Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court entertained a curative petition filed by Petitioner against the State of Uttar Pradesh and another respondent. The petition arose from a situation where two final orders of the Supreme Court, based on the same evidentiary record, were contradictory, leading to a manifest miscarriage of justice. The Court noted that such discordant voices imperil the integrity of adjudication and shake public confidence. The curative jurisdiction, as established in Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra, is exercised to prevent abuse of process and cure gross miscarriages of justice. The Court emphasized that intervention ex debito justitiae is not discretionary but a constitutional duty under Articles 129, 142, 137, and 145 of the Constitution of India, along with Order XLVIII of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013. The Court allowed the curative petition to preserve the purity of its process and vindicate the rule of law.
Headnote
A) Curative Jurisdiction - Manifest Miscarriage of Justice - Conflicting Final Orders - The Supreme Court entertained a curative petition where two final orders of the Court on the same evidentiary foundation were contradictory, causing a manifest miscarriage of justice. The Court held that intervention ex debito justitiae is a constitutional duty to preserve the purity of the Court's process and vindicate the rule of law. (Paras 1-2) B) Constitutional Law - Inherent Powers - Articles 129, 142, 137, 145 of the Constitution of India - The curative jurisdiction flows from the inherent authority of the Supreme Court to do complete justice and protect the integrity of its judgments, as recognized in Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra. Article 129 declares the Court a court of record with inherent powers, Article 142 empowers complete justice, Article 137 governs review, and Article 145 authorizes rule-making. (Para 2)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a curative petition should be entertained when two final orders of the Supreme Court on the same evidentiary foundation are contradictory, resulting in a manifest miscarriage of justice.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court entertained the curative petition, condoned delay, and allowed the petition to preserve the purity of its process and vindicate the rule of law.
Law Points
- Curative jurisdiction
- Manifest miscarriage of justice
- Conflicting final orders
- Ex debito justitiae
- Article 129
- Article 142
- Article 137
- Article 145
- Order XLVIII Supreme Court Rules 2013
