A judgment of the Supreme Court ordinarily attains finality upon pronouncement, subject only to limited corrective jurisdictions recognised in exceptional circumstances. Two such remedies are a Review Petition and a Curative Petition, both seeking reconsideration of a judgment of the Court but operating at distinct stages and within narrowly circumscribed limits.

A Review Petition is traceable to Article 137 of the Constitution, which empowers the Supreme Court to review its own judgments or orders. The exercise of this power is regulated by Order XLVII of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013. The jurisdiction of review is limited and does not permit a rehearing of the matter on merits. A review will lie on grounds analogous to those set out in Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, namely: discovery of a new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within the knowledge of the petitioner or could not be produced at the time of the judgment; mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; or any other sufficient reason. Review petitions in civil matters are ordinarily disposed of in chambers unless otherwise directed and when an application to such an effect is preferred. The remedy is corrective, not appellate and addresses patent error rather than a mere disagreement with the reasoning or conclusion.

A Curative Petition is an extraordinary jurisdiction evolved by judicial pronouncement and formally recognised by a Constitution Bench in Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra, (2002) 4 SCC 388. The Court held that even after dismissal of a review petition, it may, in exercise of its inherent powers, reconsider its final judgment to prevent abuse of its process or to cure a gross miscarriage of justice. Instances such as violation of principles of natural justice or judicial bias were identified as examples of situations falling within this principle. The procedure governing curative petitions is now codified under Order XLVIII of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013. A curative petition must contain a specific averment setting out the grounds on which it is founded and must be accompanied by a certification by a Senior Advocate. Upon filing, it is circulated, in the first instance, to the three senior-most Judges of the Supreme Court of India and the Judges who delivered the impugned judgment. The jurisdiction is exercised sparingly and only in rare cases.

The distinction between the two remedies is both procedural and substantive. A review petition constitutes the first and limited corrective recourse against a judgment of the Supreme Court. A curative petition is maintainable only after dismissal of the review and is entertained in the most rare and exceptional circumstances. The scope of review is confined, and curative jurisdiction is narrower still and exercised with extreme circumspection.