Review vs Curative Petition: Difference and Comparison

Review and Curative Petition are two separate terms for the re-address of the grievance plea. The Supreme Court maintains both petitions for the convenience of the petitioner.

Key Takeaways

  1. Legal context: Review petitions challenge a court’s decision based on apparent errors, while curative petitions seek to correct a judgment with gross violations of principles of natural justice.
  2. Timing: Review petitions must be filed shortly after a judgment, whereas curative petitions can be filed after review petitions have been dismissed.
  3. Admissibility: Review petitions are more common, while curative petitions are rare and admitted only under exceptional circumstances.

Review vs Curative Petition

The difference between Review and Curative Petition is that a review petition is a judicial re-examination of a case; the court has the authority to re-examine its verdict to rectify an error with self-evident and not minor errors of little import. A curative Petition is an ultimate destination for the petitioner to seek righteousness after the case is rejected in the review petition.

Review vs Curative petition

It takes a month to file a Review petition from the day of its final verdict. The petition is reviewed by the same Judges who ruled the judgment.

The Curative Petition does not have a time limit, but to verify the violations, three high-ranking lawyer needs to prove and bring up the significant ground for the petition.


 

Comparison Table

Parameter of ComparisonReview PetitionCurative Petition
Constitutional Provision behind the petitionUnder Article 137 of India and Article 145, the Supreme Court of India can re-evaluate any conclusion ruled by it.Under Article 137 of India and Article 145, the court can re-evaluate any conclusion ruled by it.
Who can file a petition?The petitioner who feels resentful of any decision of the Supreme Court on any noticeable mistake can file a review petition.It may be filed after a review appeal has been dismissed in the final conviction.
A bench of Judges.An oral argument does not occur, and the Judges who ruled the previous verdict re-examined the petition.Three high-ranking lawyers and judges who passed the ruling heard the petition. An oral argument does not take place.
When to file a petition?Must be filed within 30 days from the date of judgment and must be placed before the same Bench of Judges which had delivered the decisionNo time limit is given for filling a Curative petition, but it must be filed within a reasonable time.
Grounds for petitionsThe petitioner must have found new evidence that they failed to produce before the court when it passed the judgement.After the review, the petition was dismissed. When the petitioner verified that there were violations of principles of natural righteousness, the court did not hear him before passing the decision.

 

What is Review Petition?

The power of the court to correct and prevent the gross failure of justice and a provision for review has been laid down under Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which provides a petitioner with a significant right to ask the court for a review.

Also Read:  Leftist and Liberal: Difference and Comparison

It acts as an optional right of the court. The purpose of a review petition is restricted to fixing a noticeable consequence or grievance that has been the effect of a decision of the Supreme Court.

The court does not take new cases but corrects serious mistakes that have failed justice.

 

What is Curative Petition?

A curative Petition is a final option for the petitioner to seek justice. It was put forth by the apex court to avoid the failure of justice and to avoid misuse of process.

The concept evolved from a case where the following question arose before the court of law: ” Is a disappointed person allowed any relief against the final verdict of the Supreme Court after the dismissal of a review petition?”

It’s a Supreme Court creation which goes against its power. The court acknowledges that an act of the court shall prejudice no one.


Main Differences Between Review and Curative Petition

  1. A review petition can be filed in both the Supreme Court and High Court, whereas a Curative one can be filed only in the Supreme Court.
  2. A review petition is heard by the same Bench of Judges who delivered the verdict. In contrast, a Bench hears a Curative petition of three Senior judges and the judges who delivered the verdict.

References
  1. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2763497
  2. https://archives.tpnsindia.org/index.php/sipn/article/view/305

Last Updated : 13 July, 2023

dot 1

26 thoughts on “Review vs Curative Petition: Difference and Comparison”

  1. The article provides an intellectual discourse on Review and Curative Petitions. It adeptly addresses their legal underpinnings and offers clear differentiators between the two.

    Reply
    • Indeed, the article’s informative tone and the explicit comparisons contribute to a nuanced understanding of these legal processes.

      Reply
  2. Well-structured and comprehensive article explaining the nuances between Review and Curative Petitions. The clear distinction between the two is highly beneficial for readers.

    Reply
    • Absolutely, the detailed explanation provided about the timing and process of filing both petitions is exceptionally useful. It removes any ambiguity surrounding these petitions.

      Reply
  3. A commendable piece elucidating the nuances between Review and Curative Petitions. The clarifications provided serve to demystify these legal procedures effectively.

    Reply
    • Absolutely, the article effectively bridges the comprehension gap by delivering articulate and meticulous insights into this complex legal subject.

      Reply
  4. This article presents a highly valuable comparison that elucidates the various aspects of Review and Curative Petitions. It’s truly intellectually stimulating.

    Reply
    • Indeed, the depth and thoroughness of the analysis make it an incredibly enriching read. The article serves as an exceptional educational resource.

      Reply
  5. An in-depth and insightful analysis of Review and Curative Petitions. The constitutional provisions and filing procedures are well-explained, benefiting readers who seek to understand this aspect of the legal system.

    Reply
    • Indeed, the article succeeds in delivering complex legal information in an understandable manner. It helps demystify the judicial processes associated with these petitions.

      Reply
    • The clarity regarding when to file each petition and the grounds for the petitions is commendable. This article makes a complex legal topic accessible to all.

      Reply
  6. The detailed comparison table and the lucid explanations help in bringing clarity to the intricate workings of Review and Curative Petitions. The article has a distinct informative edge.

    Reply
    • I completely agree, the comprehensive approach and clarity in distinguishing the petitions make it a valuable knowledge tool. The thoroughness is impressive.

      Reply
    • Indeed, the article’s informative and analytical nature provides a comprehensive understanding of Review and Curative Petitions. The substance of the content is truly enriching.

      Reply
  7. The article provides valuable insights into the workings of the judiciary system with respect to Review and Curative Petitions. The information is presented systematically and effectively.

    Reply
    • I find the detailed comparison table extremely useful. It serves as a convenient reference to distinguish the two petitions effectively.

      Reply
    • Absolutely, the thorough explanation about the legal provisions and grounds for petitions is very enlightening. It clarifies the process remarkably.

      Reply
  8. The article effectively elaborates on the main differences between Review and Curative Petitions. It’s a valuable resource for those seeking clarity on this topic.

    Reply
    • It’s quite commendable how the article covers the legal context and the practical aspect of filing these petitions. The intellectual depth of the content is praiseworthy.

      Reply
    • I agree. The comparison table sums up the distinctions succinctly. It’s a great reference point for understanding the procedural dissimilarities.

      Reply
  9. This article provides a clear and concise comparison between Review and Curative Petitions, helping to understand their legal context, timing, and admissibility. It’s quite informative.

    Reply
    • Tremendous detailed analysis. I appreciate the clarity in the legal context and procedural differences. A very well-structured article.

      Reply
    • Agreed, having this thorough explanation is very helpful to get a better understanding of the differences between these two types of petitions.

      Reply
  10. An astutely presented analysis of Review and Curative Petitions. The clarity and depth of the content make it an intellectually enriching read.

    Reply
    • I concur, the article is a commendable resource for understanding the intricate differences between Review and Curative Petitions. The intellectual depth is unparalleled.

      Reply
    • Absolutely, the thoroughness of the article earns high praise. It provides valuable insights and effectively expounds the complexities of these legal concepts.

      Reply

Leave a Comment

Want to save this article for later? Click the heart in the bottom right corner to save to your own articles box!