Supreme Court of India — How to File a Civil Review Petition Under Article 137

Jurisdiction and scope: Supreme Court of India; civil review petitions directed to a judgment or order of the Supreme Court itself under Article 137 of the Constitution and Order XLVII of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013. This note does not cover review in a High Court or subordinate court, criminal review, curative petitions, recall applications, clerical corrections or merits appeals.

Law checked: 25 September 2026. Next review: 25 December 2026, or earlier if the Supreme Court publishes a rules or e-filing change.

Short answer

A civil review is a narrow request that the Supreme Court reconsider its own judgment or order. The petition must rely on a ground permitted by Order XLVII rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, must clearly set out that ground, and ordinarily must be filed within 30 days from the judgment or order. It must carry an Advocate-on-Record certificate confirming that it is the first review application and that the grounds are admissible. Unless the Court orders otherwise, the petition is decided by circulation without oral argument and, as far as practicable, goes to the same Judge or Bench.

When this procedure applies

Use this route only where the order to be reviewed was made by the Supreme Court in a civil proceeding. Article 137 supplies the constitutional power; Order XLVII supplies the filing conditions. A review is not a new appeal. Before drafting, identify one of the three civil-review grounds reproduced in the Court’s official practice handbook:

• discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, despite due diligence, was not within the applicant’s knowledge or could not be produced when the order was made;
• a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; or
• another sufficient reason within Order XLVII rule 1 of the Code.

If the complaint merely asks the Court to re-weigh the same submissions, reassess disputed evidence or choose a different conclusion without identifying a review ground, reconsider whether review is the correct procedural vehicle.

Step-by-step filing workflow

1. Confirm the target order and case type. Record the Supreme Court case number, cause title, date and coram. Confirm that the matter is civil. Do not import the criminal-review standard into a civil petition.
2. Fix the review ground before drafting. Tie every proposed ground to Order XLVII rule 1 of the Code. For newly discovered material, the supporting affidavit should identify the material, explain its effect, and state clearly why due diligence did not bring it to the applicant’s knowledge or permit its production earlier.
3. Calculate the 30-day period immediately. Order XLVII rule 2 requires filing within 30 days from the judgment or order sought to be reviewed. Under the amended Order I rule 4, exclude the day from which the period is reckoned. If the last day falls when the Court is closed, including partial Court working days, also exclude that day and succeeding closed or partially open days. Do not assume that applying for a copy automatically changes the prescribed starting point.
4. Engage the Advocate-on-Record responsible for filing. Order IV rule 7(c) provides that no advocate other than an Advocate-on-Record may file an appearance or act for a party in the Court. The AOR should check the connected case record, appearance position and the exact relief before the papers are uploaded.
5. Draft a focused petition. Identify the judgment or order, state the precise review ground, point to the relevant passage or record material, explain why the issue satisfies review jurisdiction, and frame a specific prayer. Avoid reproducing the appeal or special-leave petition wholesale.
6. Prepare the required certificate and record material. The petition must be accompanied by the AOR’s certificate that it is the first review application and rests on admissible grounds. Include a certified or authenticated copy of the judgment or order sought to be reviewed. Add the supporting affidavit, vakalatnama or memorandum of appearance as applicable, and only those record documents needed to establish the review ground.
7. Address delay expressly if the 30-day period has expired. Prepare a separate condonation application stating the exact number of days and the facts relied on, supported by an affidavit and the applicable court fee. The Registry checklist treats the absence of a condonation application in a time-barred filing as a defect. Do not describe delay as excused until the Court has actually condoned it.
8. File through the current Supreme Court channel and cure defects. Use the Court’s current SC-eFM 3.0 portal or the filing method directed by the Registry. Preserve the diary number and filing receipt. Monitor Registry objections and cure them within the time stated in the defect notice; a diary number is not the same as registration of a compliant review petition.
9. Plan for circulation, not a routine oral hearing. Under Order XLVII rule 3, the Court ordinarily disposes of review by circulation without oral arguments. The petitioner may supplement the petition with additional written arguments. The Court may dismiss the petition or direct notice to the opposite party. It should, as far as practicable, circulate to the same Judge or Bench that delivered the challenged decision.
10. Close the file accurately after disposal. Order XLVII rule 5 bars a further review application in the same matter after the first has been disposed of. A curative petition is a distinct exceptional procedure under Order XLVIII and is outside this note; do not relabel a second review as a miscellaneous application.

Filing checklist

• Supreme Court case number, cause title, decision date and coram verified
• Civil nature of the proceeding confirmed
• One or more admissible review grounds identified and pinpointed
• 30-day calculation recorded, including Order I rule 4 closure treatment
• Review petition with a precise prayer
• Certified or authenticated copy of the judgment or order
• AOR certificate: first review and admissible grounds
• Supporting affidavit; enhanced due-diligence explanation if new evidence is relied on
• Vakalatnama or memorandum of appearance, as applicable
• Only necessary record documents, legible and correctly indexed
• Condonation application, exact delay calculation and affidavit if filed late
• Diary receipt retained and Registry defects monitored

Common errors

• Treating review as an appeal: disagreement with the outcome is not itself a review ground.
• Using the wrong court’s rule: Order XLVII of the Supreme Court Rules governs this note, not a High Court’s civil rules.
• Missing the AOR certificate: it is expressly required by Order XLVII rule 1.
• Assuming oral argument: circulation without oral hearing is the default under rule 3.
• Relying on new material without due diligence: the affidavit should identify the evidence, its significance and why it could not earlier be produced.
• Filing a second review: rule 5 prohibits it once the first review has been disposed of.

Official authority table

Automated-research disclosure: This Practice Note was produced through automated primary-source research. It has not been described as lawyer-authored or lawyer-reviewed. The cited official materials and their displayed amendment history were independently rechecked on 25 September 2026 before publication.