: Powers possessed by a court to ensure complete justice is done in a case, even if not explicitly provided for by statute or rules.