Review Petition in Supreme Court under Article 137: Grounds, Time Limit and Filing Procedure
A review petition asks the Supreme Court of India to reconsider its own judgment or order on narrowly defined legal grounds. Article 137 of the Constitution confers the power of review, subject to laws made by Parliament and rules made under Article 145. Review is not a second appeal and cannot ordinarily be used to reargue a case merely because a party disagrees with the outcome.
Constitutional and statutory framework
Article 137 of the Constitution of India
Article 137 empowers the Supreme Court to review a judgment pronounced or an order made by it, subject to parliamentary law and the rules framed under Article 145. Article 145 authorises the Court to make procedural rules, subject to constitutional requirements. The applicable procedural framework is the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, as amended.
Order XLVII of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013
Order XLVII prescribes the permissible grounds, Advocate-on-Record certification, filing period, consideration by circulation, possible refund of court fees and prohibition on a second review application in the same matter. It must not be confused with Order XLVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which specifies substantive grounds for review in civil proceedings.
Grounds for filing a review petition
Review in civil proceedings
Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules refers to the grounds in Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. These include:
- Discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, despite due diligence, was not within the applicant's knowledge or could not be produced when the judgment or order was made.
- A mistake or error apparent on the face of the record.
- Any other sufficient reason, construed in accordance with established review jurisprudence.
An error apparent is a patent error; an issue requiring extensive reargument or two plausible interpretations is ordinarily not enough. A later reversal of a legal proposition in another case does not, by itself, constitute a review ground under the Explanation to Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC.
Review in criminal proceedings
Under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules, a review petition in a criminal proceeding is maintainable on the ground of an error apparent on the face of the record. Questions about who has standing to seek review, including third-party applications, depend on the circumstances and governing decisions. A stranger does not acquire an unrestricted right to seek criminal review merely by asserting public interest.
Illustration of an apparent error
Suppose a judgment relies on an earlier decision allowing an examination opportunity to candidates qualifying between 2006 and 2008, but inadvertently records eligibility only for candidates qualifying in 2008. If the inconsistency is demonstrable from the existing record, it may justify examination under review jurisdiction. Whether review is actually granted depends on the order, material record and applicable law.
Time limit and procedure for filing
- Identify the precise error: compare the impugned judgment with the pleadings, evidence and applicable review grounds.
- Prepare the petition: state the judgment or order under challenge, relevant case particulars, specific review grounds, supporting record references and prayer for relief.
- Obtain the Advocate-on-Record certificate: Order XLVII Rule 1 requires certification that this is the first review application and that it rests on admissible grounds.
- File within 30 days: Rule 2 specifies 30 days from the judgment or order. Where filing is late, a properly supported application for condonation of delay may be necessary; condonation is not automatic.
- Comply with Registry requirements: submit the prescribed petition, affidavit, documents, court fee and other materials under current filing directions. See the Supreme Court e-filing portal and official forms.
- Consideration by the Court: ordinarily, the petition is circulated to the same Judge or Bench, as far as practicable, without oral arguments unless otherwise ordered.
How the Court decides a review petition
Rule 3: Unless otherwise directed, review applications are disposed of by circulation without oral submissions. Additional written arguments may be submitted. The Court may dismiss the petition or direct notice to the opposite party. As far as practicable, circulation is to the judges who decided the original matter.
Rule 4: If the Court reverses or modifies its former decision on a mistake of law or fact, it may direct refund of the review court fee in whole or part where justice so requires.
Rule 5: Once a review application against a judgment or order has been disposed of, no further review application is entertained in the same matter.
Difference between review, appeal and curative petition
| Remedy | Purpose | Key distinction |
|---|---|---|
| Appeal | Challenge a decision before a competent appellate forum | May permit broader reconsideration within statutory limits |
| Review | Ask the same Court to correct a qualifying error | Narrow grounds; not an appeal in disguise |
| Curative petition | Seek exceptional reconsideration after dismissal of review | Subject to stringent conditions under Order XLVIII and Rupa Ashok Hurra |
Read the related guide on curative petitions before the Supreme Court.
Important Supreme Court judgments on review jurisdiction
Judicial decisions repeatedly distinguish correction of manifest errors from reopening concluded litigation. The following authorities, retained from the original article, illustrate different applications of review principles; the facts and subsequent treatment of each judgment should be checked before citation.
| Case | Principle or context |
|---|---|
| Lily Thomas V. Union of India (2000) 6 SCC 224 | The Supreme Court held that a review is not an appel in disguise and its purpose was to ensure that justice was not defeated and errors leading to miscarriage of justice were remedied. Errors requiring review were those which patent and apparent from the face of the record were errors of inadvertence, but not those that needed to be fished out. |
| Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. V. Government of Andhra Pradesh (1964) 5 SCR 1974 | The court held that there was a distinction between a mere erroneous decision and a decision which could be characterized as vitiated by an "error apparent", and a review was by no means an appeal in disguise. |
| Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Pine Chemicals Ltd. (1995) 1 SCC 58 | The Supreme Court held that an interpretation of statue of law at variance with the clear and simple language thereof, would be an error apparent on the face of the record warranting review. |
| Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh v. Faculty Association (1998) 4 SCC 1 | The Supreme Court held that a review petition on the ground that an earlier order had been rendered on a wrong appreciation of law, was liable to be allowed. |
| Srinivasiah v. Sree Balaji Krishna Hardware Stores (1998) 8 SCC 312 | The court found ample justification for review of its order, when it was pointed out that the case had been argued and decided on the basis of the judgment of the High Court alone and the judgments of the Rent Controller and Appellate Authority, containing contrarary findings, had not been brought on record. The said findings when brought to the notice of the Court were accepted. The said findings when brought to the notice of the Court were accepted as findings of fact and review was allowed. |
| Common Cause v. Union of India (1999) 6 SCC 667 | The court allowed a review petition filed by Capt. Satish Sharma on the ground that there was an "error apparent on the face of record" resulting in serious miscarriage of Justice. The Court held that its earlier Order holding the Minister liable for misfeasance in public office and the directing payment of exemplary damage of Rs. 50 lakhs in addition to investigation by the CBI, was incorrect in law. |
| H.C. Puttaswamy v. Hon'ble Chief Justice of Karnataka, High Court Bangalore 1991 Supp (2) SCC 421 | The court allowed Review petition, which pleaded that the directions issued by the Court in earlier order, though "merciful", were not likely to insure the benefit of a large number of petitioners, as a majority of the petitioners, who were directed to reapply for appointment as their appointment was irregular, had become overage. It was stated that all of them had worked on the posts and gained experience for more than 10 years and it would cause them irreparable injury if they were through out of employment. The Court held that these facts had not been brought to its attention when the Special Leave Petitions were disposed of. Holding that it was a human problem which required sympathetic consideration, the Court allowed the review petitions and directed that the petitioners be considered as regularly appointed with all past benefits. |
| S. Nagaraj v. State of Karnataka 1993 Supp (4) SCC 595 | The court while recalling its earlier order and modifying it, observed that review literally and even judicially meant re-examination or re-consideration, the basic philosophy inherent being the universal acceptance of human fallibility. It was held that rectification of an order stems from the fundamental principle that justice was above all and the power to rectify was to remove the error and not to disturb finality. The court observed that apart from the fundamental principle that justice was above all and the power to rectify was to remove the error and not to disturb finality. The court observed that apart from the Order XL Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules, it had inherent powers to make such orders as may be necessary in the interest of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court, and it was not precluded from recalling or reviewing its own order if it was satisfied that it was necessary to do for the sake of justice. The court however held that mere pendency of a matter questioning the correctness of a judgment was not a ground for review. |
| Union of India v. Mohd. Nayyar Khalil (2000) 9 SCC 252 | Though impugned order had followed a three Judge Bench judgment and the correctness of the said judgment was under consideration before a Constitution Bench, the Court declined review on two grounds: 1. That the fact had not been pointed out to the Court at the time of hearing of the appeal 2. Even if the constitution Bench were to take a contrary view, as was clear from subsequent event which could not be a ground for review, as was clear from Explanation to Order XLVII Rule 1(ii) of the Code of Civil Procedure. (The fact that the decision on question of law on which the Judgment of the Court is based has been reversed or modified by the subsequent decision of a superior Court in any other case, shall not be a ground for the review of such judgment.) |
| Delhi Administration v. Gurdip Singh Urban (2000) 9 SCC 252 | The court depreciated the practice of filing review petitions mechanically as a matter of routine where the grounds for review were a mere reproduction of the grounds for special leave and there was no indication as to which ground strictly fell within the narrow limits of Order XL of Supreme Court Rules. |
Further relevant decisions include Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati, (2013) 8 SCC 320, on recognised review grounds and limitations; and Beghar Foundation v. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.), (2021) 3 SCC 1, on the limited scope of review. For the Court's explanation of Order XLVII, see this official Supreme Court judgment (5 July 2023).
Frequently asked questions
Can a review petition be filed simply because the Supreme Court judgment appears wrong?
No. Mere disagreement or an alternative interpretation is ordinarily insufficient. A recognised ground under Order XLVII must be established.
What is the deadline for filing a Supreme Court review petition?
Order XLVII Rule 2 provides 30 days from the date of the judgment or order. Delay requires appropriate procedural relief and explanation.
Is oral hearing a right in review proceedings?
No. The normal process is disposal by circulation, unless the Court orders otherwise.
Can a second review petition be filed?
Rule 5 bars a further review application after the first has been disposed of in the same matter. A curative petition is a separate and exceptional remedy subject to strict conditions.
Official legal resources
- Supreme Court Rules and amendments
- Supreme Court jurisdiction
- Advocates-on-Record information
- Interlocutory application categories
- E-filing FAQs
Other important case-law guides
This article provides general legal information. Verify the latest rules, practice directions, limitation computation and case-specific requirements before filing.