Review Petition
Context:
- When Bilkis Bano, the lone survivor of a horrifying gang-rape and mass murder in 2002, asked the Supreme Court of India (SC) to review its May 2022 ruling ordering the Gujarati government to consider the early release of one of those found guilty, it was an opportunity for the SC to rectify an egregious error. I regret that it chose not to. On December 13, 2022, the Court issued a brief, two-page order in chambers denying her review petition.
- All other life-convicts were also swiftly granted early parole and remission by the Gujarati government. When they were released on Independence Day this year and the country celebrated with garlands and the distribution of sweets, no one in the country knew that a Supreme Court order had made this possible. Later, Bilkis Bano asked for a review of the SC decision. She requested a public hearing as mandated by SC Rules Order 47, Rule 3. She asked for a hearing, but SC turned it down and dismissed the petition for a review through chambers’ circulation.
Law’s framework: review petition:
- A review petition is a request to have an already-issued order or judgement by a court of law reconsidered. A review petition may be submitted by parties who believe they were mistreated by a Supreme Court decision because of an apparent error. According to Article 137 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court has the discretion to examine its own decisions.
- The requirements of any law passed by the legislature and the Supreme Court’s Rules adopted in accordance with Article 145, however, place restrictions on this jurisdiction.
- Additionally, in accordance with the 2013 Supreme Court Rules, the petition, which must be filed within 30 days after the judgement or order under review, must be heard by the same Bench that made the decision.
- Therefore, the law allows it to fix serious errors that resulted in a miscarriage of justice rather of examining the matter again during a review. The court has the authority to revisit its rulings and make changes. “Not “little inconsequential mistakes,” but “patent error.” ” According to a 1975 decision by Justice Krishna Iyer, a review can only be approved “where a manifest omission, patent mistake, or analogous grave error has already been introduced by judicial fallibility.
Who is eligible to file a petition for review:
- Anyone who considers that a decision is incorrect may request a review in accordance with the Civil Procedure Code and the Supreme Court Rules. Only parties to the dispute may request a review of the decision.
- Each review petition that is submitted to the court is not required to be taken into account. It has the authority to approve a review petition only when there are good grounds for the request.
Disregarded aspects of the Bilkis Bano case include:
- This order is unclear since it completely dismisses or ignores the review petitioner’s claims. And to make matters worse, the review petitioner’s lone defence that the Court had disregarded four binding judgements, one of which was issued by a Constitution Bench, was rejected with the statement that “none of the judgements are of any assistance to the review petitioner.”
- Some issues that the Court completely disregarded were brought to light by the Review Petition, including:
- Writs cannot be filed to challenge judicial orders, particularly those made by the High Court, a constitutional court comparable to the Supreme Court, in accordance with Article 32 of the Constitution.
- The convicted prisoner omitted all crucial information from his writ petition before the top court;
Other instances:
- Strangely, in Triveniben (1989) and Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar (1966), Constitution Bench rulings of five justices and nine judges respectively ruled that a court’s decision could never be challenged in a writ petition under Article 32.
- The majority and minority of a Constitution Bench decision in Union of India v. V. Sriharan (judgement from 2015) held that the government of State B alone should be in charge in cases where an offence is committed in State A but the trial and sentencing take place in State B. The Court disregarded this decision as well.
Article 32 of the Constitution addresses the right to constitutional remedies:
- According to this fundamental right (FR), individuals have the right to ask the Supreme Court (SC) to uphold other basic rights as stipulated by the Constitution.
- The High Court (HC) has equivalent authority under Article 226.
- The SC has the power to enact orders, decrees, or writs that compel the adherence of any fundamental right. Among the writs that may be granted are quo-warranto, prohibition, certiorari, mandamus, and habeas corpus.
- The privilege to petition the SC shall not be suspended, unless the Constitution clearly specifies otherwise. Therefore, the Constitution states that the President may suspend the right to petition any court for the enforcement of fundamental rights during times of national emergency (Article 359).
The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over disputes concerning the upholding of basic rights, but not exclusive authority. In accordance with Article 226’s authority over the supreme court, it runs concurrently:
- Original jurisdiction because a person can contact the SC if they believe they have been wronged without first filing an appeal.
- In this situation, concurrent jurisdiction means that the aggrieved party has the option of filing a direct petition with either the high court or the Supreme Court when a citizen’s Fundamental Rights are violated.
- The exercise of the right guaranteed by Article 32, which is the right to petition the SC when one of one’s fundamental rights is violated, is not prohibited by the existence of an alternative remedy.
- However, the SC has ruled that when relief is available through the high court under Article 226, the aggrieved party must first go there.
- In the Chandra Kumar case (1997), the Supreme Court determined that the writ jurisdiction of both the high court and the Supreme Court is an integral part of the Constitution’s basic structure.
Conclusion:
- It is unfair to the person who has endured terrible hardship, as well as to the Supreme Court’s standing and reputation, to cryptically reject a compelling review petition. One can only hope that the Court will be able to make amends in some way for this error.
