Precision post-judgment petitions before the Hon’ble Supreme Court seeking correction of patent errors apparent on the face of the record or discovery of crucial new evidence.
Share impugned order details and dates for prompt maintainability and limitation review.
Under Article 137 read with Order XLVII of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, the Supreme Court may review its own judgment or order, but review is strictly NOT a "re-hearing or appeal in disguise."
Under Order XLVII Rule 3, Review Petitions are ordinarily decided by Circulation in Chambers by the same Judges who delivered the judgment—without an oral open-court hearing unless an accompanying Application for Open-Court Hearing persuades the Bench (mandatory in death sentence cases under Mohd. Arif).
Under Article 137 of the Constitution of India and Order XLVII of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, the Supreme Court possesses narrow constitutional power to review any judgment pronounced or order made by it. Crucially, unlike first appeals, a Review Petition is NOT a re-hearing or second appeal on merits: under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC principles applied to civil reviews and "error apparent on the face of the record" standards in criminal reviews, mere disagreement with the Court legal reasoning or citing a fresh argument Counsel forgot to press earlier is strictly disallowed.
Review Petitions must be filed within a tight 30-day statutory window from the date of the Supreme Court judgment or order. Under Order XLVII Rule 3, Review Petitions are ordinarily disposed of "by circulation" inside Judges Chambers without any oral hearing—making the written Review Petition text, the mandatory Advocate-on-Record Certificate, and surgical highlighting of an unmistakable self-evident oversight (such as overlooking a decisive binding statute, misquoting a critical contract clause/date, or deciding on an overruled judgment) wholly decisive.
In exceptional categories—most notably Capital Punishment / Death Sentence confirmations following the Mohd. Arif Constitution Bench judgment and substantive statutory civil appeal reviews where open-court arguments are specifically sought—Chambers prepare focused applications for Open Court Hearing alongside execution/decree stay prayers.
Omission of a binding statutory amendment, misreading of an admitted date/figure, or conflict with an unconsidered Constitution Bench ruling.
Crucial official evidence or decree discovered post-judgment that could not have been produced earlier despite due diligence.
Drafting persuasive reasons seeking oral hearing in open court alongside Chamber Circulation.
Strictly satisfying Order XLVII certification confirming narrow maintainability within Review boundaries before Supreme Court Registry acceptance.
Reference matrix covering primary statutory enactments, applicable petition nomenclature, limitation windows, and bench maintainability thresholds.
| Governing Provision | Remedy / Petition Class | Limitation & Timing | Bench / Maintainability Standard |
|---|---|---|---|
| Article 137 & Order XLVII Rule 2 SC Rules | R.P.(C) / R.P.(CRL) — Review Petition Against SC Order/Judgment | Strict 30 days from Date of Impugned SC Judgment/Order | Error apparent on face of record / Discovery of decisive new evidence |
| Order XLVII Rule 3, SC Rules, 2013 | Circulation Disposal in Chambers (No Oral Hearing by Default) | 30-day filing + same Judges Bench circulation | Written grounds must establish error self-evidently on brief reading |
| Mohd. Arif vs Registrar, SC (2014) 9 SCC 737 | Mandatory Open-Court Hearing in Death Sentence Reviews | 30 days (heard by 3-Judge Bench in Open Court) | Applies automatically to Death Penalty confirmation reviews |
| Order XLVII Certificate & Application | AOR / Counsel Certificate + Application for Open Court Hearing | Filed concurrently with Review Petition | Certifies error is genuine, non-frivolous & not repetitive re-arguing |
Key binding principles applied at preliminary admission, interim stay consideration, and final adjudication.
Summarizes exhaustive positive grounds allowing Review (patent mistake/error on face, subsequent binding statutory omission) and negative grounds where Review is strictly barred.
An error apparent on the face of the record must strike one on mere looking at the record—not an error that requires long-drawn process of reasoning on two possible views.
Constitution Bench carved an exception to circulation-only Review rules, guaranteeing limited Open Court oral hearing in all Death Sentence Review Petitions.
Discovery of new evidence in civil reviews requires strict proof that despite exercise of due diligence, the crucial evidence was not within knowledge or producible earlier.
Structured chamber workflow from initial record scrutiny and advance service through preliminary admission and final disposal.
Count 30 calendar days from Judgment/Order date and isolate indisputable factual/statutory oversights on the face of the SC judgment.
Strip away repetitive appeal arguments; draft crisp point-by-point comparison between Judgment text and overlooked Binding Statute / Record Exhibit.
Settle Review Petition with Certificate from Advocate-on-Record confirming maintainability under Order XLVII.
Placed by Registry via Circulation before the same Judges who passed the order (or successor Roster Judges if retired).
If Bench finds prima facie merit upon circulation, Notice issues to Respondent and Review lists in Open Court for oral hearing.
Under Order XLVII Rule 3 SC Rules 2013, Review Petitions are disposed of by Circulation in Chambers without oral arguments unless the Court specifically allows an Application for Open-Court Hearing (or in death-penalty cases).
A Review Petition must be filed within 30 days from the date of the Supreme Court judgment or order sought to be reviewed.
Yes, an SLP dismissal order can be sought to be reviewed under Article 137 within 30 days if an error apparent on the face of the record exists.
Ordinarily no. Under Order XLVII Rule 3 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, Review Petitions are decided by circulation in Judges Chambers without counsel presence—EXCEPT in Death Sentence cases (Mohd. Arif ruling) or where the Bench expressly issues notice/grants a separate Application for Open Court Hearing.
30 days from the date of the Judgment or Order under Order XLVII Rule 2. Delay condonation in Review Petitions is scrutinized stringently.
Yes, under Article 137 even a summary dismissal order is technically reviewable within 30 days, though demonstrating an "error apparent" against a non-speaking dismissal is exceptionally demanding—often making a High Court Review (under Kunhayammed) another parallel/alternative consideration where applicable.
Explore connected remedies across the Delhi High Court and Supreme Court of India.
Provide brief particulars of the impugned order, High Court, or Supreme Court proceeding.
Join the Jurisvantage Supreme Court & High Court counsel network for briefing, local filing, and arguing collaboration.