Article 137 of Indian Constitution gives the Supreme Court the power to review its own decisions. This is done with the approval of Parliament or rules under Article 145. It’s a key part of the Indian legal system. It helps fix any mistakes or unfair outcomes in the Supreme Court’s final judgments.
Article 137 was not in the original Draft Constitution of 1948. It was added later as Draft Article 112A. This shows how important it is to have a way for the Supreme Court to look back at its decisions. It ensures the justice system is fair and trustworthy.
Key Takeaways
- Article 137 of the Indian Constitution grants the Supreme Court the power to review its own judgments and orders.
- The provision was not part of the original Draft Constitution but was later introduced as Draft Article 112A.
- The review mechanism helps to rectify potential errors or miscarriages of justice in the Supreme Court’s final decisions.
- The inclusion of Article 137 reflects the need for a robust system to ensure the integrity and fairness of the judicial process.
- The review power under Article 137 is subject to provisions made by Parliament or rules framed under Article 145.
Historical Background of Article 137
Article 137 of the Indian Constitution has its roots in the early drafting days. Draft Article 112A, which became Article 137, was first proposed by the Drafting Committee’s Chairman. On June 6, 1949, the Constituent Assembly discussed it at length. Some members questioned if Parliament could limit the Supreme Court’s review powers.
The Chairman of the Drafting Committee explained that such a limit was needed. He said it was in line with other constitutional rules. This ensured the Supreme Court could review its own decisions. After detailed talks, the Draft Article was accepted and adopted on the same day. This marked the beginning of the Supreme Court’s power to review its own judgments.
Initial Implementation Process
After Article 137 was adopted, the Supreme Court started using its review powers. This set the stage for the creation of curative petitions as a last legal option. The early use of this provision helped the court correct major mistakes and prevent big injustices. This power was later made clearer through important court decisions.
“The review power is a vital component of the Indian judiciary’s framework, ensuring the integrity and accountability of the apex court’s decisions.”
The history of Article 137 shows how crucial the Supreme Court’s review powers are. They are key to the constitutional law and the Indian judiciary system. They allow the apex court to ensure justice and fairness.
Article 137 of Indian Constitution: Core Provisions and Scope
Article 137 of the Indian Constitution gives the Supreme Court the power to review its own judgments and orders. This power can be changed by Parliament or through rules under Article 145. It’s a key part of ensuring justice and fixing mistakes in the highest court’s decisions.
The Supreme Court has used its review powers in many important cases. For example, in A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak (1984), it talked about recalling orders made by mistake. To file a review petition, you must do so within 30 days of the judgment or order you want to review.
The Court can review its judgments for several reasons. These include new evidence, a clear mistake, or any other good reason. If a review petition is turned down, you can file a curative petition. This can be done for reasons like a natural justice violation or abuse of court process.
| Conditions for Curative Petitions | Grounds for Review Petitions |
|---|---|
|
|
Article 142 of the Constitution also helps the Supreme Court’s review power. It lets the Court pass any decree needed for complete justice in any case. These powers are not limited by laws and can be used when the Court is acting within its jurisdiction, as long as they don’t go against the Constitution.
The doctrine of judicial review is key in countries with written constitutions. It protects against acts that go against the constitution. Article 137 of the Indian Constitution, along with the Supreme Court Rules, sets the legal framework for the Court’s review powers. This ensures the justice system is fair and accountable.
Supreme Court’s Review Powers Under Constitutional Framework
The Supreme Court of India has review powers under Article 137 of the Indian Constitution. These powers are limited by the Parliament and certain rules. They are used mainly to correct any wrongs in justice and are rare.
Limitations on Review Powers
The Supreme Court’s review powers are not unlimited. They are set by the Constitution and laws made later. The Parliament decides when the court can use these powers, keeping the judicial process fair.
Procedural Requirements
The review process has strict rules. These include filing review petitions on time and meeting other criteria. These rules help keep the constitutional law and the apex court powers strong.
Jurisdictional Aspects
The Supreme Court’s review power is also limited by what cases it can review. This ensures the power is used correctly, keeping the justice system fair and consistent.
| Limitation | Procedural Requirement | Jurisdictional Aspect |
|---|---|---|
| Parliament’s power to prescribe conditions | Timely filing of review petitions | Types of cases and matters subject to review |
| Balancing judicial process | Adherence to Supreme Court’s rules and regulations | Confined within constitutional mandate |
“The Supreme Court’s review powers are exercised judiciously to prevent any miscarriage of justice, but they are not absolute and are subject to limitations set by the Parliament and specific procedural requirements.”
Role of Parliament in Shaping Review Powers
The Indian Parliament is key in shaping the Supreme Court’s review powers. It can pass laws that change how the court uses its review power. This balance keeps the court’s power in check while also making sure it’s fair.
Parliament’s actions have greatly influenced the Supreme Court’s review power. For example, the 24th Constitutional Amendment in 1971 was a response to the Golak Nath case. It limited Parliament’s power to change the Constitution. The 42nd Amendment in 1976 tried to limit the court’s power, but it was later ruled invalid by the court in the Minerva Mills case.
By making laws, Parliament can set rules for filing review petitions. It can also decide what’s needed to file a petition and the court’s jurisdiction. These laws help make sure the Supreme Court’s review power is used correctly.
The role of Parliament shows how important it is to balance the constitutional provisions, the legal framework, and the Indian judiciary system. It shows how the legislative and judicial branches work together. Each branch has a role in keeping the Constitution’s principles alive.
“The interplay between the legislative and judicial branches is crucial in shaping the Supreme Court’s review powers, ensuring a balance between judicial independence and democratic accountability.”
The Evolution of Curative Petitions in Indian Judiciary
The idea of curative petitions in India started with the case Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra (2002). This case made curative petitions a last resort to look at dismissed review petitions again. It showed the Supreme Court’s power to fix big mistakes in justice.
In the case of Union of India v. Union Carbide (2023), the Court made curative petitions more specific. Now, they are only for cases of big mistakes, fraud, or hiding important facts.
Landmark Case: Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra
The Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra case in 2002 was a big step for curative petitions in India. The Supreme Court saw curative petitions as a last chance to look at review petitions again. This was to make sure justice was done.
Development of Curative Jurisdiction
After the Rupa Ashok Hurra case, the rules for curative petitions got clearer. In Union of India v. Union Carbide (2023), the Court said curative petitions are only for big mistakes, fraud, or hiding facts. This makes sure this special remedy is only used when really needed.
Curative petitions are based on the Constitution, like Article 32 and Article 142. These articles give the Supreme Court the power to protect justice and fix wrongs in its decisions.
“Curative petitions are considered a final legal remedy against the final judgments of the apex court, available to aggrieved persons in exceptional circumstances where there is an evident violation of the Principles of Natural Justice or bias.”
A special bench of the Supreme Court, with the three most senior judges, reviews curative petitions. This team includes the judges from the original decision. They make sure the case is looked at carefully and fairly.
Conditions and Prerequisites for Filing Review Petitions
In India, filing a review petition under Article 137 has certain rules. The process for seeking a review follows established principles and rules. These are set out in the country’s constitution.
To file a successful review petition, the petitioner must show that natural justice was not followed. They must also prove they were harmed by the original judgment. The petition must clearly state that the grounds mentioned were previously raised and dismissed by the court.
- Curative petitions are first circulated to the three senior-most judges and those who passed the concerned judgment.
- The court may impose costs if the plea lacks merit, ensuring the review process is not misused.
- Review petitions must be filed within 30 days of the court verdict.
The Supreme Court has set clear criteria for accepting a review petition. These include new evidence, a mistake in the record, or any other good reason. But, the court rarely accepts reviews and changes the original decision.
| Criteria | Details |
|---|---|
| Date of the Impugned Judgment | 22.04.2020 |
| Date of the Review Petition | 15.06.2020 |
| Review Petitioner No. 5 | Harnam Singh, former chairman of the Delhi Commission for Safai Karamcharis, Govt. of NCT of Delhi |
| Outer limit of reservation | 50% as set out by the Court in Indra Sawhney vs. Union of India |
| Government Office Reservation | 100% reservation to Scheduled Tribe candidates for the post of teachers |
The Supreme Court has set clear guidelines for review petitions. This ensures a fair and transparent system. It upholds the legal framework and constitutional provisions of the country.
“A review petition can be accepted only if a glaring omission or patent mistake has occurred in the original judgment due to judicial fallibility.”
Impact of Article 137 on Indian Legal System
Article 137 is key in shaping India’s legal system. It gives the Supreme Court the power to review its own judgments. This ensures the judicial system’s integrity and corrects errors.
Significance in Constitutional Democracy
Article 137 is vital for India’s constitutional democracy. It lets the Supreme Court revisit and fix past rulings. This boosts the court’s role in protecting fundamental rights and legal coherence.
It also helps the court keep up with legal changes. This strengthens public trust in the judiciary as the Constitution’s protector.
Practical Applications
- Addressing Miscarriages of Justice: Article 137 allows the Supreme Court to fix past judgments that led to injustice. This keeps the justice system fair.
- Adapting to Legal Advancements: The review process lets the Supreme Court update its precedents. This aligns them with new laws and societal changes.
- Ensuring Consistency: Article 137 helps keep Supreme Court judgments consistent. This prevents conflicting views and supports the growth of constitutional law.
Article 137 is a crucial tool for the Indian judiciary. It strengthens constitutional law and the Indian judiciary system. It also ensures the apex court powers as the justice guardian.
Relationship with Other Constitutional Provisions
Article 137 of the Indian Constitution lets the Supreme Court review its own judgments. It works with other constitutional parts to make sure justice and the rule of law are followed. These parts together create a strong system to uphold justice.
Article 145 gives the Supreme Court the power to make rules for its practice and procedure. This includes how judgments and orders can be reviewed. It helps Article 137 work smoothly by setting out the steps for review.
Article 136 of the Constitution also plays a key role. It lets the Supreme Court decide if it should hear appeals from lower courts. This is closely tied to the review power, helping fix any mistakes or injustices.
These constitutional parts together make a strong legal framework. They empower the Supreme Court to ensure justice and keep the judicial process fair. By using its review power, the court can fix any mistakes in its past decisions. This strengthens India’s constitutional democracy.
| Constitutional Provision | Relevance to Article 137 |
|---|---|
| Article 145 | Grants the Supreme Court the authority to make rules regulating its practice and procedure, including the conditions under which judgments and orders may be reviewed. |
| Article 136 | Bestows upon the Supreme Court the discretionary power to grant special leave to appeal against any judgment, decree, determination, sentence, or order in any cause or matter. |
Understanding how Article 137 relates to other constitutional parts helps us see the Supreme Court’s role. It shows how the court keeps the legal system in India strong and fair.
Notable Cases and Judicial Interpretations
Article 137 of the Indian Constitution has seen many landmark judgments. These have shaped constitutional law and the judicial process. They have also changed how the Supreme Court reviews cases.
Landmark Judgments
The Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra (2002) case is key. It introduced the “curative petition” concept. This allows for reviewing a Supreme Court decision if there’s a “miscarriage of justice.”
This decision helped correct errors and prevent injustice. It strengthened the Constitution’s framework.
The Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967) case is also important. The Supreme Court said Parliament can’t change Fundamental Rights. This shows the Court’s role in protecting constitutional law and the judicial process.
The Keshwanand Bharti v. Union of India (1973) case further defined the Supreme Court’s powers. It introduced the “basic structure” doctrine. This means Parliament can’t change the Constitution in ways that harm its core principles.
Recent Applications
The Maharashtra government’s recent curative petition is a current example. It challenges the Supreme Court’s decision on Maratha quota. This case shows Article 137’s ongoing importance in Indian law.
| Case | Year | Key Outcome |
|---|---|---|
| Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra | 2002 | Established the concept of a “curative petition” to review Supreme Court judgments |
| Golaknath v. State of Punjab | 1967 | Ruled that Parliament lacked authority to change Fundamental Rights |
| Keshwanand Bharti v. Union of India | 1973 | Established the “basic structure” doctrine to limit Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution |
| Maharashtra Government’s Curative Petition | 2024 (Upcoming) | Challenging the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down the Maratha quota |
These cases have greatly influenced constitutional law and the judicial process in India. They highlight the apex court‘s role in protecting fundamental rights and democracy.
Conclusion
Article 137 of the Indian Constitution is key to the Supreme Court’s fairness. It lets the Court review its own decisions. This ensures justice is served and the law is followed.
The development of curative petitions has made Article 137 even more important. It acts as a strong defense in India’s legal system.
The review process in Article 137 keeps the Supreme Court’s decisions trustworthy. It’s a rare power used only when necessary. This right is essential for justice to be fair and equal.
Article 137 helps fix major mistakes or omissions. It makes the legal system stronger. It also shows the Supreme Court’s role as the top court in India.
As India’s laws change, Article 137’s role will stay vital. This article has looked at its history, main points, and impact. It shows how crucial it is for justice to be served fairly to all.