Facts in Brief

The matter first came to the Supreme Court in the form of a civil appeal, and was decided thereon. A review petition was subsequently filed to review the judgment delivered by the Supreme Court in the civil appeal. This review petition was dismissed. The Petitioner then filed a writ petition under Article 32, questioning the validity of the judgment delivered in the civil appeal. The three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court referred the said writ petition to a Constitution Bench of five Judges, wherein the precise issue was: Whether an aggrieved person is entitled to any relief against a final judgment or order of the Supreme Court, after dismissal of a review petition, either under Article 32 of the Constitution or otherwise?

Arguments

The following was submitted before the Supreme Court:

• That the principle of finality or certainty of the judgments of the Supreme Court has its own importance, but it was now required to be circumvented, and the case should be re-examined where the orders were passed without jurisdiction, or in violation of the principles of natural justice, violation of any fundamental rights, or where there had been a gross injustice.
• That the Supreme Court had inherent jurisdiction under the Supreme Court Rules, 1966 (precisely Order 47 Rule 6); therefore, cases falling in the aforementioned categories should be examined under the inherent jurisdiction of the Court.

1. That the provisions of Order 47 Rule 6 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966 were a mere restatement of the provisions of Article 137 of the Constitution, and that the inherent jurisdiction of the Court could be exercised to remedy the injustice suffered by a person.
2. That Article 129 of the Constitution declared the Supreme Court to be a Court of Record, so that it would have inherent powers to pass appropriate orders to undo injustice to any party resulting from a judgment of the Court.

• That since the Supreme Court was a creature of the Constitution, such that the corrective power was to be derived from the provisions conferring jurisdiction on the Supreme Court, like Articles 32 and 129–140, such a power did not arise from an abstract inherent jurisdiction. It was also contended that the corrective power was a species of the review power, and that Articles 129 and 137, and Order 40 Rule 5 and Order 47 Rules 1 and 6, indicated that the Court had inherent power to set right its own judgment.

Judgment

The Constitution Bench held that a final judgment or order passed by the Supreme Court could not be assailed in an application under Article 32 of the Constitution of India by an aggrieved person, whether he was a party to the case or not. The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 32 could not be invoked to challenge the validity of a final judgment or order passed by the Court after exhausting the remedy of review under Article 137, read with Order 41 Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966.

However, the Supreme Court, to prevent abuse of its process and to cure a gross miscarriage of justice, could reconsider its judgments in exercise of its inherent power — but only in the rarest of cases, where such injustice was manifest, or where the orders had been passed without jurisdiction. The curative petition was to contain a certification by a Senior Advocate with regard to the fulfilment of the above requirements.

For the Common Man

The judgment lays down important propositions of law. Therefore:

1. A final judgment or order passed by the Supreme Court cannot be assailed in an application under Article 32 of the Constitution of India by an aggrieved person, whether he was a party to the case or not.
2. The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution cannot be invoked to challenge the validity of a final judgment or order passed by the Court after exhausting the remedy of review under Article 137 of the Constitution, read with Order 40 Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966.
3. The Supreme Court may reconsider its judgments by exercising its inherent powers in case of gross injustice, but only if certain conditions have been satisfied:
   • The Petitioner must establish a violation of natural justice — that his interest had been affected, though he was not made a party to it; or that he was not served a notice; or that he was not heard, though he was served a notice.
   • The Petitioner would be entitled to relief if a member of the Bench that passed the judgment failed to disclose his connection with the subject matter; or if the parties provide an apprehension of bias. The judgment should be such that it adversely affects the Petitioner.
   • The curative petition must be certified by a Senior Advocate to ensure that the requirements are fulfilled.