The case of Rupa Hurra v. Ashok Hurra primarily addresses the issue of curative petitions in the Indian legal system. Rupa Hurra and Ashok Hurra were involved in a matrimonial dispute that had been settled by the Supreme Court of India. The present petition was filed for seeking re-consideration of the order passed by Apex Court in review petitions filed either under Article 32 of the Constitution or otherwise. The maintainability of present petition challenged on ground that no relief against a final judgment/order of this Court can be granted to the aggrieved person, after the dismissal of the review petition.

• 1. Whether a curative petition can be entertained by the Supreme Court after a final judgment has been delivered?
• 2. Whether an order passed by the Supreme Court itself can be corrected under its inherent powers after dismissal of the review petition?
• 3. What are the requirements for entertaining a curative petition under the inherent power of the Supreme Court?

• • Challenge to Final Judgment under Article 32: The Supreme Court observed that Article 32 of the Constitution, which allows individuals to move the Court for the enforcement of fundamental rights, does not extend to challenging final judgments of the Court itself. The Court noted that writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked against superior courts, including the Supreme Court, and that no judicial order by a superior court can be claimed to violate fundamental rights.
• • Inherent Power to Correct Orders: The Court acknowledged that, despite the principle of finality, there are exceptional circumstances where the Supreme Court may need to exercise its inherent powers to correct a gross miscarriage of justice. This includes cases where the final judgment was rendered in violation of natural justice or due to procedural errors. However, such cases are to be extremely rare and require strong grounds.
• • Requirements for Curative Petitions: The Court outlined specific criteria for entertaining curative petitions:
  • o The petition must show that the grounds for reconsideration were also presented in the review petition and that the review was dismissed without a detailed hearing.
  • o It must include a certification by a Senior Advocate confirming the fulfilment of the requirements.
  • o The petition should first be examined by a Bench of the three senior-most judges and, if necessary, the original Bench that passed the judgment.

The Supreme Court, in this landmark judgment, established the framework for filing and entertaining curative petitions. The Court clarified that a curative petition is an extraordinary remedy available only in exceptional cases where there is a manifest injustice and where the earlier judgment suffers from a fundamental flaw that needs rectification.

The ruling established that:

• • Final judgments/orders of the Supreme Court cannot be challenged through Article 32.
• • The Supreme Court may reconsider its judgments in exercise of its inherent power to correct a grave miscarriage of justice.
• • Curative petitions must meet specific procedural requirements and be considered by a senior Bench before being admitted for a hearing.