Constitution of India
Article 137: Review of judgments or orders by the Supreme Court
Part V — The Union, Chapter IV — The Union Judiciary
Article 137 (no sub-clauses)
WHAT IT SAYS: The Supreme Court may review any judgment it has pronounced or order it has made, subject to Parliamentary law and rules framed under Article 145. WHAT IT MEANS: 1. The SC can correct its own errors — it is not bound absolutely by finality. 2. This power is NOT unlimited — it is regulated by Parliament's laws and the SC's own rules under Article 145. 3. Review petitions must be filed within 30 days and are normally decided by circulation (without oral hearing) by the same Bench. 4. Grounds for review: (a) discovery of new and important evidence, (b) error apparent on the face of the record, (c) any other sufficient reason (Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC). KEY DOCTRINE: 1. Doctrine of Limited Self-Correction — SC remains a 'court of justice, not merely a court of finality.' 2. Curative Petition Doctrine — evolved from Article 137 via Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra (2002), allowing a final remedy even after review dismissal.
Constitutional Inspiration
SOURCE(S): 1. ORIGINAL INDIAN INNOVATION — No direct borrowing from any foreign Constitution. The Privy Council did NOT review its own judgments. The Federal Court under the Government of India Act, 1935 followed the same practice of non-review. The Indian framers DELIBERATELY DEPARTED from this British colonial tradition. INDIA'S SPECIFIC ADAPTATIONS: 1. Express constitutional conferral — Unlike the UK (where the highest court had no self-review power), India's framers explicitly granted this power by Article 137, leaving no doubt about its existence. 2. Parliamentary oversight built in — The power is made 'subject to' Parliamentary law, balancing judicial independence with legislative checks. 3. Rule-making power via Article 145 — The SC itself frames conditions for review, ensuring procedural autonomy while maintaining accountability. WHY FRAMERS FELT THIS WAS NEEDED: 1. The SC being the final court of appeal, any error at this level would be irremediable without a self-correction mechanism. 2. The framers had the 'practical wisdom to visualise the efficacy of such provision' (as noted in Lily Thomas v. Union of India, 2000).
Constituent Assembly Debate
DEBATED ON: 6th June 1949 (CAD Volume VIII) DRAFT ARTICLE NUMBER: Draft Article 112A (was NOT part of the original Draft Constitution of 1948; inserted later by amendment) KEY SPEAKERS: 1. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar (Chairman, Drafting Committee) — Moved the amendment to insert Draft Article 112A, conferring review power on the Supreme Court subject to Parliamentary law and rules under Article 121 (now Article 145). 2. An unnamed member — Argued that since Draft Article 112 (now Article 136 — Special Leave to Appeal) already conferred wide power, Parliament should NOT be able to restrict the Supreme Court's review power. MAJOR DISAGREEMENTS: 1. Parliamentary restriction on SC's review power — One member objected to Parliament having power to limit the SC's review jurisdiction. 2. Ambedkar's response — Clarified that even the Special Leave power under Draft Art. 112 was subject to a similar restriction, so the same limitation on review was consistent and necessary. FINAL OUTCOME: Draft Article 112A was accepted and adopted on the same day (6th June 1949) without prolonged dissent. NOTE: The debate was brief; there was no deep ideological division — the principle of judicial self-correction was broadly accepted.
Landmark Judgments
LANDMARK JUDGMENTS: 1. P.N. Eswara Iyer v. Registrar, Supreme Court of India (1980) 4 SCC 680 — Held that the substantive power of review under Article 137 is equally wide in civil AND criminal proceedings; the SC Rules merely 'canalise the flow from the reservoir of power — the stream cannot stifle the source.' 2. Northern India Caterers (India) Ltd. v. Lt. Governor of Delhi (1979) AIR 1980 SC 674 — Held that a party cannot seek review merely for rehearing; departure from finality is justified only by 'circumstances of a substantial and compelling character.' 3. Lily Thomas v. Union of India (2000) 6 SCC 224 — Held that review is NOT an appeal in disguise; it exists only to correct mistakes, not to substitute views. 4. Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra (2002) 4 SCC 388 — 5-Judge Constitution Bench introduced the CURATIVE PETITION doctrine; held that even after dismissal of review under Article 137, the SC may reconsider its judgment under inherent powers to prevent gross miscarriage of justice. 5. Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. v. Government of A.P. (1964) 5 SCR 174 — Distinguished between a mere erroneous decision and one vitiated by error apparent on the face of the record. 6. S. Nagaraj v. State of Karnataka (1993) Supp (4) SCC 595 — Held that apart from SC Rules, the Court has inherent power to recall or review its own order if necessary in the interest of justice. NOTABLE DISSENTS: 1. Justice Venkatachaliah (as he then was) in A.R. Antulay proceedings (precursor to Rupa Ashok Hurra) — Dissented that inherent powers do not constitute an independent source of jurisdiction; correction must come through Article 137 read with Order XL Rule 1. KEY PRINCIPLES ESTABLISHED: 1. Review ≠ Appeal — It cannot be used to re-argue a case. 2. Grounds are strictly limited — New evidence, error apparent on face of record, or analogous sufficient reason. 3. Review power is equally wide for criminal and civil cases (P.N. Eswara Iyer). 4. After review is exhausted → Curative Petition is the last resort (Rupa Ashok Hurra). 5. Curative petition conditions: violation of natural justice, judicial bias, or abuse of process; must be certified by a Senior Advocate. SCHOLARS & JURISTS: 1. Dr. K. Sivananda Kumar (SSRN, 2019) — Argued that the framers' express conferral of review power in Article 137, departing from the Federal Court's no-review tradition, was a deliberate act of 'practical wisdom.' 2. Abhisek Choudhury (SSRN, 2012) — Analysed that review jurisdiction under Article 137 operates as a judicial re-examination, distinct from appellate reconsideration, and is procedurally regulated by Order XL/XLVII of the SC Rules and CPC.