REVIEW POWERS OF THE SUPREME COURT UNDER ARTICLE 137 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

The Privy Council did not review its own judgments. The same practice was continued by the Federal Court established under Government of India Act, 1935.

Framers of the Indian Constitution did not follow the view of the Federal Court on this aspect. Article 137  of the Constitution empowered the Supreme Court to review any judgment or order passed by it. Supreme Court Rules, 2013 provides grounds for review of judgments and orders passed in Civil Proceedings as well as Criminal Proceedings.

An application for review has to filed within thirty days of judgment or order passed by the Supreme Court. Unless ordered by the Supreme Court, the application of review is disposed of by circulation without any oral arguments.

REVIEW IN CIVIL PROCEEDINGS

Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 permits review of a judgment of Supreme Court in civil proceedings on the grounds mentioned in Order 47 Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Order 47 Rule 1 provides following grounds of review.

• Discovery of new and important matters or evidence
• Mistake or error apparent on face of record
• Any other sufficient reason

The Supreme Court in Northern India Caterers (India) Ltd. Vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi (1980) SCR (2) 650 has held that a party is not entitled to seek a review of judgment delivered by this Court merely for rehearing or a fresh decision on the case. Normally the judgment passed by a Court is final and departure from it can be justified only on substantial and compelling grounds.

The Supreme Court in Lily Thomas vs Union of India (2000) 6 SCC 224 held that review is not an appeal in disguise. The purpose of review is that justice is not defeated and error leading to miscarriage of justice were remedied. Errors requiring review must be such which were patent and apparent from the face of record.

The Supreme Court in Thungabhadra Industries Ltd vs Government of A. P. (1964) 5 SCR 1974 has held that there is distinction between a mere erroneous decision and a decision vitiated by error apparent on face of record.

The Supreme Court in S. Nagraj Vs State of Karnatka 1993 Supp (4) SCC 595 observed that apart from Supreme Court Rules it had inherent powers to make such orders as may be necessary in interest of justice or to prevent abuse of process of the Court and it was not prevented from recalling or reviewing its own order.

REVIEW IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS

Order XLVII Rule 1 provides that the Supreme Court may review judgment/order in criminal proceedings on the ground of error apparent on face of the record. It appears from the reading of rules that the ground available for review in criminal proceedings is limited in comparison to review in civil proceedings.

Review Petitions are not heard in open court but rather heard by circulation. But an exception has been carved out in case of death penalty. The Supreme Court has held in Mohd. Arif alias Ashfaq Vs Registrar, Supreme Court of India  2014 (8)SCC737 that review petition against order of death penalty has to heard in open court by bench consisting of three judges.

The Supreme Court in P. N. Ishwara Iyer Vs. Registrar, Supreme Court of India (1980) 4 SCC 680 held that despite the provisions of Supreme Court rules, the grounds of review in criminal proceedings are same as in civil proceedings. The Court observed that power of review emanates from Article 137 and it is equally wide in all proceedings. The rule merely canalizes flow from reservoir of power. The stream cannot stifle the source.

The Supreme  Court in Satvir Singh Vs. Baldeva (1996) 8 SCC 593 and in many other judgments have held that a third party including a relative does not have locus standi to maintain a review petition in a judgment rendered in criminal appeal.

_____________________________________