Power of Review of the Supreme Court under Article 137 of the Constitution of India
The Supreme Court of India occupies the highest position in the Indian judicial system and functions as the guardian of the Constitution, protector of fundamental rights, and final interpreter of law. Ordinarily, judgments delivered by the Supreme Court are considered final and binding upon all courts within the territory of India. However, the Constitution also recognizes that even the highest court may occasionally commit errors requiring reconsideration in the interests of justice.
To address such situations, Article 137 of the Constitution of India confers upon the Supreme Court the power to review its own judgments and orders. The power of review is an important constitutional mechanism designed to prevent miscarriage of justice, correct apparent errors, and maintain public confidence in the judicial system.
Article 137 states that subject to the provisions of any law made by Parliament or any rules made under Article 145, the Supreme Court shall have power to review any judgment pronounced or order made by it.
The review jurisdiction reflects the principle that justice must prevail over technical finality. Although finality of judgments is essential for certainty and stability in law, the Constitution permits limited reconsideration to correct grave mistakes and ensure fairness.
The power of review is not unique to India. Many judicial systems across the world recognize limited authority of courts to reconsider decisions in exceptional circumstances.However, review jurisdiction is exercised sparingly because unrestricted reconsideration would undermine certainty, judicial discipline, and public confidence in final judgments.
The power of review under Article 137 is subject to constitutional provisions, parliamentary legislation, and procedural rules framed by the Supreme Court under Article 145.The Supreme Court Rules and the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 provide procedural guidance regarding review petitions.The review jurisdiction differs significantly from appellate jurisdiction.In an appeal, a higher court re-examines the correctness of a lower court’s decision on facts and law.In contrast, review jurisdiction involves reconsideration by the same court of its own judgment on limited grounds.
A review petition is therefore not an appeal in disguise and cannot be used merely because a party is dissatisfied with the judgment.The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that review jurisdiction is extremely limited and should be exercised only in exceptional cases.
The Court generally entertains review petitions on grounds such as:
error apparent on the face of the record,
discovery of new and important evidence,
violation of principles of natural justice,
or other sufficient reason resulting in miscarriage of justice.
An “error apparent on the face of the record” refers to an obvious and patent mistake that does not require elaborate argument to establish. Minor errors, re-argument of issues, or mere disagreement with judicial reasoning are insufficient grounds for review.The review power exists primarily to correct manifest injustice rather than to reopen concluded litigation. The Supreme Court explained the nature of review jurisdiction in Northern India Caterers (India) Ltd. v. Lt. Governor of Delhi.The Court held that review proceedings are not intended to rehear the case on merits but only to correct apparent errors or prevent miscarriage of justice.
Similarly, in Lily Thomas v. Union of India, the Court clarified that review cannot be sought merely because an alternative view is possible.The Court stressed that finality of judgments is an important principle of law and review jurisdiction must remain limited.
The procedure for filing review petitions is governed by the Supreme Court Rules.A review petition must generally be filed within thirty days from the date of judgment or order.
The petition is ordinarily circulated to the same judges who delivered the original judgment.Review petitions are usually decided in chambers without oral arguments, although the Court may permit open-court hearing in exceptional cases.In death penalty cases, the Supreme Court later recognized the need for greater procedural fairness.
In Mohd. Arif v. Supreme Court of India, the Court held that review petitions in death sentence cases must be heard in open court rather than decided merely in chambers.This decision reflected the constitutional importance of life and personal liberty under Article 21.
The power of review applies not only to civil and criminal matters but also to constitutional judgments delivered by the Supreme Court.Several important constitutional decisions have been reviewed by the Court, though only rarely modified.The review jurisdiction enables the Court to maintain institutional integrity and correct significant constitutional errors where necessary.
The Supreme Court also possesses inherent powers to ensure complete justice under Article 142.Together with Article 137, these provisions strengthen the Court’s role in protecting constitutional values and preventing injustice.However, the review power is not unlimited.
The Supreme Court cannot repeatedly reopen cases indefinitely because endless reconsideration would destroy certainty and stability in the legal system.Therefore, the Court exercises review jurisdiction with great caution and restraint.In practice, most review petitions are dismissed because they fail to satisfy the strict standards required under Article 137.The review power also differs from the concept of curative petition.
A curative petition is an extraordinary judicial remedy evolved by the Supreme Court after dismissal of a review petition.It is intended to cure gross miscarriage of justice in rare situations involving violation of natural justice or judicial bias.The concept of curative petition was recognized in Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra.Thus, review petition and curative petition are distinct constitutional remedies.
The power of review is closely connected with the doctrine of finality of judgments.The judicial system requires finality so that disputes may end and legal certainty may prevail.At the same time, rigid adherence to finality should not perpetuate injustice caused by manifest errors.
Article 137 therefore balances these competing principles by permitting limited reconsideration without undermining judicial stability.The review jurisdiction also demonstrates judicial accountability.It acknowledges that courts are not infallible and that justice requires mechanisms for correction of obvious mistakes.
This constitutional flexibility strengthens public confidence in the judiciary because it ensures that errors can be rectified within institutional processes.The Supreme Court has exercised review jurisdiction in several notable cases involving constitutional law, criminal justice, environmental matters, and civil disputes.In some cases, review petitions have resulted in modification or clarification of earlier judgments.
However, the Court consistently maintains that review jurisdiction cannot become a routine procedure for dissatisfied litigants. The power of review also exists in High Courts under statutory provisions and constitutional principles. However, Article 137 specifically confers constitutional review power upon the Supreme Court itself. The power of review is considered an essential feature of judicial functioning because it protects fairness and constitutional justice.
At the same time, misuse of review petitions can increase judicial delays and burden the Court with repetitive litigation. Consequently, courts impose strict procedural and substantive standards to prevent abuse.
The constitutional philosophy underlying Article 137 reflects the broader principles of rule of law, fairness, and justice. The Constitution seeks to establish a judicial system that is both authoritative and accountable. While the Supreme Court’s judgments are binding and final under Article 141, Article 137 ensures that manifest errors may still be corrected in exceptional circumstances.
This balance preserves both judicial certainty and constitutional justice. In conclusion, Article 137 of the Constitution of India confers upon the Supreme Court of India the power to review its own judgments and orders. The review jurisdiction is an extraordinary constitutional mechanism intended to correct apparent errors, prevent miscarriage of justice, and maintain fairness in judicial decision-making. Review petitions may be entertained on limited grounds such as error apparent on the face of the record, discovery of new evidence, or violation of natural justice. Judicial decisions such as Northern India Caterers (India) Ltd. v. Lt. Governor of Delhi and Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra have clarified the scope and limitations of review jurisdiction. Although exercised sparingly, the power of review remains an important constitutional safeguard balancing finality of judgments with the demands of justice, fairness, and constitutional accountability.
Leave a Reply