Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra

Supreme Court of India, 10 April 2002, 5 judges

A final judgment of the Supreme Court cannot be challenged under Article 32, but in the rarest cases the Court may reconsider it after dismissal of review, through a curative petition under its inherent power, on limited grounds and conditions.

Facts

A three-Judge Bench referred to a Constitution Bench the question whether the Supreme Court's judgment of 10 March 1997 in Civil Appeal No. 1843 of 1997 could be treated as a nullity, and whether a writ petition under Article 32 could question a judgment of the Court after the petition for its review had been dismissed. Other writ petitions raising the same point were tagged. Counsel for all parties conceded that Article 32 could not be invoked against a final judgment after review was exhausted, but, along with the Attorney-General appearing as amicus curiae, urged that some remedy should exist in rare cases.

Questions before the Court

Can a final judgment or order of the Supreme Court be challenged by a writ petition under Article 32 after the review petition has been dismissed?
If not, is an aggrieved person entitled to any relief against such a final judgment, and on what grounds and procedure?

What the Court held

A final judgment or order of the Supreme Court cannot be assailed in an application under Article 32 by an aggrieved person, whether or not he was a party. Cases that quashed earlier orders under Article 32 did not decide maintainability and are not authority for it.
In the rarest of rare cases, the duty to do justice prevails over finality. To prevent abuse of its process and cure a gross miscarriage of justice, the Court may reconsider its judgments in exercise of its inherent power.
Relief ex debito justitiae may be given for violation of natural justice, such as a non-party adversely affected or a party not served, or where a Judge failed to disclose a connection with the subject matter or parties giving scope for apprehension of bias. The grounds are not exhaustively listed.
The curative petition must aver that the grounds were taken in the review petition, which was dismissed by circulation, and carry a Senior Advocate's certificate. It goes first to the three senior-most Judges and the Judges who decided the case, if available, and is listed only if a majority think it needs hearing. Vexatious petitions may attract exemplary costs.

Why it matters

The judgment creates the curative petition as a remedy against a final judgment of the Supreme Court after dismissal of review, while affirming that Article 32 does not lie against the Court's own judgments. It fixes the grounds, the Senior Advocate's certificate and the circulation procedure, and Banerjee, J. stressed that such petitions must be a rarity.

In the Court's words

Copied from the official judgment; each passage links to its page.

“On the analysis of the ratio laid down in the aforementioned cases, we reaffirm our considered view that a final judgment/order passed by this 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.”

Quadri, J.Page 7 of the judgment

“After giving our anxious consideration to the question we are persuaded to hold that the duty to do justice in these rarest of rare cases shall have to prevail over the policy of certainty of judgment as though it is essentially in public interest that a final judgment of the final court in the country should not be open to challenge yet there may be circumstances, as mentioned above, wherein declining to reconsider the judgment would be oppressive to judicial conscience and cause perpetuation of irremediable injustice.”

Quadri, J.Page 16 of the judgment

“Nevertheless, we think that a petitioner is entitled to relief ex debito justitiae if he establishes (1) violation of principles of natural justice in that he was not a party to the lis but the judgement adversely affected his interests or, if he was a party to the lis, he was not served with notice of the proceedings and the matter proceeded as if he had notice and (2) where in the proceedings a learned Judge failed to disclose his connection with the subject-matter or the parties giving scope for an apprehension of bias and the judgment adversely affects the petitioner.”

Quadri, J.Page 19 of the judgment

Provisions interpreted

Article 32, Constitution
Article 137, Constitution
Article 142, Constitution
Order XL Rule 1, Supreme Court Rules, 1966

Related judgments

Distinguishes Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India (1998)“But in those cases no one joined issue with regard to the maintainability of the writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution.” (page 7)

Case and bench

Parties: Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra
Case: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 509 of 1997 with W.P. (C) Nos. 245 of 1999, 338 of 2000, 325-326 of 2000, 663 of 2000, 680 of 2000 and 374 of 2001
Decided: 10 April 2002
Bench: S.P. Bharucha (CJI), S.S.M. Quadri, Umesh C. Banerjee, S.N. Variava, Shivaraj V. Patil
Opinions: Unanimous. Judgment delivered by Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J.; U.C. Banerjee, J. recorded his concurrence and added a separate opinion.

Questions on this case

3 questions in live Law Maker papers mention this case. Practise them with the landmark judgments questions.