The curative petition is a remedy of the Supreme Court’s own design. It does not appear in the Constitution. It does not appear in the Supreme Court Rules. It was created by the Court itself in Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra, decided in 2002 by a five-judge Constitution Bench and reported as (2002) 4 SCC 388. The premise of the remedy is that the highest court is fallible, that even after review, a manifest miscarriage of justice may remain uncorrected, and that the Court must retain the residual power to correct its own errors when the alternative is the perpetuation of injustice.
For two decades after Rupa Ashok Hurra, the curative petition was a remedy of theoretical importance but limited practical use. The threshold was set so high that few petitions succeeded. The position changed materially in 2024 with the Supreme Court’s decision in DMRC Ltd. v. Delhi Airport Metro Express (P) Ltd., reported as (2024) 6 SCC 357. The Court allowed a curative petition in a commercial arbitration matter and set aside its own earlier decision. The framework, for the first time, gave practitioners a workable precedent on when the curative gate opens.
The Origin of the Remedy
Rupa Ashok Hurra arose in a contested matrimonial proceeding where the wife had earlier withdrawn her consent for divorce, the Supreme Court’s earlier order had granted divorce notwithstanding the withdrawal, and the wife sought reconsideration. The Constitution Bench identified the gap that the remedy fills. After the Court has decided a matter, review under Article 137 is the formal mechanism. Review is narrow. Where review fails but a manifest injustice remains, the petitioner has no further remedy within the Court’s normal procedure. The Court held that it must retain an inherent jurisdiction to correct such errors, but the exercise of that jurisdiction is severely confined.
The Court set three preconditions for entertaining a curative petition. First, the petitioner must establish a violation of the principles of natural justice, or some other circumstance that constitutes a clear failure of due process. Second, the petitioner must establish abuse of the Court’s process. Third, the petitioner must establish that the result, as it stands, would amount to a gross miscarriage of justice.
The Procedural Architecture
The procedure for a curative petition runs as follows.
One. The curative petition is filed only after a review petition under Article 137 has been dismissed. Where review is not exhausted, the curative petition is not entertained.
Two. The curative petition is certified by a senior counsel as raising the limited grounds permitted under Rupa Ashok Hurra. The certificate is part of the filing requirement.
Three. The curative petition is placed before three senior-most judges of the Court, in chambers, for preliminary examination. If they consider that the petition raises a question warranting an open-court hearing, they refer it to the bench that decided the main matter.
Four. The bench, on hearing the curative petition, may set aside its own earlier order, modify it, or dismiss the curative petition.
The procedure is severely limiting by design. Most curative petitions are rejected at the chambers stage. Most that proceed to open court are dismissed. The petitions that succeed are exceptional.
DMRC v. DAMEPL: The 2024 Exception
The DMRC v. DAMEPL curative petition arose in a long-running arbitration matter between Delhi Metro Rail Corporation and the Delhi Airport Metro Express concessionaire. The arbitral tribunal had made a substantial award against DMRC. DMRC’s challenge to the award under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act had been rejected by the Single Judge and the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court. The Supreme Court, in its earlier order under Article 136, had also rejected DMRC’s challenge. DMRC then filed a curative petition.
The Supreme Court, by a 3-judge bench in April 2024, allowed the curative petition. The Court found that the earlier order had erred in not addressing certain manifest infirmities in the arbitral award, particularly the patently illegal calculation of damages, and that the result of the earlier order was a gross miscarriage of justice in the sense contemplated by Rupa Ashok Hurra. The Court restored DMRC’s challenge under Section 34, set aside the arbitral award, and remitted the matter for fresh consideration.
The decision has been the subject of commentary. The criticism is that the Court expanded the curative jurisdiction beyond what Rupa Ashok Hurra contemplated, by setting aside an arbitral award after the Section 34 and Article 136 routes had been exhausted. The defence is that the Rupa Ashok Hurra framework was always intended to permit correction of gross miscarriage, and that the manifest illegality of the damages calculation in DAMEPL fell within that category.
For practitioners, the lesson is that the curative gate is more open in 2026 than it was in 2022. Where the petitioner can identify a manifest legal error that produces an outcome which, on any view, would be unjust, the curative petition is now a workable remedy.
When to File a Curative Petition
The decision framework:
One. The petition should rest on a clear ground of natural justice violation, abuse of process, or manifest error producing gross miscarriage. Generic grounds of “the earlier order is wrong” will not suffice.
Two. The petition should be supported by senior counsel certification. The certificate is not merely formal; it operates as a filter for which petitions reach chambers.
Three. The petition should be filed within the period prescribed by the Supreme Court Rules. While the limitation rules are interpreted with some flexibility, undue delay weighs against the petitioner.
Four. The petitioner should be prepared for rejection at the chambers stage. Most curative petitions, including those with senior counsel certification, are rejected without an open-court hearing. The merits of the petition must be visible from the papers.
Counsel Positioning at Earlier Stages
The strategic lesson from DMRC v. DAMEPL is that the foundation for a curative petition is laid in the earlier stages of the litigation. Where a Section 34 challenge is being argued before the Single Judge or Division Bench, counsel should make detailed submissions on the specific legal errors in the arbitral award, with each error identified separately on the record. The same approach applies in the SLP under Article 136 and the review under Article 137. Where the curative petition is later filed, the senior counsel can certify with confidence that the specific errors have been before the Court at every prior stage and not been addressed.
The certification standard requires that the petitioner has not been able to obtain relief through the ordinary channels. Counsel who do not press the specific errors at each prior stage make the certification harder to support.
Conclusion
The curative petition is a remedy of last resort. Rupa Ashok Hurra set the conceptual frame in 2002. DMRC v. DAMEPL in 2024 showed that the frame, properly worked, can produce relief in commercial cases where manifest legal error has survived the ordinary review process. The remedy remains exceptional. The procedure remains severely confined. But the curative gate is open, on the right facts, to the petitioner who has built the foundation through earlier rounds of litigation and who can demonstrate that the error is not merely arguable but manifest.
Endnotes
1. Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra, (2002) 4 SCC 388 : 2002 SCC OnLine SC 433 : AIR 2002 SC 1771 (5-judge Constitution Bench).
2. DMRC Ltd. v. Delhi Airport Metro Express (P) Ltd., (2024) 6 SCC 357 : 2024 SCC OnLine SC 522 : AIR 2024 SC 2070 (3-judge bench).
3. Constitution of India, Articles 32, 136, 137, and 142.
4. Supreme Court Rules 2013 (as amended), Order XLVIII (curative petitions).
5. Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, Section 34.