Review Petition in Supreme Court of India: Article 137, 30-Day Limitation, Error Apparent, Open Court & Curative Remedy 2026

Supreme Court of India • Review Petition • Article 137 • Order XLVII • 30-Day Limitation • Error Apparent • Civil Review • Criminal Review • Open Court • Curative Petition • Pan-India Supreme Court Practice

A Review Petition in the Supreme Court of India is a narrow constitutional remedy by which the Supreme Court is requested to reconsider its own judgment or order. The power comes from Article 137 of the Constitution of India and is regulated by the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, particularly Order XLVII, together with the applicable principles of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in civil proceedings.

A review is fundamentally different from an appeal. It is not a fresh opportunity to argue that the earlier Bench should have preferred another interpretation of the facts or law. The applicant must bring the case within the limited review jurisdiction recognised by Article 137 and the Rules.

This guide explains the Supreme Court review process for litigants across India, including civil and criminal review, the ordinary 30-day limitation, error apparent on the face of the record, discovery of new matter, circulation in chambers, applications for open-court hearing, death-sentence review, delay, third-party review, the effect of dismissal and the limited curative remedy that may follow.

Quick legal position

The Supreme Court’s power to review its own judgments and orders arises under Article 137 of the Constitution.
Supreme Court review is governed by Order XLVII of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013.
A review petition is ordinarily required to be filed within 30 days from the judgment or order sought to be reviewed.
Delay may be accompanied by an application for condonation of delay in filing review petition; condonation is discretionary.
In a civil proceeding, review lies only on the grounds recognised by Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC.
In a criminal proceeding, the Supreme Court Rules confine review to an error apparent on the face of the record.
A review is not an appeal in disguise and cannot ordinarily be used for a complete rehearing on facts or law.
Review petitions are ordinarily considered by circulation rather than through a full oral hearing, subject to the Court’s orders and recognised exceptions.
In death-sentence cases, the Constitution Bench decision in Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq v. Registrar, Supreme Court of India requires review petitions against judgments affirming death penalty to be heard in open court by a Bench of three Judges.
The Supreme Court’s current interlocutory-application list separately recognises applications for condonation of delay in filing review petition, permission to file review petition and listing review petition in open court.
After dismissal of a review petition, a curative petition is available only in an exceptionally narrow class of cases under Order XLVIII and the principles in Rupa Ashok Hurra.

Article 137 of the Constitution: source of Supreme Court review jurisdiction

Article 137 provides that, subject to any law made by Parliament and rules made under Article 145, the Supreme Court has power to review any judgment pronounced or order made by it.

The power is constitutional but deliberately controlled. Finality of Supreme Court judgments is a core feature of the judicial system, so review jurisdiction is used to correct a patent or legally recognised error, not to provide an unlimited second hearing.

The Supreme Court’s official jurisdiction page and the Supreme Court Rules and amendment notifications should be checked before filing.

Review Petition versus SLP: do not confuse the remedies

A Special Leave Petition under Article 136 asks the Supreme Court to examine a judgment or order passed by another court or tribunal. A Review Petition under Article 137 asks the Supreme Court to reconsider its own judgment or order.

Issue	SLP	Review Petition
Constitutional provision	Article 136	Article 137
Order challenged	Normally judgment/order of High Court or tribunal	Judgment/order of Supreme Court itself
Nature	Discretionary leave to appeal	Narrow reconsideration jurisdiction
Ordinary limitation	Depends on civil/criminal SLP rules	30 days
Hearing	Listed before Court at leave stage	Ordinarily considered by circulation, subject to exceptions/orders

For the SLP framework, see the internal pillar guide: Special Leave Petition in Supreme Court of India: Article 136, Limitation, AOR Filing & Procedure.

Limitation for Review Petition in Supreme Court: 30 days

Order XLVII Rule 2 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 prescribes an ordinary limitation period of 30 days for filing a review petition.

The Supreme Court itself reaffirmed this 30-day period in later judgments, including a 2024 decision concerning curative jurisdiction, while distinguishing review limitation from the different standard governing curative petitions.

A review applicant should therefore immediately record:

date of the Supreme Court judgment or order;
date the signed/order copy became available;
date on which review advice was sought;
date papers were supplied to the Advocate-on-Record;
date review grounds were finalised; and
the calculated 30-day deadline.

What if the Review Petition is filed after 30 days?

A delayed review may be filed with an application seeking condonation of delay. The Supreme Court’s official interlocutory-application classification specifically includes an application titled “Condonation of Delay in Filing Review Petition.”

However, condonation is not automatic. The applicant should explain the entire period of delay with dates and supporting material.

A useful delay chronology may address:

date of the judgment/order;
date of obtaining the relevant papers;
custody or prison circumstances in criminal cases;
medical circumstances supported by documents;
institutional approval where the applicant is a company or public body;
translation or record-retrieval issues;
change of counsel, where genuinely material; and
why the applicant acted diligently once the impediment ended.

Grounds for Civil Review in the Supreme Court

Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules provides that a review in a civil proceeding will not be entertained except on the grounds mentioned in Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

The recognised civil review grounds broadly include:

discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, despite exercise of due diligence, was not within the applicant’s knowledge or could not be produced when the judgment was delivered;
mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; and
any other sufficient reason, understood in accordance with settled review jurisprudence.

What is an “error apparent on the face of the record”?

An error apparent is not simply an arguable legal issue. If discovering the alleged error requires an elaborate process of reasoning, reweighing evidence or choosing between two reasonably possible legal interpretations, the matter ordinarily falls outside review.

Examples that may potentially support review, depending on the record, include:

a binding statutory provision overlooked;
a controlling judgment directly applicable to the case but inadvertently ignored;
a patent factual premise in the judgment demonstrably contrary to the record;
relief granted on a basis not argued or legally available, causing manifest injustice;
an obvious calculation or operative-direction error affecting substantive rights;
a material concession recorded although the record conclusively shows none was made; or
a glaring omission leading to miscarriage of justice.

The critical question is not whether the judgment can be criticised. The question is whether the alleged error satisfies the narrow review threshold.

Review is not an appeal in disguise

The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that review cannot be used to reargue the appeal or SLP. An applicant cannot ordinarily seek review merely because:

another interpretation of the evidence is possible;
another Bench might have reached a different conclusion;
arguments already made were rejected;
the applicant wants a second opportunity to improve drafting;
new authorities have been found that could have been cited earlier; or
the applicant disagrees with the weight given to competing evidence.

The Supreme Court has described an attempt to reappreciate evidence in review as converting review into an appeal in disguise.

Discovery of new and important evidence: due diligence is essential

In civil review, newly discovered evidence is not enough by itself. The applicant must generally show that the material:

is important to the outcome;
existed or is otherwise legally capable of consideration;
was not within the applicant’s knowledge at the relevant time; and
could not, despite due diligence, have been produced earlier.

A document that was always available but simply omitted by the litigation team is ordinarily a weak basis for review.

Criminal Review Petition in Supreme Court

The Supreme Court Rules draw a sharper line in criminal proceedings. Under Order XLVII Rule 1, a criminal review is not to be entertained except on the ground of an error apparent on the face of the record.

This means a criminal review cannot ordinarily become a second criminal appeal on appreciation of evidence. The applicant must identify a patent mistake, glaring omission or comparable error capable of causing miscarriage of justice.

For Criminal SLP procedure before the review stage, see Criminal SLP in Supreme Court: Conviction, Bail, Surrender, Exemption & Suspension of Sentence.

Can the Supreme Court reconsider evidence in criminal review?

Ordinarily, no. The Supreme Court has held that review is not the stage for a fresh reappreciation of testimony and exhibits merely to see whether another view is possible.

A criminal review becomes materially stronger where the applicant can point to:

a patent legal error;
a material piece of the existing record completely overlooked;
a glaring contradiction between the judgment and the actual record;
an error concerning the legal ingredients of the offence;
a binding constitutional or statutory requirement missed by the Court; or
a manifest mistake that has resulted in miscarriage of justice.

Review Petition after dismissal of SLP

A review may be sought against an order of the Supreme Court dismissing an SLP, but the maintainability and realistic scope depend on the nature of the dismissal order and the review ground asserted.

A litigant should distinguish between:

non-speaking dismissal of an SLP;
reasoned dismissal of an SLP;
dismissal after notice;
grant of leave followed by dismissal of the appeal; and
a final Supreme Court judgment delivered in appellate jurisdiction.

The legal effect of the original Supreme Court order, including merger and precedent consequences, should be analysed before drafting the review.

Review Petition after Civil Appeal or Criminal Appeal

Where leave has already been granted and the Supreme Court has decided the appeal, a review petition challenges the Supreme Court’s appellate judgment itself. The review must still satisfy Article 137 and Order XLVII.

The fact that the Supreme Court gave detailed reasons does not enlarge the review jurisdiction. The applicant must identify a review ground, not simply repeat the appeal grounds.

Is oral hearing automatic in a Review Petition?

No. Supreme Court review is ordinarily dealt with by circulation, subject to the Court’s Rules, directions and recognised exceptions.

The Supreme Court’s current interlocutory-application list nevertheless recognises a separate application for “Listing Review Petition in Open Court.” Filing such an application does not create an automatic right to oral hearing; it asks the Court to exercise discretion in accordance with law.

Death-sentence Review Petitions: open-court hearing is different

Death-sentence review petitions occupy a constitutionally distinct position. In Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq v. Registrar, Supreme Court of India, (2014) 9 SCC 737, a Constitution Bench held that review petitions arising from judgments affirming the death sentence are to be heard in open court by a Bench of three Judges.

This is an exception of major importance. It reflects the irreversible character of capital punishment and the need for enhanced procedural scrutiny.

Application for listing Review Petition in open court

Outside the recognised death-penalty framework, an applicant may seek open-court listing through the appropriate interlocutory application. The application should not assume that oral hearing is a right.

If such relief is sought, the application should explain why the case is exceptional, for example:

a serious jurisdictional issue;
a patent conflict within the judgment;
a material procedural irregularity;
an issue affecting a large class of persons;
a substantial constitutional consequence; or
another reason why ordinary circulation would be inadequate.

Who considers the Review Petition?

Review procedure is designed, as far as practicable, around reconsideration by the judicial formation connected with the original judgment, subject to availability, roster and the Supreme Court Rules. The exact Bench composition is an administrative and judicial matter for the Court and should not be assumed by the litigant.

Can a third party file a Review Petition?

The Supreme Court has recognised that review is not necessarily confined only to a formal party to the original proceedings. A person who can demonstrate that he or she is genuinely aggrieved by the Supreme Court judgment may, in an appropriate case, seek review.

However, a non-party applicant should carefully establish:

the direct legal prejudice caused by the judgment;
why the applicant qualifies as an aggrieved person;
why review rather than intervention in another proceeding is the correct remedy; and
why the application is not an attempt to reopen litigation indirectly.

Permission to file Review Petition

The Supreme Court’s current interlocutory-application list separately recognises an Application for Permission to File Review Petition. This may become relevant where the proposed applicant is not a conventional party or where a procedural permission question arises.

Permission should not be treated as a substitute for substantive maintainability. Even after permission issues are addressed, the review must satisfy Article 137 and Order XLVII.

Advocate-on-Record certificate

Order XLVII requires the review application to be accompanied by the prescribed Advocate-on-Record certificate certifying, among other things, that the application is the first review application and is founded on grounds admissible under the Rules.

This requirement reinforces the professional responsibility of the AOR to screen out repetitive or appellate-style review petitions.

Can a second Review Petition be filed?

Review is not intended to become a repetitive sequence of reconsideration applications. The Rules and AOR certification requirement are designed around the concept of the first review application.

After dismissal of review, the limited constitutional safety valve is ordinarily the curative jurisdiction, not another review petition raising the same or improved arguments.

Review Petition and interim relief

Filing a review does not automatically suspend the judgment or order sought to be reviewed. Where urgent protection is legally required, appropriate interim relief must be sought.

Depending on the underlying case, the applicant may seek:

stay of operation of the judgment;
stay of execution or recovery;
status quo;
stay of sentence or execution in the legally recognised criminal context;
protection from irreversible implementation; or
another narrowly tailored interim order.

The interim prayer should explain why the consequence will become irreversible before the review can be considered.

Review Petition does not automatically extend earlier interim orders

A stay or protection granted during the original SLP or appeal does not necessarily continue merely because a review petition has been filed. The operative terms of the Supreme Court’s final judgment and any fresh interim order must be examined carefully.

Review of consent orders and settlement-based orders

Review of an order based on consent, undertaking or settlement raises different considerations. The applicant must identify a recognised legal basis such as lack of authority, fraud, patent mistake or another exceptional defect. Mere regret after settlement is ordinarily insufficient.

Correction, modification, recall and review: different procedural concepts

Not every problem with a Supreme Court order requires a formal review petition. Depending on the issue, Supreme Court practice recognises distinct applications such as:

correction of mistakes in judgment;
modification of an order;
recall of an order;
revocation of an order; or
review under Article 137.

The correct route depends on the nature of the alleged defect. A typographical error is not the same as a substantive error in adjudication.

What happens when Review Petition is allowed?

If the Supreme Court finds a valid ground for review, it may recall, modify, set aside or otherwise reconsider the earlier judgment or order to the extent legally necessary. The precise consequence depends on the review order.

An allowed review does not always mean the ultimate result must reverse. The Court may reopen the matter, alter a part of the judgment, correct the operative direction or rehear the relevant issue.

What happens when Review Petition is dismissed?

Dismissal ordinarily leaves the original Supreme Court judgment or order undisturbed. If review is dismissed, the litigation reaches a very high level of finality.

A 2026 Supreme Court judgment reiterated the narrow nature of review, observing that review is not a rehearing but an exceptional jurisdiction for patent error or qualifying newly discovered material. Once review is dismissed, the earlier findings ordinarily attain reinforced finality between the parties, subject only to any legally maintainable curative remedy or other exceptional constitutional power.

Can an SLP be filed against dismissal of a Supreme Court Review Petition?

No Article 136 SLP lies from the Supreme Court to itself. Once the Supreme Court has decided the matter, the remedies are those available within the Supreme Court’s own constitutional and procedural framework, principally review and, in the narrow recognised class, curative jurisdiction.

Review Petition versus Curative Petition

Review Petition	Curative Petition
Constitutional basis: Article 137	Exceptional inherent/constitutional corrective jurisdiction recognised in Rupa Ashok Hurra
Governed by Order XLVII	Governed by Order XLVIII and curative jurisprudence
Ordinary limitation: 30 days	To be filed within a reasonable time; Rules do not prescribe the same fixed 30-day period
First reconsideration remedy	Available only after dismissal of review and only on exceptionally narrow grounds
Civil/criminal review grounds under Rules	Focuses on gross miscarriage of justice, natural-justice failure, bias and recognised curative thresholds

Curative Petition after dismissal of Review Petition

In Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra, the Supreme Court recognised a curative jurisdiction to prevent gross miscarriage of justice even after review has failed. The remedy is intentionally exceptional so that finality of Supreme Court judgments is not destroyed.

Order XLVIII of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 regulates curative petitions. The Court has subsequently clarified that, unlike review petitions, the Rules do not prescribe the same fixed 30-day limitation for curative petitions; they are required to be brought within a reasonable time, with delay assessed in context.

A separate detailed pan-India guide on curative petitions is the logical next article in this Supreme Court series.

Review Petition document checklist

Supreme Court judgment/order sought to be reviewed.
Complete paper book of the original SLP/appeal/writ matter where required.
Review Petition drafted on admissible grounds.
Synopsis and concise list of dates, where required by current filing practice.
Precise identification of the error apparent or civil review ground.
Advocate-on-Record certificate under the Rules.
Affidavit.
Application for condonation of delay, if beyond 30 days.
Application for permission to file review, if procedurally necessary.
Application for open-court listing, if legally justified.
Interim-relief application, where separate procedural relief is required.
Relevant annexures already forming part of the record.
Any additional material relied upon under the discovery-of-new-evidence ground, together with due-diligence explanation.
Vakalatnama and AOR filing documents.
Compliance with current Registry checklist and court-fee requirements.

How should the grounds of Review Petition be drafted?

A disciplined review ground should answer four questions:

What exact statement, finding or operative direction is said to be erroneous?
Where is the error demonstrable from the existing record or governing law?
Why is it an error apparent or another recognised review ground rather than a request for rehearing?
How did the error materially affect the result?

The draft should avoid simply copying the old appeal grounds under a new heading.

Examples of weak Review Petition grounds

“The Court did not appreciate the evidence correctly.”
“Another view is possible.”
“The applicant wishes to cite more judgments.”
“The Bench should reconsider the same submissions.”
“The result is harsh.”
“The applicant’s previous counsel did not argue effectively,” without a legally recognised review error.
“The Court should reassess credibility of all witnesses.”

Examples of potentially stronger review framing

the judgment proceeds on a statutory provision that had already been repealed or materially amended;
the operative order grants relief legally unavailable under the governing enactment;
a binding Constitution Bench authority directly controlling the issue was inadvertently overlooked;
the judgment records a material fact demonstrably contrary to the admitted record;
a crucial document already on record was completely omitted from consideration and the omission is outcome-determinative;
new evidence satisfying the strict due-diligence requirement changes the foundation of the result; or
an obvious legal error has produced manifest injustice.

Pan-India Review Petition timeline after Supreme Court judgment

Obtain and study the final Supreme Court judgment/order immediately.
Identify the exact review ground rather than merely the adverse result.
Calculate the 30-day limitation.
Retrieve the complete original Supreme Court paper book.
Compare the judgment with pleadings, written submissions and governing statutory provisions.
Check whether any binding precedent was overlooked.
Determine whether the matter is civil or criminal because the review tests differ.
Assess whether the alleged error is apparent without a fresh appellate exercise.
If relying on new evidence, document due diligence.
Prepare the AOR certificate.
Decide whether delay condonation is required.
Decide whether permission to file review is required.
Assess whether open-court listing can legally be sought.
Identify any urgent interim consequence.
Complete Registry scrutiny and curing of defects.

Common mistakes in Supreme Court Review Petitions

missing the 30-day deadline;
treating review as another appeal;
repeating SLP or appeal grounds verbatim;
failing to distinguish civil and criminal review standards;
relying on “new evidence” that was available earlier;
failing to prove due diligence;
seeking open-court hearing as if it were automatic;
failing to identify the specific error in the judgment;
using review to cure poor original litigation strategy;
filing a second review instead of analysing curative jurisdiction;
assuming filing automatically stays the judgment; and
overlooking the Advocate-on-Record certification requirement.

Frequently asked questions

What is the limitation for filing a Review Petition in the Supreme Court?

The ordinary limitation under Order XLVII Rule 2 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 is 30 days from the judgment or order sought to be reviewed.

Can delay in filing a Supreme Court Review Petition be condoned?

Yes, an application for condonation of delay may be filed, but the applicant must show sufficient cause. Condonation is discretionary.

What is the main ground for criminal review?

In a criminal proceeding, Order XLVII Rule 1 confines review to an error apparent on the face of the record.

What are the grounds for civil review?

Civil review follows the grounds recognised in Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC, including qualifying newly discovered evidence, error apparent on the face of the record and other sufficient reason within settled review law.

Is a Review Petition heard in open court?

Ordinarily review petitions are considered by circulation, subject to the Rules and orders of the Court. An application for open-court listing may be made where legally justified.

Are death-sentence Review Petitions heard in open court?

Yes. Under Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq, review petitions against judgments affirming the death sentence are heard in open court by a three-Judge Bench.

Can the Supreme Court rehear the entire case in review?

Ordinarily no. Review is narrow and cannot be used as an appeal in disguise.

Can new evidence be produced in review?

In civil review, newly discovered material may be relied upon only if it satisfies the strict legal test, including due diligence and materiality.

Can a non-party file a Review Petition?

In an appropriate case, a genuinely aggrieved non-party may seek review, subject to maintainability and any required permission application.

Can I file another SLP after the Supreme Court dismisses my case?

No SLP lies from the Supreme Court to itself. The relevant internal remedies are review and, after review dismissal in exceptional circumstances, curative jurisdiction.

What happens after Review Petition is dismissed?

The original Supreme Court judgment remains operative. A curative petition may be considered only if the exceptionally narrow curative threshold is satisfied.

What is the difference between correction and review?

Correction addresses clerical or comparable mistakes; review seeks substantive reconsideration on the limited Article 137 grounds. The correct procedural route depends on the defect.

Who files a Supreme Court Review Petition?

Supreme Court filing and acting are ordinarily conducted through an Advocate-on-Record, subject to recognised party-in-person procedure.

Key authorities

Article 137, Constitution of India: constitutional source of Supreme Court review power.
Order XLVII, Supreme Court Rules, 2013: procedural framework and 30-day limitation.
Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati: widely cited principles explaining when review is maintainable and when it becomes an appeal in disguise.
Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq v. Registrar, Supreme Court of India, (2014) 9 SCC 737: open-court three-Judge review in death-sentence cases.
Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra: curative jurisdiction after dismissal of review.
2024 INSC 145: confirms the 30-day review limitation under Order XLVII Rule 2 while explaining that curative petitions are governed by a reasonable-time standard.
2026 INSC 123: reiterates that review is not a rehearing and is confined to narrow grounds such as patent error or qualifying newly discovered evidence.

Official Supreme Court resources

Key takeaways

Supreme Court review is a narrow Article 137 remedy, not another appeal.
The ordinary filing period is 30 days.
Civil and criminal review standards are different under Order XLVII.
Criminal review is confined to error apparent on the face of the record.
Civil review may include qualifying newly discovered evidence, error apparent and other recognised CPC grounds.
Review petitions are ordinarily considered by circulation, subject to exceptions and orders.
Death-sentence reviews are heard in open court by three Judges under Mohd. Arif.
Filing review does not automatically stay the original judgment.
After review dismissal, curative jurisdiction is exceptionally narrow.

This article is intended for general legal education and Supreme Court procedure research across India. It does not constitute solicitation, advertisement or case-specific legal advice. Review limitation, maintainability, filing classification, interim relief and Registry requirements should be checked against the latest Supreme Court Rules, amendment notifications and the facts of the individual matter.

Contact Information

Adv Govind Bali
Managing Partner, Fastrack Legal Solutions LLP
Phone: 7697671219
Email: advgovind@fastracklegalsolutions.com
Website: www.fastracklegalsolutions.com

Contact details are provided for identification and professional correspondence. The article is for general legal information and does not constitute solicitation or advertisement.

Fastrack Legal Solutions