Supreme Court Review Petition Format: Grounds, Procedure and Sample Draft
A review petition requests the Supreme Court of India to reconsider its own judgment or order on narrowly defined grounds. This guide explains the governing provisions, filing requirements and an adaptable civil review petition based on a dispute concerning public safety, municipal traffic decisions and compliance with statutory conditions.
Legal basis for review by the Supreme Court
Article 137 of the Constitution of India empowers the Supreme Court to review a judgment pronounced or order made by it, subject to laws enacted by Parliament and rules framed under Article 145. Article 145 authorises the Court to make rules governing its practice and procedure, subject to constitutional requirements.
Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 governs the grounds of review: in civil proceedings, the grounds are those stated in Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC); in criminal proceedings, the prescribed ground is an error apparent on the face of the record. An Advocate-on-Record must provide the required certificate concerning the first review application and permissible grounds.
Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC provides, in substance, for review where there is discovery of new and important matter or evidence that could not be produced despite due diligence, a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or another sufficient reason recognised by law. Merely disagreeing with the result or asking for a fresh evaluation of the entire case ordinarily does not establish a review ground.
Section 151 CPC preserves the inherent powers of civil courts to make orders necessary for justice or to prevent abuse of process; it does not independently expand the Supreme Court's restricted review jurisdiction. A Supreme Court review petition should principally invoke Article 137 and the applicable Supreme Court Rules, with the CPC review grounds identified where relevant.
Consult the official Supreme Court Rules and amendment notifications, the Court's jurisdiction explanation and the Supreme Court judgment discussing Article 137 and review grounds.
Time limit and filing procedure
| Requirement | General position |
|---|---|
| Limitation | Order XLVII Rule 2 of the Supreme Court Rules prescribes filing within 30 days of the judgment or order sought to be reviewed. If delayed, seek condonation with an explanation; it is not automatic. |
| Grounds | Specify the precise error or other permissible civil-review ground, with paragraph and page references. |
| Advocate-on-Record | Include the certificate required by Order XLVII Rule 1 and comply with applicable filing and representation rules. |
| Hearing | Under Order XLVII Rule 3, review is ordinarily decided by circulation without oral arguments unless the Court orders otherwise. |
| Repeat review | Order XLVII Rule 5 generally prohibits another review application after the first review is disposed of in the same matter. |
The Court may dismiss the review or direct notice to the other side. A curative petition, where legally maintainable, is a separate and exceptionally limited remedy under Order XLVIII, not a routine further appeal.
Illustrative civil review petition format
The following draft retains the underlying example of a narrow road, a proposed private bus stand, earlier High Court directions and alleged confusion between a municipal advisory body and a statutory traffic regulatory authority. Every factual assertion must be supported by the actual record. The example does not establish that review is maintainable in any particular case, especially where the earlier Supreme Court order dismissed a special leave petition.
SYNOPSIS
The Review Petitioner seeks review of the order dated [DD/MM/YYYY] passed by this Hon'ble Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. [NUMBER/YEAR], arising from the judgment dated [DD/MM/YYYY] of the High Court of [STATE] in W.P.(C) No. [NUMBER/YEAR]. The petition is confined to an alleged error apparent on the face of the record concerning the authority that approved the reopening of a narrow municipal road to heavy vehicles and the legal effect of earlier statutory conditions and judicial directions.
The underlying dispute concerns a road approximately 1.5 kilometres long and averaging approximately five metres in width, earlier diverted to a bypass. The municipality subsequently proposed to restore heavy vehicular movement and operationalise a private bus stand near shopping complexes. Residents alleged danger to pedestrians, schoolchildren, children attending a nearby special school and other road users, particularly without the widening and safety measures previously required.
It is alleged that the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chief Town Planner, Regional Transport Authority and an Advocate Commissioner appointed by the High Court had recorded conditions or recommendations concerning road widening, traffic safety and requisite permissions. The Review Petitioner contends that the High Court's decision treated a decision of [NAME OF MUNICIPAL BODY] as though it were a decision of a duly constituted Traffic Regulatory Committee under the Kerala Police Act, 2011. Whether that description was materially incorrect and whether it affected the Supreme Court's order must be demonstrated from the actual documents and findings.
LIST OF DATES AND EVENTS
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| [YEAR] | Heavy vehicle traffic on [ROAD NAME] was diverted to the newly constructed bypass following road-safety concerns. |
| [DD/MM/YYYY] | Residents challenged the proposed private bus stand in W.P.(C) No. [NUMBER/YEAR]. |
| [DD/MM/YYYY] | The High Court directed compliance with necessary statutory permissions, including those of the Regional Transport Authority, as applicable. |
| [DD/MM/YYYY] | Relevant authorities issued reports, conditions or recommendations on widening and safe traffic movement. |
| [DD/MM/YYYY] | The municipality resolved to reopen the road and/or operationalise the private bus stand. |
| [DD/MM/YYYY] | The High Court delivered the judgment subsequently challenged before the Supreme Court. |
| [DD/MM/YYYY] | The Supreme Court passed the order in SLP (Civil) Diary No. [NUMBER/YEAR] now sought to be reviewed. |
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL REVIEW JURISDICTION
REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) NO. _____ OF 20____
IN
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) DIARY NO. _____ OF 20____
UNDER ARTICLE 137 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH ORDER XLVII OF THE SUPREME COURT RULES, 2013
IN THE MATTER OF:
[NAME AND ADDRESS OF REVIEW PETITIONER] — Review Petitioner
VERSUS
[NAME AND ADDRESS OF RESPONDENT(S)] — Respondent(s)
POSITION OF PARTIES
| Party | Before High Court | Before Supreme Court |
|---|---|---|
| [PETITIONER] | [Petitioner / Respondent / Not a party] | [Petitioner / Applicant / Other] |
| [RESPONDENT NO. 1] | [Status] | [Status] |
REVIEW PETITION SEEKING REVIEW OF ORDER DATED [DD/MM/YYYY]
To
The Hon'ble Chief Justice of India and the Companion Justices of the Supreme Court of India.
The humble petition of the Review Petitioner above named:
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:
- That the present petition seeks review of the order dated [DATE] passed in SLP (Civil) Diary No. [NUMBER/YEAR]. The Review Petitioner invokes Article 137 of the Constitution and Order XLVII of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, on the specific grounds set out below.
- That the Review Petitioner relies upon the pleadings, orders and documents forming part of the record of the special leave proceedings, without attempting to reopen the entire dispute as an appeal.
- That the High Court, while disposing of W.P.(C) No. [NUMBER/YEAR], allegedly overlooked its earlier directions dated [DATES] requiring statutory permissions and compliance with road-widening and public-safety conditions. The relevant passages are at [RECORD REFERENCES].
- That the municipality proposed to reopen the approximately 1.5-kilometre narrow road to heavy vehicular traffic and operationalise a private bus stand without, according to the Review Petitioner, satisfying the conditions recorded by [IDENTIFY AUTHORITY] on [DATE]. The supporting documents are [ANNEXURE REFERENCES].
- That the order under review is said to proceed upon a material misdescription of [NAME OF MUNICIPAL BODY] as the Traffic Regulatory Committee constituted under the applicable provisions of the Kerala Police Act, 2011. The respective constitution, powers and decision-making records of these bodies are identified at [RECORD REFERENCES].
- That this distinction is material because [STATE THE PRECISE LEGAL CONSEQUENCE]. The Review Petitioner submits that the specific finding at paragraph [NUMBER] of the impugned order contains an error apparent on the face of the record, rather than a point requiring a fresh and contested appraisal of evidence.
- That the alleged failure to consider binding earlier directions and mandatory safety conditions directly affects the claimed protection of residents, pedestrians, schoolchildren and other road users. Any constitutional or statutory right relied upon is specifically identified as [PROVISION AND RECORD BASIS].
- That the present review is filed within the period prescribed by Order XLVII Rule 2 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013; alternatively, an appropriate application for condonation of delay is filed with reasons.
- That this is the first review petition seeking review of the said order by the Review Petitioner, and no earlier review application in the same matter has been disposed of, subject to verification of the case record.
GROUNDS FOR REVIEW
A. Because the identified passage of the order allegedly contains an error apparent on the face of the record concerning the statutory status of the body that took the relevant traffic decision.
B. Because the legal effect of specific earlier directions and statutory conditions is alleged to have been overlooked in a manner satisfying the strict test for review, as demonstrated by the cited record.
C. Because the alleged error materially affects the determination concerning road safety and the authority to permit heavy vehicle movement, without requiring a rehearing on merits.
PRAYER
It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to:
- Allow this Review Petition and review or recall the order dated [DD/MM/YYYY] passed in SLP (Civil) Diary No. [NUMBER/YEAR], to the extent justified by the established review grounds;
- Pass such consequential or other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the interests of justice.
AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE REVIEW PETITIONER AS IN DUTY BOUND SHALL EVER PRAY.
FILED BY:
[NAME OF ADVOCATE-ON-RECORD]
Advocate-on-Record for the Review Petitioner
Drawn by: [NAME]
Drawn on: [DATE]
Filed on: [DATE]
Place: New Delhi
ADVOCATE-ON-RECORD CERTIFICATE
I, [NAME], Advocate-on-Record for the Review Petitioner, certify, after verification of the record and instructions, that this is the first application for review and that it is based on grounds admissible under the Supreme Court Rules, 2013.
Signature: __________
Name and AOR Code: __________
Date: __________
VERIFICATION / SUPPORTING AFFIDAVIT
Include the verification, affidavit and any other documents required by the current Supreme Court Rules, practice directions and Registry scrutiny, using facts verified by the deponent and the prescribed form where applicable.
Practical filing checklist and official references
- Check whether the impugned Supreme Court order is reviewable on the pleaded grounds, including the effect of dismissal of special leave.
- Confirm the judgment date, case number, limitation calculation and any required delay-condonation application.
- Identify the precise error with paragraph, page and annexure references; do not simply repeat the SLP.
- Verify the earlier High Court orders, municipal resolution, statutory committee constitution, traffic permissions and technical reports.
- Prepare the synopsis, list of dates, cause title, review grounds, prayer, AOR certificate and applicable supporting documents.
- Confirm current e-filing, formatting, fees and procedural directions with the Supreme Court Registry.
Official resources: Supreme Court Rules and amendments; Supreme Court practice and filing guidance; Interlocutory application categories; and Supreme Court jurisdiction.
Legal note: The statutory power of a Kerala traffic regulatory committee must be determined from the applicable version of the Kerala Police Act, 2011 and the actual constitution and delegation documents. This sample does not assume that every municipal committee lacks statutory authority.