Supreme Court of India — How to Prepare and File a Curative Petition

Jurisdiction and scope: Supreme Court of India; civil and criminal curative petitions under Order XLVIII of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, after disposition of a review petition. This note does not cover High Court review, mercy petitions, recall applications or ordinary appeals.

Law checked: 28 September 2026

Short answer

A curative petition is not a second review or another appeal on the merits. It is an exceptional request asking the Supreme Court to correct a fundamental defect in its own final process after review has failed. Order XLVIII requires the petition to address the review history, carry separate certificates from a Senior Advocate and the Advocate-on-Record, and be filed within a “reasonable time.” There is no fixed numerical limitation period in the Rules. Most curative petitions are first considered by circulation without oral argument.

When this procedure applies

Use this route only after the Supreme Court has decided the underlying matter and the review petition has been dismissed or otherwise disposed of. The Supreme Court’s current jurisdiction page describes curative reconsideration as a limited remedy available after dismissal of review. In Surendra Koli v State of Uttar Pradesh, 2025 INSC 1308, the Court stressed that curative jurisdiction is narrow, finality remains the rule, and the Court does not rehear evidence as if sitting in a second appeal.

The recognised illustrations include denial of natural justice—such as an adversely affected person not being heard or served—and undisclosed judicial connection giving rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias. The 2025 judgment confirms that these examples are illustrative rather than exhaustive, but the controlling inquiry remains a fundamental defect in process or a grave miscarriage of justice. A disagreement with reasoning, factual findings or the result is not enough by itself.

Steps

1. Audit the review record before drafting

Collect the final judgment or order, the complete review petition, every application filed with it, and the order disposing of review. Build a ground-by-ground comparison. Order XLVIII rule 2(1) ordinarily requires a specific averment that the curative grounds were raised in the review petition and that review was dismissed by circulation. Do not simply repeat the appeal or review grounds under a new heading.

2. Identify the curative defect precisely

State the procedural defect and explain why it undermines the legitimacy of the adjudicatory process. Link each factual proposition to the existing court record. If relying on lack of notice, identify the proceeding, the required notice, what the record shows and how the absence affected the result. If relying on apprehended bias, identify the undisclosed connection and explain its bearing. If invoking another kind of grave miscarriage, address the exacting threshold stated in 2025 INSC 1308 and explain why the request is not an attempt to reappraise evidence.

3. Deal correctly with an open-court review order

Order XLVIII rule 2(1) is framed around dismissal of review by circulation. In Brahmaputra Concrete Pipe Industries v Assam State Electricity Board, 2024 INSC 145, the Supreme Court held that the Registry could not itself refuse registration merely because the review had been heard in open court; maintainability was a judicial question. The Court nevertheless identified Order LV rule 2 as the route for seeking excuse from rule compliance. Its 8 April 2025 follow-up order states that the curative petition should contain the plea seeking excuse and the Registrar should obtain instructions from the Judge in Chambers. Where review was heard in open court, include that application and do not pretend that the circulation averment can truthfully be made.

4. Retain the required Supreme Court counsel

An Advocate-on-Record should control filing and Registry compliance. Order XLVIII rule 2(3) requires the Advocate-on-Record’s certificate that this is the first curative petition in the impugned matter. Rule 2(2) separately requires a Senior Advocate’s certificate that the petition meets the requirements stated in Rupa Ashok Hurra v Ashok Hurra. These are different certificates serving different purposes; neither substitutes for the other.

5. Assemble the filing packet

At minimum, prepare and cross-check:

• the curative petition with the complete cause title and correct underlying appeal, review and diary numbers;
• a concise chronology and the final judgment or order complained of;
• the review petition and the order disposing of review;
• the Senior Advocate certificate under Order XLVIII rule 2(2);
• the Advocate-on-Record certificate under rule 2(3);
• supporting affidavit, vakalatnama or authorised representation documents as applicable;
• proof of prescribed court fee, or a properly supported exemption application where legally available;
• applications for excuse from compliance, delay, interim relief or open-court listing only where the facts justify them; and
• the number of paper books or electronic copies required by the Registry’s current filing directions.

The Court’s published default checklist also requires signed pleadings, matching cause titles, complete party contact particulars, properly attested affidavits, translations or an exemption application where necessary, and correct pagination and indexing. A 2025 official office report illustrates recurring curative-petition defects: missing fee proof, incomplete review cause title, missing review-petition copies, absent Order XLVIII averment, an incorrect title or prayer, and pagination errors.

6. File without avoidable delay

Order XLVIII rule 3 requires filing within a “reasonable time” from the review judgment or order. It does not prescribe 30 days or any other fixed number. The Supreme Court expressly confirmed that point in 2024 INSC 145. Record the review-order date, explain every material interval, and file any necessary delay application and affidavit. Do not wait for a supposed statutory deadline that does not exist.

7. Plan for circulation, not a routine hearing

Under Order XLVIII rule 4, the petition is first circulated to the three senior-most Judges and the Judges who delivered the impugned judgment, if available. Unless the Court orders otherwise, it is disposed of by circulation without oral argument, although the petitioner may supplement it with additional written arguments. A hearing follows only if a majority concludes that one is needed. The Court may impose exemplary costs if it finds the petition meritless and vexatious.

Practical filing checklist

• Has the review petition already been disposed of?
• Is the alleged defect curative in character, rather than merits disagreement?
• Does the petition map each curative ground to the review record?
• Is the Order XLVIII rule 2(1) averment accurate?
• If review was heard in open court, is there a focused Order LV rule 2 application?
• Are both required certificates present and correctly worded?
• Are all case numbers, party names, dates, prayers, pagination and copies consistent?
• Is the filing delay explained against the “reasonable time” standard?
• Has the Advocate-on-Record checked the latest default list, e-filing route and court-fee calculator immediately before lodging?

Deadlines and costs

Deadline: “Reasonable time” from the review judgment or order; no fixed period is stated in Order XLVIII rule 3. Treat delay as a substantive filing risk.

Court fee: Use the Supreme Court’s current court-fee calculator and the applicable schedule at the time of filing. This note does not state a flat amount because the filing type and associated applications affect the prescribed fee.

Common errors

• presenting the petition as a second merits review;
• adding grounds never taken in review without confronting rule 2(1);
• omitting either the Senior Advocate or Advocate-on-Record certificate;
• using the circulation averment when review was actually heard in open court;
• assuming a fixed 30-day limitation period;
• requesting oral hearing as though it were automatic;
• filing incomplete cause titles, missing paper books, defective fee proof or mismatched case numbers; and
• relying on old Registry practice without checking the current default list and e-filing page.

Official sources

For the preceding remedy, see Court Cast’s civil review petition practice note.

Automated-research disclosure: This practice note was produced through automated research of the linked official Supreme Court rules, judgments, orders and Registry pages. It has not been represented as human legal review. Counsel should recheck the live Rules, filing directions, fees and case-specific orders before lodging.

Next review: 28 March 2027, or earlier if the Supreme Court amends Order XLVIII or issues new filing directions.