Consider the following statements regarding Curative petition as a final resort against finality of Supreme Court judgments:
1. The Supreme Court maintains that a curative petition is entertained only if the petitioner establishes a violation of the principles of natural justice or a reasonable apprehension of bias.
2. In the 2013 judgment of Union of India v. Union Carbide Corporation, the Supreme Court examined the maintainability of a curative petition regarding the Bhopal Gas Tragedy compensation.
3. Under the established procedure, a curative petition is required to be supported by a certification from a Senior Advocate specifying that the grounds for the petition are valid.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct.
Statement 1 is correct as the Supreme Court established in Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra (2002) that curative petitions are limited to cases involving violations of natural justice or judicial bias. Statement 2 is correct because the 2023 judgment in Union of India v. Union Carbide Corporation addressed the curative petition filed by the government seeking additional compensation for the Bhopal Gas Tragedy victims. Statement 3 is correct as the procedural rules mandate that the petition must be accompanied by a certification from a Senior Advocate to ensure the grounds are legally sound and the petition is not frivolous.
Consider the following statements regarding Institutional safeguards against abuse of the curative petition process:
1. The Supreme Court exercises its curative jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution, which empowers the Court to pass such decrees or orders as are necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter.
2. In the case of Union of India v. Union Carbide Corporation, the Supreme Court utilized the curative petition framework to enhance the compensation amount for the victims of the Bhopal gas tragedy.
3. The Supreme Court Rules of 1966 were amended in 2002 to include a provision for the curative petition, which allows the Chief Justice of India to appoint a single judge to determine the maintainability of the plea.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is correct as the Supreme Court derived the curative petition concept from its inherent powers under Article 142 to ensure complete justice, as established in Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra (2002). Statement 2 is incorrect because the curative petition was not used in the Bhopal gas tragedy case; the settlement was challenged via a curative petition in 2022, which the Court dismissed in 2023. Statement 3 is incorrect because the Supreme Court Rules mandate that a curative petition must be circulated to a Bench of the three senior-most judges and the judges who passed the original judgment, rather than a single judge.
Consider the following statements regarding Role of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 in regulating curative petitions:
1. Under the 2013 Rules, a curative petition is typically decided by circulation in chambers, unless a majority of the judges on the bench conclude that an open court hearing is necessary.
2. The curative petition procedure is governed by the 1966 Supreme Court Rules, which were amended in 2013 to incorporate the specific guidelines established in the 2002 constitutional bench ruling.
3. The 2013 Rules provide for the automatic stay of the execution of a death sentence upon the filing of a curative petition in the Supreme Court Registry.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is correct because Order XLVIII of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 mandates that curative petitions are generally decided by circulation in chambers, with an open court hearing granted only if a majority of the judges so direct. Statement 2 is incorrect because the curative petition mechanism was introduced by the Supreme Court in the Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra (2002) case, and the 2013 Rules merely codified this existing judicial precedent rather than being a 1966 amendment. Statement 3 is incorrect because the filing of a curative petition does not grant an automatic stay of execution; a stay must be specifically sought by the petitioner and granted by the bench upon consideration of the merits.
Consider the following statements regarding Procedural threshold: Circulation of petition to the three senior-most judges:
1. The Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra (2002) judgment established the curative petition as the final judicial recourse available to a litigant after the dismissal of a review petition.
2. The 2002 Supreme Court judgment provided that a curative petition can be filed within ninety days of the date of the order dismissing the review petition.
3. A curative petition is circulated to a bench comprising the three senior-most judges of the Supreme Court and the judges who authored the original judgment, provided they are still in office.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 3 is correct. Statement 2 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is correct as the Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra (2002) judgment formally introduced the curative petition to prevent abuse of process and cure gross miscarriages of justice. Statement 3 is correct because the procedure mandates that the petition be circulated to the three senior-most judges and the judges who passed the impugned judgment, if available. Statement 2 is incorrect because, while the Supreme Court Rules specify a 30-day limitation period for filing a review petition, the curative petition does not have a fixed statutory limitation period prescribed by the 2002 judgment, though it must be filed within a reasonable time.
Consider the following statements regarding Applicability of curative petitions to civil vs criminal matters:
1. The Supreme Court Rules of 2013 contain specific provisions under Order XLVIII regarding the filing and processing of curative petitions.
2. The concept of a curative petition was evolved by the Supreme Court of India in the 2002 case of Rupa Ashok Hurra versus Ashok Hurra.
3. A curative petition is heard by a bench comprising the three senior-most judges and the judges who passed the original judgment, provided they are still in office.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct.
All three statements are correct: Order XLVIII of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, explicitly governs the procedure for curative petitions, which were judicially innovated in the 2002 Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra case to prevent abuse of process and miscarriage of justice. These petitions are heard by a specialized bench consisting of the three senior-most judges of the Supreme Court and the judges who authored the original judgment (if available), ensuring a rigorous review process applicable to both civil and criminal matters.
Consider the following statements regarding Constitutional basis under Article 137 and Article 142:
1. The 2013 Supreme Court Rules permit a curative petition to be filed within a period of 180 days from the date of the final order, provided the petitioner has exhausted the review jurisdiction.
2. The curative petition process allows the High Courts to entertain similar pleas under Article 226, provided the case involves a violation of the principles of natural justice.
3. Article 142 of the Constitution empowers the President of India to refer a curative petition to the Supreme Court for an advisory opinion on matters of significant public importance.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is incorrect because the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, require a curative petition to be filed within 30 days, not 180 days, from the date of the order. Statement 2 is incorrect as the curative petition is a unique remedy exclusively available in the Supreme Court, and High Courts have no jurisdiction to entertain such petitions under Article 226. Statement 3 is incorrect because Article 142 empowers the Supreme Court to pass decrees for 'doing complete justice' in any cause or matter pending before it, and it does not grant the President any power to refer curative petitions for advisory opinions.
Consider the following statements regarding Origin and evolution of curative petition via Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra case:
1. A curative petition is considered the final judicial recourse available to a litigant after the dismissal of a review petition by the Supreme Court.
2. The Supreme Court of India introduced the concept of a curative petition in the 2002 judgment of Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra.
3. The Rupa Ashok Hurra case originated from a matrimonial dispute, and the court invoked its inherent powers under Article 142 to formalize the curative petition process in 1997.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statements 1 and 2 are correct because the Supreme Court established the curative petition in the 2002 Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra judgment as a final remedial measure to prevent miscarriage of justice after a review petition is dismissed. Statement 3 is incorrect because, while the case did originate from a matrimonial dispute, the judgment was delivered in 2002, not 1997, and the court derived its authority to create this mechanism from its plenary powers under Article 142 to do 'complete justice'.
Consider the following statements regarding Curative petition as a safeguard against miscarriage of justice:
1. The procedure for curative petitions is governed by Order XLVIII of the Supreme Court Rules, which allows the Chief Justice of India to appoint an amicus curiae to assist the bench in evaluating the merits of the petition.
2. The curative petition process allows for the inclusion of new evidence that was not available during the trial stage, provided the petitioner files an affidavit within 60 days of the original judgment.
3. The Rupa Ashok Hurra judgment established that a curative petition can be filed against any order passed by a High Court, provided the petition is supported by a certificate from a Senior Advocate.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is incorrect because the curative petition procedure is governed by Order XLVIII of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, but it does not mandate the appointment of an amicus curiae; rather, it is usually decided by circulation by the three senior-most judges and the judges who passed the original judgment. Statement 2 is incorrect as a curative petition is not a mechanism for introducing new evidence, but is strictly limited to cases where there is a violation of natural justice or a reasonable apprehension of bias. Statement 3 is incorrect because the Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra (2002) judgment specifically limits the curative petition to final judgments or orders passed by the Supreme Court, not the High Courts.
Consider the following statements regarding Role of bias or apprehension of bias in curative jurisdiction:
1. The curative jurisdiction is derived from Article 137 of the Constitution, which allows the Supreme Court to review its own judgments subject to the rules made under Article 145.
2. The 2002 judgment establishing the curative petition mechanism was delivered by a five-judge Constitution Bench led by Justice S.P. Bharucha during his tenure as the 35th Chief Justice of India.
3. Bias or apprehension of bias serves as a primary ground for filing a curative petition, as outlined in the Supreme Court Rules of 1966 regarding the conduct of judges in civil appellate matters.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is incorrect because the curative jurisdiction is an inherent power derived from Article 142 to do 'complete justice', not Article 137, which pertains to the power of review. Statement 2 is incorrect as the curative petition mechanism was established in the Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra (2002) case by a Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice A.S. Anand, not Justice S.P. Bharucha. Statement 3 is incorrect because bias or apprehension of bias is a valid ground for a curative petition based on the Rupa Ashok Hurra judgment, not the Supreme Court Rules of 1966, which do not contain such provisions.
Consider the following statements regarding Applicability of curative petitions to civil vs criminal matters:
1. The curative petition mechanism is applicable to both civil and criminal matters decided by the Supreme Court of India.
2. A curative petition is generally filed after a review petition is dismissed by the Supreme Court of India.
3. The petitioner is required to include a certification by a Senior Advocate confirming that the curative petition fulfills the procedural requirements established in 2002.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct.
The curative petition, introduced by the Supreme Court in the Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra (2002) case, is a final judicial remedy applicable to both civil and criminal matters to prevent abuse of process and gross miscarriage of justice. It is procedurally mandatory to file a curative petition only after a review petition has been dismissed, and it must be supported by a certification from a Senior Advocate confirming that the grounds meet the strict criteria established in the 2002 judgment. As all three statements accurately reflect the legal framework and procedural requirements governing this extraordinary jurisdiction, they are all correct.
Consider the following statements regarding Distinction between Review Petition and Curative Petition:
1. The Supreme Court Rules, 2013, specify that a curative petition must be accompanied by a certification from a Senior Advocate, confirming that the grounds for the petition are met.
2. A curative petition can be filed against an order passed by the Supreme Court in its appellate jurisdiction, but the court maintains a policy of rejecting such petitions if they involve questions of fact rather than law.
3. The process for curative petitions involves a preliminary screening by a panel of five judges, who determine if the petition meets the criteria set out in the 2002 guidelines before it is circulated to the bench.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is correct because the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, mandate that a curative petition must be supported by a certificate from a Senior Advocate to ensure legal merit. Statement 2 is incorrect because curative petitions are not restricted to appellate jurisdiction and can be filed against any final judgment of the Supreme Court, provided there is a violation of natural justice or bias. Statement 3 is incorrect because, per the Rupa Hurra v. Ashok Hurra (2002) judgment, the petition is circulated to a bench of the three senior-most judges and the judges who passed the original judgment, not a fixed panel of five judges.
Consider the following statements regarding Relationship between curative petitions and the inherent powers of the Supreme Court:
1. The Rupa Ashok Hurra judgment established that a curative petition is maintainable only in civil cases where there is a violation of the principles of natural justice during the initial trial proceedings.
2. The inherent powers of the Supreme Court under Article 142 allow the Court to bypass the curative petition process and directly entertain fresh evidence in criminal matters after the dismissal of a review petition.
3. The Law Commission of India in its 187th Report recommended the statutory codification of curative petitions within the Code of Civil Procedure to standardize the procedure across all High Courts.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is incorrect because the Rupa Ashok Hurra (2002) judgment established that curative petitions are maintainable in both civil and criminal matters to prevent abuse of process and gross miscarriage of justice. Statement 2 is incorrect as Article 142 does not bypass the curative petition process; rather, the curative petition itself is an exercise of the Court's inherent power to rectify a final judgment, and it cannot be used to introduce fresh evidence. Statement 3 is incorrect because the 187th Law Commission Report did not recommend statutory codification; instead, it emphasized that the curative petition is a judicial innovation derived from the Supreme Court's inherent powers under Article 142 to ensure justice, rather than a procedure for High Courts.
Consider the following statements regarding Curative petition as a final resort against finality of Supreme Court judgments:
1. The curative petition mechanism finds its origin in Article 143 of the Constitution, which allows the President to seek an advisory opinion from the Supreme Court on matters of public importance.
2. The concept of a curative petition was evolved by the Supreme Court in the 2002 case of Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra to provide a final remedy against miscarriage of justice.
3. A curative petition is generally heard by the three senior-most judges of the Supreme Court along with the judges who passed the original judgment, provided they are still available.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct. Statement 1 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is incorrect because the curative petition is a judicial innovation derived from the Supreme Court's inherent power under Article 129 and Article 142 to prevent miscarriage of justice, not from the advisory jurisdiction of Article 143. Statement 2 is correct as the Supreme Court established this mechanism in the 2002 Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra case to ensure that final judgments do not violate principles of natural justice. Statement 3 is correct because, as per the established procedure, these petitions are circulated to a bench comprising the three senior-most judges and the judges who delivered the original impugned judgment, if they are available.
Consider the following statements regarding Relationship between curative petitions and the inherent powers of the Supreme Court:
1. Under the Supreme Court Rules of 2013, a curative petition is heard in open court by a Constitution Bench consisting of at least seven judges to ensure transparency in final verdicts.
2. The concept of a curative petition was first evolved by the Supreme Court in the 2002 case of Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra to prevent abuse of its process.
3. The curative petition mechanism was formally introduced through the 124th Constitutional Amendment Act to provide a final layer of judicial scrutiny beyond the review jurisdiction.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 2 is correct. Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 2 is correct as the Supreme Court established the curative petition in Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra (2002) to prevent abuse of its process and cure gross miscarriage of justice. Statement 1 is incorrect because curative petitions are generally decided by circulation in chambers by the three senior-most judges and the judges who passed the original judgment, not necessarily a seven-judge Constitution Bench in open court. Statement 3 is incorrect because the curative petition is a judicial innovation derived from the Supreme Court's inherent powers under Article 142, not a mechanism introduced by any Constitutional Amendment Act.
Consider the following statements regarding In-chamber proceedings vs open court hearing mechanism:
1. The curative petition procedure is derived from Article 142 of the Constitution and permits the Chief Justice of India to direct an open court hearing if the petitioner provides a certificate from the Attorney General.
2. Under the Supreme Court Rules of 2013, the curative petition is listed before a bench of five judges in open court if the initial in-chamber review identifies a prima facie violation of the principles of natural justice.
3. The Supreme Court of India established the curative petition mechanism following the 2002 Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra judgment, which allows for in-chamber consideration by the three senior-most judges and the judges who passed the original order.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 3 is correct. Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect.
Statement 3 is correct as the curative petition was introduced in the 2002 Rupa Ashok Hurra case, mandating that petitions be circulated to a bench of the three senior-most judges and the judges who passed the original order, usually in-chamber. Statement 1 is incorrect because the procedure is a judicial innovation, not derived from a specific constitutional article, and does not require an Attorney General's certificate. Statement 2 is incorrect because, while the bench composition is accurate, the Supreme Court Rules of 2013 generally mandate in-chamber proceedings, and an open court hearing is only granted if the majority of the judges on the bench conclude that the matter requires such a hearing.
Consider the following statements regarding Origin and evolution of curative petition via Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra case:
1. Under the guidelines set in the 2002 ruling, a curative petition is maintainable if the petitioner demonstrates that the Attorney General of India has certified the petition as legally sound.
2. The Supreme Court Rules of 1966 were amended in 2003 to incorporate the curative petition mechanism, which allows for an oral hearing as a matter of right for all petitioners.
3. The bench hearing a curative petition may impose exemplary costs on the petitioner if the plea is found to be without merit or vexatious.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 3 is correct. Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect.
Statement 3 is correct because the Supreme Court, in the Rupa Ashok Hurra (2002) judgment, explicitly empowered the bench to impose exemplary costs if a curative petition is found to be meritless or vexatious. Statement 1 is incorrect because a curative petition requires certification by a senior advocate, not the Attorney General of India, to be maintainable. Statement 2 is incorrect because, while the 2003 amendment incorporated the mechanism, the rules stipulate that curative petitions are generally decided by circulation in chambers, and an oral hearing is not a matter of right but is granted only if the bench specifically directs it.
Consider the following statements regarding Grounds for filing a curative petition: Violation of principles of natural justice:
1. The Supreme Court Rules of 2013, specifically Order XLVIII, provide the procedural framework for the filing and adjudication of curative petitions.
2. A curative petition is required to be accompanied by a certification from a Senior Advocate, confirming that the grounds for the petition are legally sound.
3. One of the primary grounds for filing a curative petition is the violation of principles of natural justice, such as the apprehension of bias in the judge who passed the final order.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct.
All three statements are correct: Order XLVIII of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, formally codifies the curative petition process established by the Rupa Hurra v. Ashok Hurra (2002) judgment. To prevent frivolous litigation, the petition must be certified by a Senior Advocate, and it is strictly limited to cases involving a violation of principles of natural justice, such as a judge failing to disclose a conflict of interest (apprehension of bias) or a party not being heard.
Consider the following statements regarding Role of bias or apprehension of bias in curative jurisdiction:
1. A curative petition allows the petitioner to challenge a final order of the Supreme Court if they can demonstrate that the principles of natural justice were violated by a judge who had a pecuniary interest in the outcome.
2. The concept of the curative petition was formally evolved by the Supreme Court in the 2002 Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra case to prevent the abuse of the judicial process.
3. Under the established procedure, a curative petition is circulated to a bench consisting of the three senior-most judges and the judges who passed the original judgment, if available.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct. Statement 1 is incorrect.
Statement 2 is correct as the Supreme Court introduced the curative petition in the 2002 Rupa Ashok Hurra case to ensure justice after a review petition is dismissed. Statement 3 is correct because the petition is heard by the three senior-most judges and the judges who delivered the original judgment, provided they are available. Statement 1 is incorrect because, while violation of natural justice is a ground, the specific requirement for a curative petition is that the petitioner must establish that there was a reasonable apprehension of bias in the judge, not merely a pecuniary interest.
Consider the following statements regarding Role of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 in regulating curative petitions:
1. The curative petition process allows for the inclusion of fresh evidence that was available during the original trial but was not presented due to the negligence of the legal counsel.
2. The Supreme Court Rules, 2013, were introduced following the 2002 Rupa Ashok Hurra judgment to replace the Review Petition mechanism under Article 137.
3. The Supreme Court Rules, 2013, specify that a curative petition must be accompanied by a certification from a Senior Advocate confirming the grounds for the petition.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 3 is correct. Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect.
Statement 3 is correct because Order XLVIII of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, mandates that a curative petition must be certified by a Senior Advocate to ensure the grounds meet the strict criteria for such an extraordinary remedy. Statement 1 is incorrect because a curative petition cannot introduce fresh evidence that was available during the original trial; it is strictly limited to cases of gross violation of natural justice or bias. Statement 2 is incorrect because the curative petition mechanism was established by the 2002 Rupa Ashok Hurra judgment as a final resort after a review petition is dismissed, rather than replacing the review petition mechanism under Article 137.
Consider the following statements regarding Curative petition as a final resort against finality of Supreme Court judgments:
1. The Supreme Court registry is empowered to circulate the curative petition to the chambers of the judges for consideration without an open court hearing in the initial stage.
2. The Supreme Court Rules of 1966 were amended by the Parliament in 2002 to incorporate specific provisions for filing curative petitions as a statutory right for aggrieved litigants.
3. A curative petition can be filed against an order passed by a High Court under Article 226 if the petitioner has exhausted the remedy of a Special Leave Petition under Article 136.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is correct because, per the Rupa Hurra v. Ashok Hurra (2002) judgment, curative petitions are initially circulated to a bench of the three senior-most judges and the judges who passed the impugned order, typically decided in chambers. Statement 2 is incorrect because the curative petition was introduced by the Supreme Court through its inherent powers under Article 142, not by an Act of Parliament, and it is not a statutory right. Statement 3 is incorrect because a curative petition is exclusively a remedy against final judgments of the Supreme Court, not High Court orders, and cannot be filed against orders passed under Article 226.
Consider the following statements regarding In-chamber proceedings vs open court hearing mechanism:
1. The Rupa Ashok Hurra judgment introduced the curative petition to address procedural errors, and the court conducts these proceedings in open court by default to ensure transparency in the judicial review process.
2. The Supreme Court registry lists curative petitions for in-chamber proceedings, but the bench holds the authority to convert the matter into an open court hearing if the Solicitor General submits a formal request.
3. The curative petition process allows for the inclusion of new evidence discovered after the review petition is dismissed, provided the matter is heard by a bench of seven judges in an open court setting.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is incorrect because the Rupa Ashok Hurra (2002) judgment mandates that curative petitions are generally decided by circulation in-chamber, not in open court. Statement 2 is incorrect as the authority to convert a petition to an open court hearing rests solely with the bench, and the Solicitor General has no formal role or power to trigger such a conversion. Statement 3 is incorrect because curative petitions are heard by the three senior-most judges and the judges who passed the original judgment, not a mandatory seven-judge bench, and they are strictly limited to addressing gross violations of natural justice rather than the introduction of new evidence.
Consider the following statements regarding Grounds for filing a curative petition: Violation of principles of natural justice:
1. The Supreme Court of India has held that a curative petition is the last resort for a litigant after the dismissal of a review petition in a civil or criminal matter.
2. In the 2002 judgment, the Court observed that the curative petition is a mechanism to prevent abuse of its process and to cure gross miscarriage of justice.
3. The court fee for filing a curative petition is currently fixed at fifty rupees, as per the established practice for petitions filed under the Supreme Court Rules.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct.
Statement 1 is correct as the Supreme Court established the curative petition in Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra (2002) as the final judicial remedy after a review petition is dismissed. Statement 2 is correct because the 2002 judgment explicitly introduced this mechanism to prevent abuse of the judicial process and ensure that gross miscarriages of justice are rectified. Statement 3 is correct because, under the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, the court fee for filing a curative petition is indeed fixed at fifty rupees, maintaining the procedural consistency required for such extraordinary petitions.
Consider the following statements regarding In-chamber proceedings vs open court hearing mechanism:
1. The in-chamber proceeding for a curative petition involves the three senior-most judges, and the court permits the presence of legal counsel to present oral arguments during this specific stage of the review.
2. The Rupa Ashok Hurra verdict established that a curative petition is the final judicial remedy, and the court hears these petitions in open court to maintain parity with the review petition process under Article 137.
3. The curative petition mechanism is a statutory creation under the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act of 2002, which provides for an automatic open court hearing for all death penalty cases.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
All three statements are incorrect because curative petitions are primarily decided by circulation in-chamber by the three senior-most judges and the judges who authored the original judgment, without oral arguments from legal counsel. The Rupa Ashok Hurra (2002) verdict established the curative petition as a judicial innovation to prevent abuse of process, but it mandates that these petitions be decided by circulation unless a majority of the judges conclude that an open court hearing is necessary. Furthermore, the curative petition is not a statutory creation but a judicial evolution derived from the Supreme Court's inherent power under Article 142 to ensure complete justice, and there is no law mandating automatic open court hearings for death penalty cases.
Consider the following statements regarding Grounds for filing a curative petition: Violation of principles of natural justice:
1. The 2002 Rupa Ashok Hurra judgment established the curative petition as a constitutional remedy under Article 32, allowing it to be filed as a matter of right once the review petition is dismissed.
2. A curative petition is typically heard by a bench comprising the three senior-most judges and the judges who passed the original judgment, provided they are still available.
3. The concept of a curative petition was formally introduced by the Supreme Court of India in the 2002 Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra judgment.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct. Statement 1 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is incorrect because a curative petition is not a matter of right but a discretionary remedy to prevent abuse of process and miscarriage of justice. Statement 2 is correct as the Supreme Court mandates that the petition be circulated to a bench of the three senior-most judges and the judges who passed the original judgment, if available. Statement 3 is correct because the Supreme Court introduced this mechanism in the 2002 Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra case to provide a final opportunity for redressal after a review petition is dismissed.
Consider the following statements regarding Role of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 in regulating curative petitions:
1. The concept of a curative petition was first evolved by the Supreme Court in the 2002 case of Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra.
2. A curative petition is generally circulated to a bench comprising the three senior-most judges and the judges who passed the original judgment, if available.
3. Order XLVIII of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, outlines the procedural framework for filing and processing curative petitions.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct.
The curative petition was indeed conceptualized in Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra (2002) to prevent abuse of process and miscarriage of justice after a review petition is dismissed. Under the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, Order XLVIII mandates that such petitions be circulated to a bench comprising the three senior-most judges and the judges who authored the original judgment, provided they are available. All three statements are factually accurate as they correctly identify the judicial origin, the specific procedural composition of the bench, and the relevant order within the 2013 Rules governing these petitions.
Consider the following statements regarding Scope of judicial review under curative jurisdiction:
1. The 2002 Rupa Ashok Hurra verdict established that a curative petition can be filed within a period of 90 days from the date of the final order, following the limitation period prescribed for review petitions under the Supreme Court Rules, 1966.
2. The petitioner is expected to include a certification by a Senior Advocate in the curative petition, stating that the grounds mentioned therein fulfill the requirements laid down in the Rupa Ashok Hurra case.
3. The curative petition mechanism draws its primary authority from Article 142 of the Constitution, which the 1996 judgment in the Delhi Judicial Service Association case identified as the foundation for post-review remedial actions.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 2 is correct. Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 2 is correct as the Rupa Ashok Hurra (2002) judgment mandates a Senior Advocate's certification to ensure the petition meets the strict criteria of miscarriage of justice or violation of natural justice. Statement 1 is incorrect because the Supreme Court Rules do not prescribe a specific 90-day limitation period for curative petitions; rather, the court exercises its discretion based on the merits of each case. Statement 3 is incorrect because, while the curative jurisdiction is indeed rooted in Article 142, the Rupa Ashok Hurra case itself established this mechanism, not the 1996 Delhi Judicial Service Association case.
Consider the following statements regarding Requirement of certification by a Senior Advocate:
1. A curative petition is admissible if the petitioner demonstrates a conflict between the judgment and the President's power of pardon under Article 72, provided the petition is signed by the Solicitor General.
2. The Supreme Court Rules of 1966 introduced the curative petition mechanism to address gross violations of natural justice, which were later codified under Article 142 in the 2013 amendments.
3. The rules governing curative petitions specify that the petition is circulated to a bench of the three senior-most judges and the judges who passed the original judgment.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 3 is correct. Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect.
Statement 3 is correct because, under the Supreme Court Rules, a curative petition is circulated to a bench comprising the three senior-most judges and the judges who authored the impugned judgment, provided they are still available. Statement 1 is incorrect because a curative petition must be certified by a Senior Advocate, not the Solicitor General, and is specifically designed to address breaches of natural justice or bias, not conflicts with Article 72. Statement 2 is incorrect because the curative petition mechanism was established by the Supreme Court in the 2002 'Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra' case, not by the 1966 Rules or 2013 amendments.
Consider the following statements regarding Origin and evolution of curative petition via Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra case:
1. The Rupa Ashok Hurra judgment established that a curative petition can be entertained if the petitioner proves a violation of principles of natural justice.
2. Article 137 of the Constitution of India provides the Supreme Court the power to review any judgment pronounced or order made by it.
3. The curative petition procedure requires the petition to be circulated to a bench of the three senior-most judges and the judges who passed the original judgment.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct.
In the 2002 Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra case, the Supreme Court introduced the curative petition to prevent abuse of process and miscarriage of justice, specifically allowing it when principles of natural justice are violated or there is a reasonable apprehension of bias. Statement 2 is correct as Article 137 empowers the Supreme Court to review its own judgments subject to rules made under Article 145, which serves as the constitutional basis for the curative mechanism. Statement 3 is also correct, as the procedure mandates that the petition be circulated to the three senior-most judges and the judges who delivered the original judgment, provided they are still available, to ensure a rigorous internal check.
Consider the following statements regarding Scope of judicial review under curative jurisdiction:
1. A curative petition is generally heard by the three senior-most judges of the Supreme Court along with the judges who passed the original judgment, provided they are available.
2. The Supreme Court in the 2002 judgment determined that a curative petition is the final resort to prevent an abuse of the process of the court and to cure a gross miscarriage of justice.
3. The concept of a curative petition was first evolved by the Supreme Court of India in the 2002 case of Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct.
All three statements are correct: the curative petition, established in the 2002 Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra case, serves as a final legal recourse to rectify gross miscarriages of justice and prevent judicial abuse. As per the procedure laid down in this landmark judgment, the petition is typically heard by a bench comprising the three senior-most judges of the Supreme Court and the judges who delivered the original impugned judgment, provided they are still available to serve on the bench.
Consider the following statements regarding Scope of judicial review under curative jurisdiction:
1. The Supreme Court in the 2014 Yakub Abdul Razak Memon case clarified that curative jurisdiction includes the power to re-examine questions of fact that were already settled by the trial court during the initial sentencing phase.
2. In the 2010 judgment of Union of India v. Union Carbide Corporation, the Supreme Court examined the limitations of curative jurisdiction regarding the settlement of the Bhopal Gas Tragedy compensation.
3. The curative petition is typically decided by circulation in chambers, although the court retains the discretion to allow an open-court hearing if it finds merit in the plea.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct. Statement 1 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is incorrect because the curative jurisdiction, established in Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra (2002), is extremely narrow and strictly limited to preventing gross miscarriage of justice due to violations of natural justice or bias; it does not permit the re-examination of settled questions of fact. Statement 2 is correct as the Supreme Court in the 2010 Union Carbide case dismissed the curative petition, reinforcing that the curative jurisdiction cannot be used to reopen long-settled civil settlements or re-litigate matters under the guise of correcting errors. Statement 3 is correct because, as per the Supreme Court Rules, curative petitions are generally decided by circulation in chambers by the three senior-most judges and the judges who passed the original judgment, though the Court retains the power to grant an open-court hearing in exceptional cases.
Consider the following statements regarding Applicability of curative petitions to civil vs criminal matters:
1. The curative petition framework is derived from Article 142 of the Constitution, and the 2002 judgment established that such petitions are limited to criminal cases involving the death penalty.
2. The 2013 Rules of the Supreme Court define the curative petition as a statutory remedy, and it is available to parties seeking relief in both the High Courts and the Supreme Court.
3. The Supreme Court of India introduced the curative petition process in 1998, which allows the Chief Justice to refer the matter to a Constitution Bench for final adjudication.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is incorrect because the curative petition, established in the Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra (2002) case, is not limited to death penalty cases but applies to both civil and criminal matters where a gross miscarriage of justice is alleged. Statement 2 is incorrect as curative petitions are an extraordinary judicial remedy available exclusively in the Supreme Court, not High Courts, and they are derived from the Court's inherent powers under Article 142 rather than being a statutory remedy. Statement 3 is incorrect because the process was introduced by the Supreme Court in 2002, not 1998, and it is typically heard by the three senior-most judges and the judges who passed the original judgment, rather than being automatically referred to a Constitution Bench.
Consider the following statements regarding Institutional safeguards against abuse of the curative petition process:
1. The Supreme Court Rules, 2013, specify that a curative petition is generally decided by circulation in chambers, unless a majority of the judges on the bench conclude that a hearing in open court is necessary.
2. The 2002 Rupa Ashok Hurra judgment established that a curative petition can be filed against any interlocutory order passed by a High Court, provided the petition is signed by the Attorney General of India.
3. A curative petition is accompanied by a certification from a Senior Advocate, confirming that the grounds for the petition meet the specific criteria set forth in the Rupa Ashok Hurra judgment.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 3 is correct. Statement 2 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is correct as per Order XLVIII of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, which mandates that curative petitions be decided by circulation unless a majority of the judges direct an open court hearing. Statement 3 is correct because the Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra (2002) judgment requires the petition to be supported by a certificate from a Senior Advocate to ensure the grounds meet the stringent criteria for relief. Statement 2 is incorrect because curative petitions are exclusively a remedy against final judgments of the Supreme Court, not High Court interlocutory orders, and they do not require the Attorney General's signature.
Consider the following statements regarding Role of bias or apprehension of bias in curative jurisdiction:
1. The limitation period for filing a curative petition is 90 days from the date of the judgment, aligning with the standard period prescribed for filing review petitions under the Supreme Court Rules.
2. The curative petition process incorporates the doctrine of 'ex debito justitiae', which allows the court to correct a manifest injustice arising from a judge's failure to disclose a personal connection to the parties involved.
3. The Supreme Court Rules, 2013, provide that a curative petition is maintainable if the petitioner presents fresh evidence that was available during the original trial but was not admitted by the High Court.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is incorrect because a curative petition must be filed within 30 days, not 90, of the judgment. Statement 2 is incorrect because while the doctrine of 'ex debito justitiae' (as a matter of right/justice) is central to curative jurisdiction, it is specifically invoked to prevent abuse of process or gross miscarriage of justice, not merely for a judge's failure to disclose personal connections, which is addressed under the principles of natural justice. Statement 3 is incorrect because a curative petition is not a mechanism to introduce fresh evidence that was available during the original trial; it is strictly limited to cases where there has been a violation of natural justice or a judge's bias, as established in Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra (2002).
Consider the following statements regarding Impact of curative petitions on the doctrine of res judicata:
1. A curative petition is maintainable before a High Court under Article 226, provided the petitioner demonstrates that the principles of natural justice were violated during the initial appellate proceedings.
2. The Supreme Court Rules of 2013 contain specific provisions for the mandatory oral hearing of curative petitions, ensuring that the petitioner is represented by a Senior Advocate in open court.
3. Under the established procedure, a curative petition is circulated to a bench comprising the three senior-most judges and the judges who passed the concerned judgment, provided they are available.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 3 is correct. Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect.
Statement 3 is correct as per the Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra (2002) judgment, which mandates that a curative petition be circulated to a bench of the three senior-most judges and the judges who passed the original order, if available. Statement 1 is incorrect because the curative petition is a judicial innovation exclusive to the Supreme Court under Article 142 to prevent abuse of process, and it is not maintainable before High Courts. Statement 2 is incorrect because curative petitions are generally decided by circulation in chambers, and an open court oral hearing is only granted if the bench finds prima facie merit, rather than being a mandatory requirement.
Consider the following statements regarding Curative petition as a safeguard against miscarriage of justice:
1. The concept of the curative petition was evolved by the Supreme Court of India in the 2002 case of Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra to prevent abuse of its process and cure gross miscarriage of justice.
2. The curative petition finds its origin in Article 142 of the Constitution, which provides the Supreme Court with the power to pass decrees necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it.
3. Under the Supreme Court Rules of 2013, a curative petition is maintainable only after the dismissal of a review petition, and it involves a mandatory open-court hearing for all cases.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is correct as the Supreme Court established the curative petition in Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra (2002) to address gross miscarriage of justice. Statement 2 is incorrect because while the Court invokes Article 142 to exercise this power, the concept is a judicial innovation rather than a direct constitutional provision. Statement 3 is incorrect because, although a curative petition requires the prior dismissal of a review petition, it is generally decided by circulation in chambers by a bench of the three senior-most judges and the judges who passed the original judgment, not through a mandatory open-court hearing.
Consider the following statements regarding Limitation period and procedural timeline for filing:
1. The Limitation Act of 1963 provides a fixed window of 90 days for filing a curative petition following the exhaustion of all available review remedies.
2. The curative petition mechanism was formally incorporated into Article 137 of the Constitution through the 99th Constitutional Amendment Act of 2014.
3. A curative petition is considered by a constitution bench of seven judges if the original judgment involved an interpretation of the Basic Structure doctrine.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
All three statements are incorrect: the curative petition is a judicial innovation established by the Supreme Court in the Rupa Hurra v. Ashok Hurra (2002) case, not by the Limitation Act or the 99th Amendment, and it has no fixed statutory limitation period, though the Court generally expects filing within a reasonable time. Furthermore, Article 137 pertains to the power of the Supreme Court to review its own judgments, not the curative mechanism, and curative petitions are typically heard by the three senior-most judges and the judges who passed the original judgment, not a seven-judge constitution bench.
Consider the following statements regarding Distinction between Review Petition and Curative Petition:
1. The limitation period for filing a curative petition is set at 90 days from the date of the final judgment, mirroring the timeline established for review petitions under the Supreme Court Rules of 1966.
2. The curative petition mechanism is derived from Article 142 of the Constitution, which allows the court to pass decrees necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it.
3. Review petitions are typically decided by circulation in chambers without oral arguments, whereas the 2002 Rupa Ashok Hurra judgment introduced a mandatory requirement for open-court hearings for all curative petitions.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is incorrect because the Supreme Court Rules do not prescribe a fixed 90-day limitation for curative petitions, which must be filed within a 'reasonable time' as determined by the court. Statement 2 is incorrect as the curative petition mechanism was judicially evolved by the Supreme Court in the Rupa Ashok Hurra case (2002) to prevent abuse of process, rather than being explicitly derived from Article 142. Statement 3 is incorrect because curative petitions are also decided by circulation in chambers by a bench of the three senior-most judges and the judges who passed the original judgment, not through mandatory open-court hearings.
Consider the following statements regarding Precedent value of orders passed in curative petitions:
1. The Supreme Court in the 2002 Rupa Ashok Hurra judgment refers to the curative petition as a statutory remedy, allowing for an appeal as of right to a larger constitutional bench.
2. The curative petition process is governed by Order XLVIII of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, which provides for the automatic stay of execution upon the filing of the petition.
3. In the 2010 Union of India versus Union Carbide Corporation case, the Supreme Court addressed the limitations of curative petitions regarding finality of settlements.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 3 is correct. Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect.
Statement 3 is correct as the 2010 Union of India v. Union Carbide Corporation judgment clarified that curative petitions cannot be used to reopen settled matters or challenge the finality of a compromise decree. Statement 1 is incorrect because the Rupa Ashok Hurra (2002) judgment established the curative petition as a judicial innovation to prevent abuse of process, not a statutory remedy or an appeal as of right. Statement 2 is incorrect because while Order XLVIII governs curative petitions, it does not mandate an automatic stay of execution; a stay is granted only if the specific bench hearing the petition finds it necessary.
Consider the following statements regarding Constitutional basis under Article 137 and Article 142:
1. The curative petition mechanism finds its origin in the 1996 Supreme Court judgment of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, which established the doctrine of complete justice.
2. Article 137 of the Constitution provides the Supreme Court the power to review any judgment pronounced or order made by it, subject to the provisions of any law made by Parliament.
3. The concept of a curative petition was evolved by the Supreme Court in the 2002 case of Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra to prevent abuse of its process.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct. Statement 1 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is incorrect because the curative petition mechanism was not established by the 1973 Kesavananda Bharati case, but rather evolved by the Supreme Court to ensure justice after the review petition stage. Statement 2 is correct as Article 137 explicitly empowers the Supreme Court to review its own judgments subject to parliamentary law and Supreme Court rules. Statement 3 is correct because the Supreme Court introduced the concept of a curative petition in the 2002 Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra case, invoking its inherent power under Article 142 to prevent the abuse of judicial process and cure gross miscarriages of justice.
Consider the following statements regarding Comparison with the writ jurisdiction of the Supreme Court:
1. The concept of a curative petition was evolved by the Supreme Court in the 2002 Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra case to prevent abuse of process and cure gross miscarriage of justice.
2. Under Article 137 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court possesses the power to review any judgment pronounced or order made by it, which serves as the legal foundation for the curative petition mechanism.
3. The Supreme Court Registry is empowered to reject a curative petition at the initial stage if it lacks a certification by a Senior Advocate, a practice established following the 2005 amendment to the Supreme Court Rules.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is correct as the Supreme Court established the curative petition in Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra (2002) to ensure justice after the dismissal of a review petition. Statement 2 is correct because the Court derived the power for curative petitions from its inherent power under Article 137 to review its own judgments. Statement 3 is incorrect because, while a curative petition must be supported by a certificate from a Senior Advocate, this requirement is part of the Supreme Court Rules (Order XLVIII) and was not introduced by a 2005 amendment.
Consider the following statements regarding Limitation period and procedural timeline for filing:
1. The Supreme Court Rules of 2013 specify that a curative petition is generally dealt with by judges in chambers unless a majority of the judges conclude that it should be heard in open court.
2. The curative petition process allows for the introduction of fresh evidence that was available during the trial stage but was inadvertently omitted by the legal counsel.
3. The petitioner is expected to certify that the curative petition has been filed within a reasonable time after the dismissal of the review petition.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 3 is correct. Statement 2 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is correct as per the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, which mandate that curative petitions are circulated to a Bench of the three senior-most judges and the judges who passed the impugned judgment, typically in chambers. Statement 3 is correct because the Supreme Court, in Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra (2002), established that a curative petition must be filed within a reasonable time after the dismissal of a review petition. Statement 2 is incorrect because a curative petition is not a mechanism to introduce fresh evidence that was available during the trial; it is strictly limited to addressing gross violations of natural justice or bias that were not apparent during the original proceedings.
Consider the following statements regarding Impact of curative petitions on the doctrine of res judicata:
1. The curative petition system allows for the introduction of new evidence that was unavailable during the trial, provided the petitioner pays a court fee of 50,000 rupees as prescribed by the 2002 guidelines.
2. The curative petition process incorporates the doctrine of stare decisis by allowing the court to revisit settled law if a subsequent constitutional bench decision renders the previous verdict legally untenable.
3. The limitation period for filing a curative petition is fixed at 90 days from the date of the final judgment, mirroring the timeline prescribed for filing a review petition under the Supreme Court Rules.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is incorrect because curative petitions are not for introducing new evidence, but for rectifying gross miscarriage of justice due to procedural violations or bias, and the court fee is not fixed at 50,000 rupees. Statement 2 is incorrect as the curative petition is a post-review remedy to prevent abuse of process, not a mechanism to revisit settled law via stare decisis. Statement 3 is incorrect because, while the Supreme Court Rules provide a 30-day limit for review petitions, there is no specific statutory limitation period for curative petitions, which are governed by the principles laid down in Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra (2002).
Consider the following statements regarding Procedural threshold: Circulation of petition to the three senior-most judges:
1. The Supreme Court Registry refers a curative petition to the President of India for administrative approval before it is circulated to the bench of the three senior-most judges.
2. A curative petition is admissible if it includes a certification by a Senior Advocate confirming that the grounds for the petition were raised during the initial trial proceedings in the High Court.
3. The curative petition system evolved from the 1996 guidelines issued by the Law Commission of India to streamline the filing of petitions after the exhaustion of the review jurisdiction.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is incorrect because the curative petition is an internal judicial mechanism handled by the Supreme Court, not the President. Statement 2 is incorrect as the petition must be certified by a Senior Advocate confirming that the grounds were raised in the review petition, not the initial High Court trial. Statement 3 is incorrect because the system was established by the Supreme Court itself in the 2002 'Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra' judgment, not by the Law Commission of India.
Consider the following statements regarding Requirement of certification by a Senior Advocate:
1. The concept of the curative petition was formally introduced by the Supreme Court in the 2002 Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra case.
2. A curative petition follows the dismissal of a review petition, which is the final stage of judicial scrutiny under Article 137 of the Constitution.
3. The Rupa Ashok Hurra judgment established that a curative petition is heard by a five-judge Constitution Bench, and the certification process involves a mandatory review by the Attorney General of India.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 1 and 2 are correct as the Supreme Court established the curative petition in the 2002 Rupa Ashok Hurra case to address gross miscarriage of justice following the exhaustion of the review petition process under Article 137. Statement 3 is incorrect because, while the petition is typically heard by the three senior-most judges and the judges who passed the original order, the mandatory certification must be provided by a Senior Advocate, not the Attorney General of India.
Consider the following statements regarding Relationship between curative petitions and the inherent powers of the Supreme Court:
1. Article 137 of the Constitution provides the Supreme Court the power to review any judgment pronounced or order made by it, serving as the constitutional basis for curative petitions.
2. A curative petition is generally circulated to a Bench of the three senior-most judges and the judges who passed the concerned judgment, if available.
3. The Supreme Court Registry is empowered to reject a curative petition if it is not accompanied by a certification from a Senior Advocate stating that the grounds for the petition are valid.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct.
Article 137 empowers the Supreme Court to review its judgments, and the curative petition, established in Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra (2002), acts as the final judicial remedy derived from the Court's inherent powers under Article 142 to prevent miscarriage of justice. Procedurally, such petitions are circulated to the three senior-most judges and the judges who delivered the original verdict, provided they are still in office, to ensure judicial scrutiny. Furthermore, the Supreme Court Rules mandate that a curative petition must be supported by a certification from a Senior Advocate to prevent frivolous litigation, and the Registry is authorized to reject petitions failing to meet these strict procedural requirements.
Consider the following statements regarding Constitutional basis under Article 137 and Article 142:
1. The Supreme Court Rules, 2013, specify that a curative petition must be accompanied by a certification from a Senior Advocate, confirming that the grounds for the petition are fulfilled.
2. The Supreme Court exercises its inherent power under Article 142 to pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it.
3. A curative petition is generally required to be circulated to a Bench of the three senior-most judges and the judges who passed the concerned judgment, if available.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct.
Statement 1 is correct as per Order XLVIII of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, which mandates a Senior Advocate's certification to prevent frivolous filings. Statement 2 is correct because the Supreme Court derived the concept of a 'curative petition' from its inherent powers under Article 142 to ensure complete justice, as established in the Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra (2002) case. Statement 3 is correct because the procedure requires the petition to be circulated to the three senior-most judges and the judges who delivered the original verdict to ensure a rigorous judicial review process.
Consider the following statements regarding Comparison with the writ jurisdiction of the Supreme Court:
1. Unlike writ jurisdiction under Article 32, which is a fundamental right to move the court for enforcement of rights, a curative petition is a post-review remedy available only after a review petition is dismissed.
2. A curative petition is typically circulated to a bench of the three senior-most judges and the judges who passed the judgment complained of, provided they are available.
3. The curative petition process incorporates the principles of natural justice as outlined in the 1973 Code of Criminal Procedure, allowing the court to reopen cases where a party was not served with a notice of the original hearing.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is correct as Article 32 is a fundamental right for constitutional remedy, whereas a curative petition is a judicial innovation established in Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra (2002) to prevent abuse of process after a review petition is dismissed. Statement 2 is correct because the Supreme Court Rules mandate that the petition be circulated to the three senior-most judges and the judges who authored the original judgment, if available. Statement 3 is incorrect because the curative jurisdiction is not derived from the 1973 Code of Criminal Procedure, but is an inherent power of the Supreme Court under Article 129 and Article 142 to ensure justice, specifically addressing gross violations of natural justice or bias.
Consider the following statements regarding Limitation period and procedural timeline for filing:
1. A curative petition is circulated to a bench of the three senior-most judges and the judges who passed the judgment complained of, if available.
2. The Supreme Court Registry permits the filing of a curative petition only after the payment of a mandatory court fee equivalent to the fee paid during the initial writ petition.
3. The concept of a curative petition was evolved by the Supreme Court of India in the Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra case decided in the year 2002.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 3 is correct. Statement 2 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is correct as per the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, which mandate that a curative petition be circulated to a bench of the three senior-most judges and the judges who passed the original judgment, if available. Statement 3 is correct because the Supreme Court introduced the concept of a curative petition in the landmark 2002 judgment of Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra to prevent abuse of process and cure gross miscarriages of justice. Statement 2 is incorrect because there is no fixed rule stating the fee must be equivalent to the initial writ petition; instead, the curative petition must be accompanied by a certification from a Senior Advocate, and the court fee is determined by specific registry rules rather than being pegged to the original writ petition fee.
Consider the following statements regarding Requirement of certification by a Senior Advocate:
1. The petitioner is expected to certify that the grounds mentioned in the curative petition were not raised in the review petition that was previously dismissed.
2. The requirement for a certificate from a Senior Advocate serves as a procedural safeguard to ensure that the grounds for the petition meet the established legal threshold.
3. Under the Supreme Court Rules of 2013, a curative petition is generally decided by circulation in chambers unless a majority of the judges on the bench direct an open court hearing.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct.
All three statements are correct as per the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, which govern the curative petition process established in the Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra (2002) case. Statement 1 is accurate because the petition must be accompanied by a certification from a Senior Advocate confirming that the grounds were not raised in the dismissed review petition. Statement 2 is correct as this certification acts as a filter to prevent frivolous litigation and ensure the petition meets the strict criteria of a gross miscarriage of justice. Statement 3 is correct because, per Order XLVIII of the Supreme Court Rules, these petitions are decided by circulation in chambers, with open court hearings granted only if a majority of the judges on the bench deem it necessary.
Consider the following statements regarding Procedural threshold: Circulation of petition to the three senior-most judges:
1. Under the provisions of Article 142, the curative petition process allows for an oral hearing in open court as the default procedure for all matters involving constitutional interpretation.
2. The Supreme Court Rules of 1966 introduced the curative petition mechanism to address potential miscarriages of justice following the finalization of the review process.
3. The Chief Justice of India holds the authority to constitute a special bench of five judges to hear a curative petition if the initial circulation to the three senior-most judges results in a split verdict.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is incorrect because curative petitions are generally decided by circulation in chambers, and an open court hearing is only granted if the bench so directs. Statement 2 is incorrect as the curative petition mechanism was established by the Supreme Court in the 2002 'Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra' judgment, not by the 1966 Rules. Statement 3 is incorrect because the petition is circulated to the three senior-most judges and the judges who passed the impugned judgment, and there is no provision for a special five-judge bench triggered by a split verdict at the circulation stage.
Consider the following statements regarding Curative petition as a safeguard against miscarriage of justice:
1. A curative petition is distinct from a review petition in that it allows the Supreme Court to reconsider the entire factual matrix of a case, including the evaluation of witnesses who testified in the lower courts.
2. The Supreme Court Registry is empowered to reject a curative petition if it lacks a supporting certificate from a retired judge of the Supreme Court, as per the guidelines laid down in the 2002 landmark ruling.
3. A curative petition is generally circulated to a bench of the three senior-most judges and the judges who passed the judgment complained of, provided they are available.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 3 is correct. Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect.
Statement 3 is correct as per the Rupa Hurra v. Ashok Hurra (2002) ruling, which mandates that curative petitions be circulated to a bench of the three senior-most judges and the judges who passed the original judgment. Statement 1 is incorrect because a curative petition is not a rehearing of the case on merits or facts; it is a narrow remedy to prevent gross miscarriage of justice due to principles of natural justice or bias. Statement 2 is incorrect because the certificate must be provided by a Senior Advocate, not a retired judge, to ensure the petition meets the strict criteria for filing.
Consider the following statements regarding Judicial discretion in entertaining curative petitions:
1. The Supreme Court Registry follows the practice of listing curative petitions before a Constitution Bench of seven judges to ensure consistency in judicial outcomes.
2. The curative petition framework encompasses the power of the High Courts to reconsider their own final judgments under the inherent powers provided by Section 482 of the CrPC.
3. In the 2002 Rupa Ashok Hurra judgment, the Court established that a curative petition can be filed as a matter of right within 90 days from the date of the final order.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is incorrect because curative petitions are generally circulated to a Bench of the three senior-most judges and the judges who passed the impugned judgment, not a seven-judge Constitution Bench. Statement 2 is incorrect as the curative petition is a unique remedy exclusively available in the Supreme Court under Article 142 to prevent abuse of process, and it does not extend to High Courts. Statement 3 is incorrect because the Rupa Ashok Hurra (2002) judgment did not establish a 90-day 'right'; instead, it mandated that such petitions be filed within a reasonable time, and they are entertained only in rare cases to prevent a gross miscarriage of justice.
Consider the following statements regarding Comparison with the writ jurisdiction of the Supreme Court:
1. In the 2010 judgment of the Central Bureau of Investigation v. Keshub Mahindra, the Supreme Court clarified that curative petitions are subject to the same limitation period of 90 days as prescribed for filing appeals under the Limitation Act of 1963.
2. The curative petition mechanism draws its procedural legitimacy from the 1996 Supreme Court Rules, which were amended to include specific provisions for handling petitions after the exhaustion of review remedies.
3. The writ jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 32 allows for the issuance of directions or orders in the nature of habeas corpus, and this jurisdiction is frequently invoked to bypass the curative petition filing process.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is incorrect because the Supreme Court established the curative petition mechanism in Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra (2002), not the Keshub Mahindra case, and there is no fixed 90-day limitation period under the Limitation Act for curative petitions. Statement 2 is incorrect as the mechanism was judicially evolved by the Supreme Court under its inherent powers (Article 142) to prevent abuse of process, not through the 1996 Supreme Court Rules. Statement 3 is incorrect because Article 32 is a fundamental right for the enforcement of fundamental rights and cannot be used to bypass the finality of a judgment reached after a review petition; a curative petition is the final legal recourse after a review petition is dismissed.
Consider the following statements regarding Judicial discretion in entertaining curative petitions:
1. The Supreme Court of India maintains that a curative petition is the last resort for a litigant after the dismissal of a review petition in a matter.
2. The Supreme Court Rules, 2013, prescribe that a curative petition must be accompanied by a certification from a Senior Advocate regarding the fulfillment of procedural requirements.
3. Under the curative jurisdiction, the petitioner is expected to establish that there was a violation of principles of natural justice in the original proceedings.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct.
Statement 1 is correct as the curative petition was introduced by the Supreme Court in Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra (2002) to prevent abuse of process after a review petition is dismissed. Statement 2 is correct because, under Order XLVIII of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, the petition must be certified by a Senior Advocate to ensure it meets the strict criteria for such an extraordinary remedy. Statement 3 is correct because the court only entertains these petitions if the petitioner proves a gross violation of natural justice or if a judge failed to disclose a conflict of interest, ensuring the judicial process remains fair and transparent.
Consider the following statements regarding Precedent value of orders passed in curative petitions:
1. The concept of a curative petition was formally introduced by the Supreme Court of India in the 2002 Rupa Ashok Hurra versus Ashok Hurra case.
2. The Supreme Court of India established the curative petition mechanism to prevent the abuse of its process and to cure gross miscarriages of justice.
3. A curative petition is heard by a bench comprising the three senior-most judges and the judges who passed the judgment complained against, if available.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct.
All three statements are correct. The curative petition was introduced in the 2002 Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra case to ensure that the Supreme Court could rectify 'gross miscarriages of justice' and prevent the abuse of its judicial process after a review petition is dismissed. As per the guidelines laid down in the same judgment, such petitions are heard by a bench consisting of the three senior-most judges of the Supreme Court and the judges who passed the original impugned judgment, provided they are still available.
Consider the following statements regarding Precedent value of orders passed in curative petitions:
1. The petitioner is required to enclose a certification by a Senior Advocate confirming that the curative petition fulfills the procedural requirements.
2. A curative petition is generally circulated to the judges in chambers, who may decide to list it in open court if a prima facie case is made out.
3. Article 137 of the Constitution of India provides the Supreme Court the power to review any judgment pronounced or order made by it.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct.
All three statements are correct: Statement 1 is accurate as per the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, which mandate a Senior Advocate's certification to ensure the petition meets procedural criteria. Statement 2 reflects the procedure established in Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra (2002), where the court ruled that curative petitions are decided by circulation in chambers unless a majority of judges decide otherwise. Statement 3 is correct because Article 137 explicitly empowers the Supreme Court to review its own judgments, which serves as the constitutional foundation for the curative petition mechanism.
Consider the following statements regarding Impact of curative petitions on the doctrine of res judicata:
1. Article 142 of the Constitution provides the inherent power to the Supreme Court, which the 1996 judgment in Antulay v. R.S. Nayak identified as the primary source for filing curative petitions.
2. The Supreme Court of India formalised the curative petition mechanism in the 2002 Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra judgment to prevent abuse of process and cure gross miscarriage of justice.
3. The doctrine of res judicata finds its origin in the Civil Procedure Code of 1908, and the curative petition mechanism serves as a statutory amendment to Section 11 of this code.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 2 is correct. Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 2 is correct as the Supreme Court formalised the curative petition in the 2002 Rupa Ashok Hurra case to prevent abuse of process. Statement 1 is incorrect because while Article 142 is the constitutional basis, the concept was established in the 2002 Rupa Ashok Hurra judgment, not the 1996 Antulay case. Statement 3 is incorrect because a curative petition is a judicial innovation derived from the court's inherent powers, not a statutory amendment to Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code.
Consider the following statements regarding Judicial discretion in entertaining curative petitions:
1. The concept of a curative petition was first evolved by the Supreme Court of India in the 2002 case of Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra.
2. A curative petition is generally circulated to a bench of the three senior-most judges and the judges who passed the judgment complained against, if available.
3. The curative petition mechanism is derived from Article 145 of the Constitution, which allows the Supreme Court to frame rules for regulating the practice and procedure of the Court.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is correct as the Supreme Court established the curative petition in the 2002 Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra case to prevent abuse of process and miscarriage of justice after a review petition is dismissed. Statement 2 is correct because, per Supreme Court Rules, the petition is circulated to a bench comprising the three senior-most judges and the judges who authored the original impugned judgment, provided they are still available. Statement 3 is incorrect because the curative petition is an inherent power of the Supreme Court derived from Article 129 and Article 142 (to do complete justice), rather than being a procedural rule framed under Article 145.
Consider the following statements regarding Distinction between Review Petition and Curative Petition:
1. A curative petition is generally heard by the three senior-most judges of the Supreme Court along with the judges who passed the original judgment, provided they are available.
2. Under Article 137 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court possesses the power to review any judgment pronounced or order made by it, which serves as a prerequisite for filing a curative petition.
3. The concept of a curative petition was evolved by the Supreme Court of India in the 2002 case of Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra to prevent abuse of its process.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct.
Statement 1 is correct as per the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, which mandate that curative petitions be decided by the three senior-most judges and the judges who delivered the impugned judgment, if available. Statement 2 is correct because Article 137 provides the constitutional basis for the review jurisdiction, which acts as a mandatory procedural gateway before a curative petition can be entertained. Statement 3 is correct as the Supreme Court introduced the curative petition mechanism in Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra (2002) to ensure that the finality of a judgment does not lead to a gross miscarriage of justice or abuse of the judicial process.
Consider the following statements regarding Institutional safeguards against abuse of the curative petition process:
1. Under the established procedure, a curative petition is circulated to a bench comprising the three senior-most judges and the judges who authored the original judgment, provided they are still in office.
2. The curative petition process is governed by the Civil Procedure Code of 1908, which provides for the filing of such petitions within a limitation period of 90 days from the date of the final order.
3. The curative petition was formally introduced by the Supreme Court in the 2002 case of Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra to address potential miscarriages of justice after the dismissal of a review petition.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 3 is correct. Statement 2 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is correct as the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 mandate that curative petitions be decided by the three senior-most judges and the judges who passed the original judgment. Statement 3 is correct because the Supreme Court evolved the curative petition in Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra (2002) to prevent abuse of process and gross miscarriage of justice after a review petition is dismissed. Statement 2 is incorrect because curative petitions are not governed by the Civil Procedure Code of 1908, but by the inherent powers of the Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution, and there is no fixed 90-day limitation period prescribed by statute.