What power does Article 137 give the Supreme Court?

The power to review any judgment or order it has itself pronounced. Article 137 gives the Supreme Court the power to review any judgment or order it has itself pronounced, subject to any law Parliament makes, or any rules made under Article 145. Read more: Polity0228 — Article 137: Review and Curative Petitions at the Supreme Court.

Under Supreme Court Rules, within how many days of a judgment must a review petition normally be filed?

30 days. Supreme Court Rules set a 30-day window to file a review petition, from the date of the original judgment. A curative petition, by contrast, has no strict time limit, since it can only be filed after a review petition is already dismissed. Read more: Polity0228 — Article 137: Review and Curative Petitions at the Supreme Court.

The curative petition, a remedy Article 137's own text never names, was created by the Supreme Court in which case?

Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra (2002). The Supreme Court created the curative petition itself, in Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra (2002). It is a judicially evolved remedy, not something Article 137's own text directly provides for. Read more: Polity0228 — Article 137: Review and Curative Petitions at the Supreme Court.

In Union of India v. Union Carbide (2023), how did the Supreme Court narrow curative jurisdiction?

It held curative petitions can only be entertained for a gross miscarriage of justice, fraud, or suppression of material facts. The Court held curative petitions can only be entertained for a gross miscarriage of justice, fraud, or suppression of material facts. This case itself arose from the government's own curative petition, seeking additional compensation from Union Carbide over the Bhopal Gas tragedy. Read more: Polity0228 — Article 137: Review and Curative Petitions at the Supreme Court.

A curative petition is first circulated to which judges of the Supreme Court?

The three senior-most judges, plus the judges from the original bench, if available. A curative petition first goes to the three senior-most Supreme Court judges, including the Chief Justice of India, plus the judges from the original bench, if they're still available. It's usually decided in-chamber, without an open hearing. Read more: Polity0228 — Article 137: Review and Curative Petitions at the Supreme Court.

On 9 January 2025, how did the Supreme Court handle review petitions against the Supriyo verdict?

It dismissed them in chambers without a public hearing. On 9 January 2025, a five-judge bench dismissed the review petitions in chambers, without a public hearing, finding no error in the original verdict. Read more: Polity0106 — Same-Sex Marriage and the Supriyo Verdict.

On 25 March 2026, the Supreme Court dismissed NHAI's review petition in the Tarsem Singh case. What had the Court earlier ruled landowners under the National Highways Act were entitled to?

Solatium and interest. The Court had ruled that landowners whose land was acquired under the National Highways Act (1997-2015) were entitled to solatium and interest, benefits the Act itself had denied them -- reinforcing LARR's principle that compensation shouldn't depend on which law acquired the land. Read more: IndEco0246 — LARR Act, 2013.

Article 137: Review and Curative Petitions at the Supreme Court

Even the Supreme Court can make mistakes. Article 137 lets the Court review its own judgments or orders. It is the constitutional safety valve that sits above finality. From review petitions to the judge-made curative petition, this is how the highest court corrects itself.

Article 137 SC may review its own judgment or order.

Article 145 Rules of the Court govern review.

2002 Rupa Ashok Hurra creates the curative petition.

Last door Review, then curative.

Review: Statutory remedy under Article 137.

Curative: Judge-made last resort.

Error apparent: A visible mistake on the record.

Natural justice: Fair hearing; no bias.

Contents

Chapter 1: Review and Curative Petitions
Chapter 2: How Review Works
Previous Year Questions
Chapter 3: The Story of the Last Resort
Chapter 4: Current Affairs

1Chapter 1: Review and Curative Petitions

Must Know

The power to review

Article 137 says: subject to any law made by Parliament and rules under Article 145, the Supreme Court has power to review any judgment pronounced or order made by it.
Finality is valuable, but so is correcting a clear error. Review balances both.
Review lies for an error apparent on the face of the record, new evidence, or a mistake of law.
Review is an exception to finality, not a routine rehearing.

Review versus curative

Review is the statutory remedy under Article 137, read with the Supreme Court Rules.
A curative petition is a judge-made last-resort remedy, created in Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra (2002).
It is used when review is not enough.
A curative petition is first circulated to the Chief Justice, the four senior-most judges, and the judges who passed the original judgment, if available.
Review is in the Constitution. Curative is a creation of the Court itself.

Remember: Review = Article 137. Curative = Rupa Ashok Hurra, 2002. Review is not an appeal.

True or False: A review petition lets a party re-argue the whole case.

2Chapter 2: How Review Works

Good to Know

Who may ask, and who hears it

A person aggrieved by the judgment may file a review petition within the prescribed period.
Review is heard by a bench, often including judges who delivered the original judgment.
Courts grant review only for glaring errors, not for re-argument of the same points.
The standard is high. You must show an error on the record, not just disagree.

The two review routes

Statutory review: the Supreme Court Rules set the procedure and grounds for review under Article 137.
New evidence: review can be sought when fresh evidence, not available at the original hearing, surfaces.
No third appeal: a party cannot re-argue settled points in a review petition.
The exam line: review corrects errors, it does not reopen the whole case.

3Previous Year Questions

UPSC and CDS have tested review power directly.

UPSC CSP 2021, Q88

Statement: a High Court has the power to review its own judgement as the Supreme Court does. The key marks it false. The Supreme Court’s review power comes from an explicit provision, Article 137. Statement 1, recall of a retired judge under Article 128, is true. Answer: 1 only. View the question.

CDS II 2016, Q112

Which is not true about the Supreme Court’s powers? Answer: (d) that it has the exclusive power to issue writs for fundamental rights, because High Courts can too under Article 226. The power to review its own judgment IS a real power. View the question.

A curative petition is first circulated to which judges?

True or False: The Supreme Court has the power to review its own judgment or order.

4Chapter 3: The Story of the Last Resort

Great to Know

From 1950 to 2002

Article 137 entered the Constitution in 1950 as a limited self-correction power, mirroring common-law review.
In 2002, Rupa Ashok Hurra created the curative petition.
It lets grave miscarriages of justice be reopened after review fails.

The tests

Curative petitions require proof of violation of the principles of natural justice or an apprehension of bias.
The petitioner must plead specific grounds.
When a death-row or landmark verdict is challenged even after review, Article 137 plus the curative route is the last door.
Curative petitions protect against grave injustice after finality.
They exist so the Court’s own error can still be corrected.

Think it through: Why not allow unlimited reviews?

Courts need to end disputes. If every judgment could be reopened again and again, no case would finish. So review is narrow, and curative is rarer still.

5Chapter 4: Current Affairs

Current Affairs

Review in the headlines

Curative and review petitions on landmark rulings, from the Ayodhya title to electoral bonds, keep Article 137 in the news.
Review and curative petitions on high-profile verdicts, including constitutional amendments, keep the docket busy.
Whenever a verdict is “challenged after finality,” it is the Article 137 review or the curative route at work.

True or False: A curative petition is a remedy created by the Court itself.

Quick Q&A

What does Article 137 allow? Review of SC judgments and orders.
Which Article gives rule-making power? Article 145.
Curative case? Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra, 2002.
Review grounds? Error on record, new evidence, mistake of law.
Curative grounds? Natural justice breach or bias.

Answered 0 of 3 checks.