Date: 28/12/2022
Relevance: GS-2: Structure, Organization and Functioning of the Executive and the Judiciary; Mechanisms, Laws, Institutions, and Bodies constituted for the Protection and Betterment of these Vulnerable Sections.
Key Phrases: Supreme Court, 2002 Gujarat riots, Remission, Appropriate Government, Victim Bilkis Bano, Article 137 of Indian Constitution, Review Petition, Curative Petition.
Context:
- Recently, the Supreme Court has dismissed a petition filed by 2002 Gujarat riots victim Bilkis Bano, seeking review of its May 2022 order.
Key Highlights:
- In the May 2022 judgement, the SC said that the Gujarat government was the appropriate government to decide the prayer for remission by one of the 11 convicts handed life terms in her case, and let the state’s 1992 remission policy apply in the matter.
- Bilkis Bano's petition challenged the apex court’s May order that permitted the Gujarat government to decide on the remission of the 11 convicts who gangraped her and murdered seven members of her family during the 2002 Godhra riots.
- Her plea claimed that the remission policy of the State of Maharashtra instead of Gujarat should apply in her case, since the trial in the case had happened in Maharashtra.
Bilkis Bano’s Case:
- Bilkis, her mother, and three other women were raped and brutally assaulted in Godhra riots of 2002.
- Of the 17-member group of Muslims from Radhikpur village, eight were found dead, six were missing.
- Only Bilkis, a man, and a three-year-old survived the attack.
Review Petition
About:
- As per the Constitution of India, any ruling by the Supreme Court is
in the normal course final and binding, and it becomes the law of
the land.
- It is considered final because it provides certainty for deciding future cases.
- However, the Constitution also gives, under Article 137, the Supreme
Court the power to review its judgments or orders.
- This provision forms the legal basis for the filing of a “review petition”.
Features:
- A review petition must be filed within 30 days of pronouncement of the judgement.
- Except in cases of death penalty, review petitions are heard through “circulation” by judges in their chambers.
- The review petitions 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 judgement 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.
Basis for Review:
- There are narrow, specific grounds on which a review petition can be entertained. Therefore, the court has the power to review its rulings to correct a “patent error” — but not “minor mistakes of inconsequential import”.
- In a 2013 ruling, the Supreme Court laid down three grounds for
seeking a review of a verdict it has delivered:
- 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;
- A mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; or
- 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.
- In another 2013 ruling (Union of India v. Sandur Manganese & Iron
Ores Ltd), the court laid down nine principles on when a review is
maintainable.
- It added that the mere possibility of two views on the subject cannot be a ground for review.
Success of review pleas:
- It is rare for the Supreme Court to either admit reviews or to overturn an original decision in a review.
Curative Petition:
- As the court of last resort, the Supreme Court’s verdict cannot
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.
Issues with the order of the SC in rejecting the Review Petition:
- Some aspects which were completely overlooked by the Court include:
- The foundation of the Supreme Court’s judgement dated May 13,
2022 was its finding that the State of Gujarat was the appropriate
government and not the State of Maharashtra, which finding is rendered
without considering the plain words of sub-sections (1) and (7) of
Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure; that these and other
relevant provisions of law had been consistently interpreted by the
Supreme Court for over four decades.
- Hence a two-judge Bench of the top court could not have adopted a contrary interpretation without referring the issue to a larger Bench; and the Supreme Court had relied heavily on a Bombay High Court order of August 5, 2013.
- The SC ignored a binding nine-judge Constitution Bench decision in Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar (1966) and another five-judge Constitution Bench in Triveniben (1989), which held that a judgement of a court can never be challenged in a writ petition under Article 32.
- The Court also ignored another Constitution Bench decision in Union of India vs V. Sriharan (judgement in 2015) in which it was held that if an offence is committed in State A, but the trial takes place and sentence is passed in State B, it is the government of the latter alone which is the appropriate government.
- The foundation of the Supreme Court’s judgement dated May 13,
2022 was its finding that the State of Gujarat was the appropriate
government and not the State of Maharashtra, which finding is rendered
without considering the plain words of sub-sections (1) and (7) of
Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure; that these and other
relevant provisions of law had been consistently interpreted by the
Supreme Court for over four decades.
Way Forward:
- It can be hoped that the Court will find some way to redress this injustice.
- Curative petition can be another way to provide justice in this case.
Conclusion:
- A cryptic rejection of a compelling review petition does injustice not only to the victim of unspeakable horrors but also to the standing and prestige of the Supreme Court.
Source: The Hindu
Mains Question:
What is the basis for filing the review petition against a judgement of the Supreme Court? Also, differentiate between Review Petition and Curative Petition. (150 Words).
