Writs & Supreme Court

Curative Petition under Order XLVIII Supreme Court Rules 2013

A Curative Petition is the last judicial resort available to a litigant to prevent an abuse of the process of the Supreme Court and to cure a gross miscarriage of justice. It is not a regular appeal or a second review but an exceptional remedy invoked only after a review petition against a final judgment has been dismissed.

This petition is filed before the Supreme Court of India under its inherent jurisdiction, as crystallised in Order XLVIII of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, read with the principles laid down in Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra. The petition is circulated to the three senior-most judges and the judges who passed the original judgment, and is ordinarily decided by circulation.

Draft this in LexPilot — freeHow AI drafting works
Governing law
Order XLVIII Supreme Court Rules 2013 r/w Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra (2002) 4 SCC 388
Sections
s. Order XLVIII Rule 1s. Order XLVIII Rule 2s. Order XLVIII Rule 3s. Order XLVIII Rule 4s. Order XLVIII Rule 5
Filed before
Supreme Court of India (Curative / Inherent Jurisdiction)

When this is the right filing

  • When a review petition against a final judgment of the Supreme Court has been dismissed by circulation.
  • When the petitioner can strictly demonstrate a violation of the principles of natural justice, such as not being heard or submissions not being considered.
  • When there is a reasonable apprehension of bias on the part of a judge who participated in the original decision.
  • When a gross miscarriage of justice has occurred that shocks the conscience of the court.
  • Do not use this petition to re-argue the merits of the original case or as a disguised second review; it is confined to the three Rupa Ashok Hurra grounds.

What the court looks for

  • A mandatory certificate from a Senior Advocate confirming the petition meets the Rupa Ashok Hurra requirements and is not frivolous or vexatious.
  • A mandatory certificate from the Advocate on Record stating it is the first curative petition in the matter.
  • Specific averments that the grounds raised were taken in the review petition and that the review was dismissed by circulation.
  • Grounds strictly confined to violation of natural justice, reasonable apprehension of bias, or a gross miscarriage of justice, each tied to the factual record.
  • The certified copy of the dismissed review petition and its dismissal order as mandatory annexures.

The structure the court expects

The components of the filed format, in the order they appear. LexPilot fills every one of them from your facts and papers.

  1. 1Index
  2. 2Office report on limitation
  3. 3Proforma for first listing
  4. 4Synopsis
  5. 5List of dates & events
  6. 6Mandatory averments under order xlviii
  7. 7Grounds for curative jurisdiction
  8. 8Prayer
  9. 9Certificate of senior advocate
  10. 10Certificate of advocate on record
  11. 11Affidavit
How it opens
The Petitioner submits that the grave miscarriage of justice / violation of the principles of natural justice in the Judgment under Challenge warrants the exercise of the curative jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court on the following grounds:—

Bracketed items are filled from your case.

Frequently asked questions

What happens if a curative petition is filed without the Senior Advocate's certificate?

The certificate from a Senior Advocate is mandatory under Order XLVIII Rule 3 and the Rupa Ashok Hurra judgment. The Supreme Court Registry will reject the petition, and if it is listed, the court will dismiss it with exemplary costs for being a frivolous filing.

Is there a fixed limitation period for filing a curative petition?

Order XLVIII of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 does not prescribe a fixed limitation period. The petition must be filed within a reasonable time after the dismissal of the review. In practice, the Registry often applies a 30-day norm by analogy, and any delay beyond that should be explained with a condonation application.

Can a curative petition be filed if the review petition was dismissed after an oral hearing in open court?

The mandatory averment under Order XLVIII Rule 3 requires stating that the review was dismissed by circulation. If the review was dismissed after an oral hearing, the ground of dismissal by circulation may not apply, and the petitioner must carefully consult the Rupa Ashok Hurra requirements to state alternative grounds clearly.

Draft this in LexPilot — free

Free trial · Drafting assistance, not legal advice — always verify before filing.

More writs & supreme court formats

All writs & supreme court formats →