Review Petition, Meaning, Article, Filing Process, Latest News 

A Review Petition is a legal remedy that allows a court to reconsider its own judgment or order in limited circumstances. Article 137 of the Constitution empowers the Supreme Court to review its judgments and orders. The remedy is an exception to the doctrine of ‘functus officio’, under which a court ordinarily cannot reopen a matter after delivering its decision.

Review Petition Latest News

On August 21, 2026, the Supreme Court modified its May 2025 ruling on eligibility for Civil Judge Recruitment. The Court reduced the required prior law practice from three years to one year. It also introduced one year of judicial training and one year of structured clerkship for selected candidates.

Review Petition

A Review Petition does not provide a second appeal. It is meant to correct a patent error, consider important new material, or prevent serious injustice within legally recognised grounds.

• Review Petition in Supreme Court: Article 137 gives the Supreme Court power to review its judgments or orders, subject to Supreme Court Rules and applicable law made by Parliament.
• Review Petition in High Court: High Courts can review their judgments under Article 226, particularly where there is a breach of law or violation of constitutional provisions.
• Review Petition in District Courts: Review jurisdiction in civil matters is governed by the Civil Procedure Code 1908, including the review mechanism under Order XLVII.
• Who Can File Review Petition?: Any person aggrieved by a ruling may seek review. Filing is therefore not restricted only to the original parties involved in the proceedings.
• Grounds of Review Petition: Review may be sought for newly discovered important evidence, an error apparent on the face of the record, or another sufficient reason analogous to these grounds.
• Scope: A Review Petition cannot ordinarily be used to obtain rehearing or a fresh decision. The Court focuses on correcting grave errors rather than minor mistakes.
• Review and Appeal: An appeal examines the correctness of a decision through appellate jurisdiction. Review is narrower and primarily addresses apparent errors or circumstances causing serious injustice.
• Time Limit: Under the Supreme Court Rules, a Review Petition generally must be filed within 30 days from the relevant judgment or order.
• Delay: The Court may condone delay in appropriate circumstances when the petitioner establishes strong reasons explaining why the petition could not be filed within the prescribed period.
• Bench Composition: Review petitions are ordinarily placed before the same Bench that delivered the original judgment or order. Another competent Bench may consider it when that Bench is unavailable.
• Mode of Hearing: Review petitions are generally considered through circulation by judges in chambers without oral arguments. Exceptional cases may receive an oral hearing.
• Death Penalty Cases: The Supreme Court held in 2014 that review petitions in death penalty cases would be heard in open court by a Bench of three judges.
• Success Rate of Review Petition: A Review Petition has a narrow scope and is not automatically admitted. The Court may reject petitions where the grounds do not establish a legally recognised basis for review.

‹ ›

How to File a Review Petition?

The process of filing a Review Petition begins after a judgment or order and remains confined to recognised review grounds, procedural requirements, judicial consideration and the final outcome of the petition.

• Identify the Error: The petitioner must first establish a patent error, newly discovered important evidence, or another sufficient reason supporting reconsideration.
• Check Limitation: The Review Petition should ordinarily be filed within 30 days from the judgment or order under the applicable Supreme Court Rules.
• Prepare Grounds: The petition should clearly state the grounds for review. It should contain relevant legal arguments and supporting judicial precedents.
• File the Petition: Any aggrieved person may approach the competent court through a Review Petition according to the applicable procedural law and court rules.
• Initial Scrutiny: The Court examines whether the petition satisfies the recognised grounds. A petition lacking substantial merit can be rejected.
• Judicial Consideration: The petition is ordinarily considered by the same Bench that delivered the original decision. It is generally examined through circulation.
• Possible Outcomes: The Court may reject the petition or grant review where the established grounds justify reconsideration of the earlier judgment or order.

What to do if a Review Petition Fails?

A dismissed Review Petition does not ordinarily permit another review. In limited circumstances, the aggrieved person may approach the Supreme Court through a Curative Petition.

• The Supreme Court evolved this remedy in Roopa Hurra v Ashok Hurra (2002). It provides a final judicial avenue after dismissal of a Review Petition.
• A Curative Petition is entertained only on exceptional grounds. It may address violations of natural justice or circumstances creating a reasonable apprehension of judicial bias.
• The Curative Petition is considered a last resort before the Supreme Court. The Court exercises this jurisdiction cautiously to prevent miscarriage of justice.

SC Judgement on 3-Year Judiciary Practice Review Petition

On August 21 2026, Supreme Court Judgement on 3-Year Practice For Judiciary Review Petition reduced prior practice from three years to one year and retained structured training requirements.

• Transition Period: Candidates applying by March 31, 2027 need no actual practice experience and are deemed to have completed one year of practice.
• Post March 2027 Rule: From April 1, 2027, applicants must prove one year of active law practice and complete prescribed training and clerkship.
• Training and Clerkship: Selected Judicial Officers undergo one year of training at the State Judicial Academy, followed by one year of mandatory clerkship.
• Final Evaluation: After clerkship, the supervising High Court judge submits a reasoned evaluation and satisfactory performance leads to regular appointment.