Supreme Court Review Petition- Scope of Power

The public debate surrounding the Sabarimala verdict continues to take center stage in the weeks following the departure of Chief Justice Dipak Misra from the Supreme Court. Several review petitions were filed against the majority verdict of 28 September 2018, and CJI Ranjan Gogoi's refusal to hear the matter urgently created further discontent. Article 137 of the Constitution of India empowers the Supreme Court to review any of its judgments or orders. However, this power is subject to the rules made by the

Supreme Court under Article 145 as well as the provisions of any law made by Parliament. The power of review is distinct from the court's power to hear an appeal, i.e. appellate jurisdiction. In hearing a petition for review filed against its own order or judgment. The Court does not hear the case at hand as it would in an appeal. The purpose of a petition for review is limited to correcting a manifest error or grave injustice resulting from the decision of the Supreme Court. The scope of the review power was explained by the Court in Northern India Caterers (India). Governor of Delhi (1979) where the Court held that "a party is not entitled to seek review of a judgment passed by this Court", only for the purpose of a new discussion of the matter and a new decision in the matter. Ordinarily, the principle applies that the judgment given by the Court is final and a departure from this principle is justified only when circumstances of a substantial and serious nature so require. If a material statutory provision is not brought to the Court's attention during the original hearing, the Court will review its judgment. The court may also reopen its judgment if there has been a manifest error and order must be made for the full and effective administration of justice. The power to review its own decisions is not an inherent power of the Supreme Court but a safeguard against the fallibility of the apex judiciary so as to ensure justice.