Express News Service
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court entertains curative petitions more often, compared to review petitions, according to figures from Parliament. Data reveals that from 2010, 92 civil review petitions were allowed, compared to only three curative petitions. The court also allowed 48 criminal curative petitions in comparison to zero criminal review petitions.
The main difference between a review petition and curative petition is that the first is inherently provided in the Constitution of India, whereas the emergence of the latter is in relation with the interpretation of the review petition by the Supreme Court, enshrined in Article 137. A curative petition can be referred to as the next step of the review petition. It allows the aggrieved party to contest the judgement after dismissal of the review petition.
According to experts, a curative petition can be seen as a tool against judicial bias. It also prevents misconceptions, that can arise in the process of pronouncing verdicts.
In the Delhi gang rape case of 2012, there was gross misuse of curative petitions. Certain checks and balances are to be fixed, according to the experts. Supreme Court lawyer KV Dhananjay said, “Curative petitions arise only after the Supreme Court dismisses a review petition. In essence, a curative petition says that the original judgment was erroneous and a review petition to correct the judgment was wrongly dismissed. Statistically, therefore, review petitions are bound to witness a very low rate of acceptance.”
