RUPA ASHOK HURRA versus ASHOK HURRA AND ANR.

RUPA ASHOK HURRA versus ASHOK HURRA AND ANR.

A writ petition under Article 32 is not maintainable against a final judgment of the Supreme Court after dismissal of a review petition; however, in rarest of rare cases, curative petitions may be entertained under inherent powers to cure gross miscarriage of justice or abuse of process, subject to strict procedural safeguards and limited grounds (violation of principles of natural justice, apprehension of bias, or lack of jurisdiction).

Parties
Petitioner: Rupa Ashok Hurra; Respondents: Ashok Hurra and Anr.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
10 April 2002
Procedural Posture
Writ Petition (civil) / Constitution Bench Decision
Outcome
Petitions answered; Writ petition under Article 32 not maintainable to challenge Supreme Court judgment after review dismissed; Curative petition remedy recognized for rarest of rare cases.
Legal Topics
Writ Jurisdiction Under Article 32, Finality of Supreme Court Judgments, Curative Petition, Principles of Natural Justice, Inherent Powers of the Supreme Court, Doctrine of Ex Debito Justitiae, Doctrine of Stare Decisis
Constitutional Law Writ Jurisdiction Under Article 32 Finality of Supreme Court Judgments Curative Petition Principles of Natural Justice Inherent Powers of the Supreme Court Doctrine of Ex Debito Justitiae Doctrine of Stare Decisis

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 41 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rupa Ashok Hurra

Petitioner

Ashok Hurra and Anr.

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Writ Petition (civil) / Constitution Bench Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a writ petition under Article 32 is maintainable to challenge the validity of a Supreme Court judgment after dismissal of review petition
  2. 2 Whether the Supreme Court can reconsider its judgments in exercise of its inherent powers in rarest of rare cases to prevent abuse of process or prevent gross miscarriage of justice

Ratio Decidendi

A writ petition under Article 32 is not maintainable against a final judgment of the Supreme Court after dismissal of a review petition; however, in rarest of rare cases, curative petitions may be entertained under inherent powers to cure gross miscarriage of justice or abuse of process, subject to strict procedural safeguards and limited grounds (violation of principles of natural justice, apprehension of bias, or lack of jurisdiction).

Court Disposition

Petitions answered; Writ petition under Article 32 not maintainable to challenge Supreme Court judgment after review dismissed; Curative petition remedy recognized for rarest of rare cases.

Orders

  • Curative petition may be filed only under strict conditions outlined; subject to scrutiny by senior-most Judges and Judges who delivered impugned judgment; exemplary costs may be imposed for frivolous petitions.