Any aggrieved person approached to Hon’ble Supreme Court with the great hope and curiosity that their legal rights will be clearly and precisely decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court after following due process of law and with correct interpretation of law with no error of such magnitude that judgment pronounced by Supreme Court will reflect equity, reasonableness, soundness and proper interpretation of law. It is an admitted fact that it is not easy for any person to approach to Supreme Court which may be due number of facts and not limited to financial constraints, procedural difficulties, lack of proper knowledge, non-availability of sound legal opinion, distance etc. However, with the acceptance of Public Interest Litigation by Hon’ble Supreme Court & digitalization of technology and creation of National Law Schools and transparency and upliftment of social status etc, some of the aforesaid difficulties were overcomed, yet some like ‘human err’ still crept and difficult to remove because due to increase in number of cases, with decease of number of judges over number of cases and other infra structural problems.
Some social reformers like advocates, time and again posed questions a question before Hon’ble Supreme Court that since Supreme Court of India is the last & final court of India and judgment pronounced by Apex Court can’t be overturned between parties and to correct the errors crept in judgment, if any, there is limited jurisdiction to challenge it before Supreme Court in Review and therefore in few instances, Supreme Court noticed that errors occurred due to human err i.e. unintentional mistake due to oversight were corrected by Supreme Court by exercising inherent jurisdiction of Supreme Court which allows Supreme Court to correct manifest or patent error in the interest of justice by applying principle of ex-debito justitiate is founded on a recognition of a debt that the justice delivery system owes to a litigant to correct an error in judicial evaluation. That another opportunity to approach Supreme Court, in the light, that justice has been delivered, right was recognized by Supreme Court through its inherent powers, to allow any aggrieved person to challenge the order after dismissal of review petition before Supreme Court in the form of Curative in nature i.e. to cure. Since a review of a review would not lie and an Article 32 petition would not be maintainable and, therefore, such a method called ‘Curative’ was evolved. After dismissal of review petition by Supreme Court, though time limit is not fixed, not statutorily governed but such petition be filed within reasonable time, to have last and final opportunity to settled their grievance and that opportunity is granted on the grounds like (1) Violation of Principle of Natural Justice (2) Failure of Disclosure of Baisness of Judge etc. and to prevent abuse of its process and to cure a gross miscarriage of justice, may reconsider its judgments in exercise of its inherent power. This principle of Curative Petition was recognized by Supreme Court by which parties were allowed to file curative petition and such Curative Petition must be signed by Senior Advocate certifying that petition comply and fits with the direction passed in Rupa Ashok Hura (supra). That a curative petition is not heard in open court and is circulated to a bench of the three senior-most judges and the judges who passed the judgment under challenge, if the latter were still available but if it is accepted then it may be allowed to be heard in open Court. The parameters of curative petition to be allowed are narrow and chances of allow are quite low, nevertheless, it give an hope, an opportunity to final review of order of Supreme Court and then consider the litigation to come to an end in the interest of society and public at large.