Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra (2002): How the Curative Petition Was Born
Date Published
On 10 April 2002, a five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court did something unusual. It said that the Court's own final judgments are not beyond correction in every case, and it created a new remedy to do it. That remedy is now called the curative petition.
The case is Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra and Another, reported as (2002) 4 SCC 388. It began as an ordinary family dispute and ended up changing how the Supreme Court sees its own finality. It is a regular topic for the Civil Judge Exam, PCS J Exam and APO Exam.
The Bench and the Date
The judgment was delivered on 10 April 2002 by a Constitution Bench of S.P. Bharucha, C.J., S.S.M. Quadri, U.C. Banerjee, S.N. Variava and Shivaraj V. Patil, JJ. The matter was Writ Petition (C) No. 509 of 1997, and the judgment is also cited as AIR 2002 SC 1771.
From a Divorce Decree to a Constitutional Question
The dispute was matrimonial. The parties, Mrs. Rupa Ashok Hurra and Mr. Ashok Hurra, had a divorce by consent decree before the Supreme Court. Mrs. Hurra later challenged it. She argued that her consent was vitiated and that a change in the consent terms caused her hardship.
Her review petition was dismissed. She then filed a writ petition under Article 32 against the Court's own final judgment. A three-judge Bench felt that the question was too important for itself and referred it to a five-judge Constitution Bench.
The question was this: is an aggrieved person entitled to any relief against a final judgment or order of the Supreme Court, after the review is dismissed, either under Article 32 or in some other way?
What the Court Held
The Constitution Bench gave an answer in two parts.
First, the closed door. Article 32 cannot be used to challenge the Supreme Court's own final decisions. A writ petition cannot work as a further appeal after review.
Second, the open window. The Court said it can reconsider its judgments, in exercise of its inherent power, to prevent abuse of its process and to cure a gross miscarriage of justice. Commentary on the case rests this power on Articles 129 and 142 read together, independent of the review power under Article 137.
To make that power workable, the Court created a new remedy with strict conditions. It left the grounds open but pointed to the main ones. This remedy is the curative petition. The Court explained it as arising from the duty owed to justice itself, in the Latin phrase ex debito justitiae.
Read Blog: Navtej Singh Johar Case (2018): Section 377 IPC
Conditions the Court Laid Down
The Bench set tight filters so that the remedy would not become a routine second review. A curative petition has to meet these conditions:
• The petition must say that the grounds were taken in the review petition, and that the review was dismissed by circulation.
• A Senior Advocate must certify that the petition meets the requirements of the Rupa Ashok Hurra judgment and is not frivolous or vexatious.
• The Advocate-on-Record must certify that it is the first curative petition in the matter.
• The petition is first circulated to the three senior-most judges and to the judges who passed the judgment under challenge, where available.
• Unless otherwise ordered, it is decided by circulation without oral arguments, though written supplementary arguments are allowed.
• If a majority of that Bench finds that a hearing is needed, it is listed before the same Bench as far as possible.
• If the petition is meritless and vexatious, exemplary costs may be imposed.
Grounds a Petitioner Can Use
The Court did not list every possible ground. Commentary on the case identifies these main categories:
• violation of natural justice, such as a party not being heard or material submissions not being considered
• apprehension of bias, including failure to disclose facts that give rise to a reasonable fear of bias
• abuse of the Court's process, such as a judgment obtained through fraud, suppression or misrepresentation
Later decisions are said to have widened this to "gross miscarriage of justice" and "patent illegality".
From Judgment to Rule Book
The remedy was not created by Parliament and has no express mention in the Constitution. It is a result of judicial creativity. Its rules now sit in Order XLVIII of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013. Rule 1 says that curative petitions are governed by the judgment dated 10 April 2002 in Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra. Rule 2 contains the averment and the two certificates. Rule 3 asks that the petition be filed within a reasonable time of the review order, with no fixed limitation period stated. Rule 4 covers circulation, disposal without oral arguments, listing, and costs.
Curative Petitions in Practice
Because the bar is high, most curative petitions fail. The cases reported in the commentary show the pattern. These are as reported on one secondary source and should be checked before you cite them in a published answer:
Case | Year | Outcome as reported |
Navneet Kaur v. State of NCT of Delhi | 2014 | Allowed. Death sentence commuted to life imprisonment because of an eight-year delay in the mercy petition and the convict's mental illness |
National Commission for Women v. Bhaskar Lal Sharma | 2014 | Allowed. Earlier judgment on Section 498A set aside and the SLP restored for fresh hearing |
Union of India v. Union Carbide Corporation | 2023 | Dismissed. No fraud, suppression or gross miscarriage found, and delay of over two decades noted |
Brahmaputra Concrete Pipe Industries v. Assam State Electricity Board | 2024 | Registry cannot refuse to register merely because review was dismissed in open court |
Other curative petitions, such as those in Sidram S. Patil, Gurdeep Singh and Bakshi & Co. (all 2005), were dismissed for failing the conditions of the 2002 judgment.
The pattern teaches an exam point: the Rupa Ashok Hurra conditions are strict, and a curative petition is a last resort, not a second appeal.
Writing It in the Exam
A strong Mains answer follows a simple line:
1. State the facts in two sentences: a consent divorce decree, dismissed review, Article 32 writ.
2. State the question: can a final Supreme Court judgment be challenged after review?
3. State the holding: Article 32 is not available, but the Court can cure a gross miscarriage of justice using its inherent power.
4. List the conditions and grounds.
5. Link it to Order XLVIII of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013.
For a Prelims question, remember the year 2002, the five-judge Bench, the link with Order XLVIII, and that the petition follows a dismissed review.
Start your journey towards becoming a Civil Judge with the Best Judiciary Coaching in India. Get access to expert faculty, live classes, comprehensive study materials and regular mock tests. Build strong legal concepts, improve your preparation and move closer to success in the Judiciary Exam.
Questions Aspirants Ask
What is a curative petition?
It is a remedy created by the Supreme Court in Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra to reconsider its own final judgment, after a review petition is dismissed, in order to prevent a gross miscarriage of justice.
When was Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra decided?
On 10 April 2002, by a five-judge Constitution Bench headed by S.P. Bharucha, C.J.
What is the citation of the case?
(2002) 4 SCC 388, also cited as AIR 2002 SC 1771.
What was the dispute about?
A matrimonial dispute over a divorce by consent. The wife later challenged the decree, and her review petition was dismissed.
Can Article 32 be used against a Supreme Court judgment?
No. The Court held that Article 32 is not available to challenge its own final decisions.
On which basis is the curative power said to rest?
Commentary on the case rests it on Articles 129 and 142, and not on the review power in Article 137.
Who must certify a curative petition?
A Senior Advocate must certify that it meets the requirements and is not frivolous. The Advocate-on-Record must certify that it is the first curative petition in the matter.
Who first looks at a curative petition?
The three senior-most judges and the judges who passed the judgment, where available.
Where are the rules for curative petitions written?
In Order XLVIII of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, which adopts the judgment in Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra.
Is there a fixed time limit?
Rule 3 requires filing within a reasonable time of the review order. Commentary says no fixed limitation period is laid down.
The Short Version
Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra balances two ideas that pull in opposite directions: that litigation must end, and that no one should suffer a gross wrong. The Court answered with a narrow door and a strict key.
If you want to master constitutional remedies for the judiciary exams, Aashayein Judiciary is the place. Nitesh Sir and the faculty teach landmark cases with clear answer frameworks, backed by Judiciary Notes, PYQ analysis and Mock Tests. Join our Online Judiciary Coaching and prepare for the Civil Judge Exam, PCS J Exam and APO Exam with confidence.