Review Petition Vs Curative Petition Vs Mercy Petition

There is a pyramid structure of courts at various levels in any judicial process. After a district court has passed a judgment, any party dissatisfied with the decision may appeal to a High Court. If either of the parties is dissatisfied with the High court’s ruling, they can appeal to the Supreme Court. Articles 132 to 136 give the parameters for various appeal proceedings.

A subset of appeals does not necessarily follow the judicial and tribunal structure. The Supreme Court can issue a special permission right to appeal against any judgment passed either by any court under Article 136 of the Indian Constitution. As the supreme custodian of the constitution, the Supreme Court has complete authority over its application.

Constitutional Provisions of Special Leave Petition

As per Article 45 of the Constitution, a petition for special leave is submitted to the Supreme Court.

What is a Review Petition?

A review petition is the Supreme Court’s ability to re-examine its judgments. The Rule of Law regulates India, and if there is injustice in a ruling, it can be overturned through a review petition. A review petition is never a new hearing of an appeal, and it is the ability to fix a “patent mistake” in a previous decision. Under the terms of law adopted by Parliament or regulations issued within article 145, the Supreme Court reserves the right to evaluate any judgment or order issued by it, reads Article 137 of the Indian Constitution.

The Constitutional Provisions Behind Review Petition

According to Supreme Court regulations, a review petition must be lodged after 30 days of a judgment. It must be distributed to the same panel that gave the verdict without oral arguments.

What Is a Curative Petition?

A curative petition will be the last legal option open to an individual after the review petition has already been rejected by the Supreme Court. The curative petition is not mentioned in the Indian Constitution, which only says the Supreme Court’s competence to consider petitions under Article 137. When filing a curative petition, the Supreme Court is extremely cautious. The Supreme Court has established particular standards for courts to follow when considering these petitions, stating that they should only be considered in rare circumstances when a fundamental tenet of natural justice has been violated. 

Constitutional Provisions Behind Curative Petition

A curative petition is required to give a last resort for rectifying any mistakes in decisions where administrative obstacles or other concerns about revisiting a case have prevented judges from revising their decisions.

What is a Mercy Petition?

A criminal’s final recourse is to file a mercy plea, and it is the last hope for an innocent individual who has been convicted due to gross injustice and misuse of the procedure. Article 72 of the Constitution gives a criminal the right to sue the President for mercy. 

Under Article 161 of the Indian Constitution, government leaders have the authority to issue mercy. Under Articles 72 and 161 of the Indian Constitution, the President and Governors can release, relieve, or remit sentences imposed by the Apex Court and High Courts. 

However, the President and Governor do not have the authority to give pardons without consulting the Cabinet ministers. Article 72 has a far broader reach than Article 161.

Constitutional Provisions of Mercy Petition

According to Article 72 of the Constitution, the President can give pardons, reprieves, respites, or remissions of a penalty and postpone, reduce, or shorten the sentence of a guilty person.

• If a court-martial imposes the conviction or penalty.
• When the penalty is for a violation of an issue within the Union’s executive power.
• In all situations when the penalty is a death sentence.

Likewise, under Article 161, the President has the authority to grant forgiveness, respites, or remissions of punishment, halt, or revoke the sentence of almost any convicted person.

Conclusion

The Indian legal system is comprehensive and based on the concept that no innocent citizen should be prejudiced. The nation’s top court pays close attention to the smallest details. After the verdict, the possibility of change in direction and the revelation of information to assure justice remains open. Even though some have been using this approach to obtain a final hearing, others have looked to postpone the justice delivery to the parties involved.