Review Petition vs Curative Petition: What Is the Difference? (2026 Guide)

The Supreme Court of India is the final court of appeal, and its judgments are binding on all courts across the country. However, Indian jurisprudence recognizes that even the apex court can make errors. Two extraordinary remedies exist to correct such errors: the Review Petition and the Curative Petition.

Understanding the distinction between these two remedies is essential for litigants who believe a Supreme Court judgment contains a manifest error. Consulting a Supreme Court Advocate is critical as both remedies have very narrow grounds and strict procedural requirements.

What Is a Review Petition?

A Review Petition is filed under Article 137 of the Constitution of India read with Order XLVII of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013. It allows a party to request the Supreme Court to reconsider its own judgment if specific grounds are established.

Grounds for Review Petition

• Discovery of new and important matter or evidence: Material that was not available during the original hearing despite due diligence.
• Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record: A clear factual or legal error that does not require elaborate reasoning to identify.
• Any other sufficient reason: Analogous to the grounds available under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Key Features of a Review Petition

• Limitation: Must be filed within 30 days from the date of judgment.
• Heard in chambers: Review Petitions are ordinarily decided by circulation (without oral arguments) unless the Court directs otherwise.
• Same bench: Heard by the same bench that delivered the original judgment.
• No re-hearing: Cannot be used to re-argue the entire case on merits.

What Is a Curative Petition?

A Curative Petition is an extraordinary remedy evolved by the Supreme Court in Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra (2002) to prevent abuse of process and gross miscarriage of justice. It is filed after a Review Petition has been dismissed.

Grounds for Curative Petition

• Violation of principles of natural justice: The petitioner was not heard before the order was passed.
• Judge's bias or personal interest: A judge on the bench had an undisclosed personal interest in the outcome.
• Abuse of process of court: The judgment leads to a gross miscarriage of justice that shocks the conscience.

Key Features of a Curative Petition

• No fixed limitation: Can be filed at any time after dismissal of the Review Petition, though unreasonable delay may be a factor.
• Senior Advocate certification: Must be accompanied by a certificate from a Senior Advocate stating that the case involves a genuine ground for curative relief.
• Circulation to senior-most judges: First circulated to the three senior-most judges and the judges who decided the original case.
• Last judicial remedy: There is no further remedy available after a Curative Petition is decided.

Review Petition vs Curative Petition: Key Differences

Parameter	Review Petition	Curative Petition
Legal Basis	Article 137, Constitution	Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra (2002)
When Filed	After the original judgment	After Review Petition is dismissed
Limitation	30 days from judgment	No fixed time limit
Grounds	Error on face of record, new evidence	Natural justice violation, judicial bias
Hearing	Usually by circulation (in chambers)	Circulation to senior-most judges first
Certification	Not required	Senior Advocate certification mandatory
Bench	Same bench as original	Senior-most judges + original bench

Conclusion

Both Review and Curative Petitions are extraordinary remedies with very narrow application. A Review Petition corrects apparent errors, while a Curative Petition addresses fundamental failures of justice after review is exhausted. Proper legal assessment of grounds and meticulous drafting are essential.

For filing Review Petitions or Curative Petitions before the Supreme Court, contact our chambers to consult an experienced Supreme Court Advocate.