This article contains a brief note for the leading case of Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra, (2002) 4 SCC 388 : AIR 2002 SC 1771, which is a part of the paper “Leading Cases” for the Supreme Court Advocate on Record Examination 2015. This note was a part of my lecture delivered in 2013 to about 100+ Advocates who were preparing for the AOR examination. It is a part of the AOR series on leading cases.
Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra, (2002) 4 SCC 388 : AIR 2002 SC 1771:
The question before a Constitution Bench in this case was whether an aggrieved person is entitled to any relief against a final judgment/order of the Supreme Court, after dismissal of review petition (under Article 137 of the Constitution), either under Article 32 of the Constitution or otherwise. It was held that:
- A final judgment/order passed by Supreme 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.
- The jurisdiction of Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution cannot be invoked to challenge the validity of a final judgment/order passed by this Court after exhausting the remedy of review under Article 137 of the Constitution read with Order XI, Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966.
- It was pointed out above that Article 32 can be invoked only for the purpose of enforcing the fundamental rights conferred in Part III and it is a settled position in law that no judicial order passed by any superior court in judicial proceedings can be said to violate any of the fundamental rights enshrined in Part III. It may further be noted that the superior courts of justice do not also fall within the ambit of State or other authorities under Article 12 of the Constitution.
- Though Judges of the highest Court do their best, subject of course to the limitation of human fallibility, yet situations may arise in the rarest of the rare cases, which would require reconsideration of a final judgment to set right miscarriage of justice complained of. In such case it would not only be proper but also obligatory both legally and morally to rectify the error. Therefore, 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.
- Therefore, it was held that the Supreme Court, 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 was allowed by way of a curative petition.
- It was held that except when very strong reasons exist, the Supreme Court should not entertain an application seeking reconsideration of an order of the Court which has become final on dismissal of a review petition. It is neither advisable nor possible to enumerate all the grounds on which such a petition may be entertained. Nevertheless, a petitioner is entitled to relief if he establishes (1) violation of principles of natural justice in that he was not a party to the lis but the judgment 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.
- Detailed procedure for filing of curative petition was laid down in this case, inter alia, including, that the curative petition shall contain a certification by a Senior Advocate with regard to the fulfilment of the requirements for filing the curative petition.
IMPORTANT: Read notes on other leading cases for the SC AOR Examination: AOR Series.
