SURENDRA KOLI Vs. THE STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Delay condoned.This curative petition presents an exceptional case for the exercise of our curative jurisdiction. The petitioner shows that a manifest miscarriage of justice endures and that two sets of outcomes resting on the same evidentiary foundation cannot lawfully coexist. When final orders of this Court speak with discordant voices on an identical record, the integrity of adjudication is imperilled, and public confidence is shaken. In such a situation, intervention ex debito justitiae is not an act of discretion but a constitutional duty. We therefore entertain this petition to preserve the purity of this Court' process and to vindicate the rule of law.

(2.) The curative jurisdiction of this Court exists to prevent abuse of process and to cure a gross miscarriage of justice. In Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra (2002) 4 SCC 388, the Constitution Bench of this Court recognised that this power flows from the inherent authority of this Court to do complete justice and to protect the integrity of its judgments. However, the constitutional source of this power is coherent and limited. Article 129 of the Constitution of India (hereinafter "The Constitution") declares this Court to be a court of record with inherent powers to preserve the purity of its process. Article 142 of the Constitution empowers this Court to make such orders as are necessary for doing complete justice. Article 137 of the Constitution recognises the power of review and marks its limits. Article 145 of the Constitution of India authorises the framing of rules. Order XLVIII of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, titled "Curative Petition" prescribes the filing requirements, the certification by a Senior Advocate, and the preliminary circulation to a bench as indicated in Rupa Ashok Hurra (Supra). These provisions together sustain a narrow jurisdiction that may be invoked only after review has failed to correct a grave defect.

(3.) Moreover, we must emphasize that Rupa Ashok Hurra (Supra) makes it clear that a curative petition is not a second review. Finality remains the rule and intervention is reserved only for very strong reasons that strike at the legitimacy of the adjudicatory process. The court has stated that only certain foundational circumstances demand relief as a matter of justice. One is a violation of natural justice where a person is adversely affected without being heard or without proper notice. Another is a case where a Judge failed to disclose a connection with the subject matter or with a party which gives rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias. The instances are illustrative and not exhaustive. The guiding principle for the exercise of curative jurisdiction is the duty of this Court to avert manifest injustice.