Syllabus
GS Paper 2 – Executive and Judiciary
Applications where to apply?
When asked about
– Judicial review
– Curative Jurisdiction
– Delhi metro rail judgement
Context
The article critiques the Supreme Court of India’s application of Curative Jurisdiction to reverse arbitral awards, raising doubts about its effect on legal coherence.
Source
The Hindu| Editorial dated 27th April 2024
Sounding the gavel on curative jurisdiction
The Supreme Court of India holds a unique position, serving as the highest appellate court, a federal court, and a court with advisory jurisdiction. Its powers include the appointment and transfer of judges for High Courts and itself. In 2002, it gained Curative Jurisdiction, allowing it to correct final judgments, distinct from regular review powers.
The Delhi Metro Rail Judgment
- Background:
- The case involved a dispute between Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. (DMRC) and Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt Ltd (DAMEPL).
- It centred on a termination clause in a contract related to the Delhi metro rail.
- Arbitral Award:
- DAMEPL received a favourable arbitral award, allowing termination based on construction defects in the metro rail.
- The award was upheld in prior rulings.
- Supreme Court Intervention:
- Despite previous rulings, the Supreme Court utilized Curative Jurisdiction to overturn the arbitral award.
- This marked the first instance of the Court reversing an arbitral award through a curative petition.
This intervention is notable for two reasons
- Firstly, it marks a departure from the Court’s previous stance of minimal interference in arbitral awards.
- Historically, the Court had been reluctant to overturn arbitral awards unless there were clear grounds for doing so. This case demonstrates a shift in that approach.
- Secondly, the Court acknowledged that its own previous verdict, which aligned with its traditional stance, was incorrect.
- This admission highlights the Court’s willingness to reassess its own decisions and rectify errors when necessary.
Concerns around Curative Jurisdiction
- Potential Misuse:
- Apprehensions exist regarding the misuse of curative jurisdiction, leading to frequent reopening of settled matters.
- Undermining Finality and Consistency:
- Critics argue that curative jurisdiction undermines the finality of judgments and erodes judicial consistency.
- Subjectivity and Impartiality:
- The subjective nature of defining a “miscarriage of justice” raises concerns about objectivity and impartiality.
- Impact on Judicial Efficiency and Credibility:
- Concerns arise about the impact of curative jurisdiction on the efficiency and credibility of the judicial system.
- Balancing Justice and Legal Certainty:
- Balancing the need for justice with the need for legal certainty poses a significant challenge.
Way Forward
- Clear Guidelines and Principles:
- Implementing clear guidelines and principles for the exercise of curative jurisdiction to ensure consistency and fairness.
- Judicial Training and Education:
- Encouraging judicial training and education on the nuances of curative jurisdiction to enhance its effective application.
- Strengthening Accountability Mechanisms:
- Strengthening mechanisms for judicial accountability and oversight to prevent potential misuse of curative petitions.
- Promoting Transparency:
- Promoting transparency in the curative process, including public access to information and reasoning behind decisions.
- Regular Reviews and Evaluations:
- Conducting regular reviews and evaluations of curative jurisdiction practices to identify areas for improvement.
- Collaboration and Stakeholder Engagement:
- Fostering collaboration between legal experts, policymakers, and stakeholders to address emerging challenges and refine curative procedures.
- Emphasizing Balance:
- Emphasizing the importance of balancing the finality of judgments with the need for justice, considering the broader impact on legal certainty and judicial integrity.
Conclusion
While the Supreme Court’s Curative Jurisdiction endeavors to rectify errors and ensure justice, its recent interventions raise pertinent questions about the balance between stability and adaptability in judicial pronouncements. The Court’s role as the guardian of law demands a nuanced approach—one that preserves consistency while accommodating legal evolution. As the apex judicial authority, the Supreme Court holds a solemn duty to provide enduring guidance, anchoring the nation’s legal landscape with constancy and gravitas.
Related Topics
Review petition
- Under Article 137 provided the Supreme Court with the power to review its judgments. This provision forms the legal basis for a “review petition”.
- Any person aggrieved by a ruling can seek a review.
- A review petition must be filed within 30 days of the court verdict.
- Review petitions are usually not heard in open court. They are heard through “circulation” by judges in their chambers.
- In a Review Petition case, Lawyers usually make their case through written submissions, and not oral arguments.
- The same judges who passed the original verdict generally also hear the review petition.
- There are specific grounds on which a review petition can be accepted in court, but not accepted in case of “minor mistakes”.
- In 1975, the Supreme court mentioned that a review petition can be accepted “only where a glaring omission or patent mistake or like grave error has crept in earlier by judicial fallibility”.
- In 2013, the Supreme Court laid down 3 conditions for accepting a review petition:
- The discovery of new and important matter or evidence which was not within the knowledge of the petitioner or could not be produced by him earlier.
- A mistake or error is apparent on the face of the record.
- Any other sufficient reason.
- It is rare for the Supreme Court to both admit reviews and overturn an original decision in a review.
Related PYQ
What was held in the Coelho case? In this context, can you say that judicial review is of key importance amongst the basic features of the Constitution? [UPSC Civil Services Exam – Mains 2016]
Practice Question
Critically analyze the Supreme Court of India’s exercise of Curative Jurisdiction in light of the recent judgment in the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. vs. Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt Ltd. case. [150 words]
How to approach this question?
Introduction:
- Begin by briefly explaining what Curative Jurisdiction is and its significance in the Indian judicial system.
Body:
- Discuss the Supreme Court’s exercise of Curative Jurisdiction, its purpose, and how it has been applied in various cases.
- Bring in the context of the recent judgment in the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. vs. Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt Ltd. case. Discuss how the Supreme Court exercised its Curative Jurisdiction in this case.
- Critically analyze the exercise of Curative Jurisdiction in this case. Discuss whether it was justified, its implications, and any controversies or debates it may have sparked.
Conclusion:
- Conclude by summarizing your analysis and providing a balanced view on the Supreme Court’s exercise of Curative Jurisdiction in the light of the recent judgment.
- You could also suggest some measures or reforms, if any, to improve the exercise of Curative Jurisdiction.
Remember to provide a balanced answer, incorporating relevant facts and figures, and propose feasible solutions. Structure your answer well, with a clear introduction, body, and conclusion. Also, ensure that your answer is within the word limit specified for the exam. Good luck!