After dismissal of review petition, final challenge to order or judgment of Supreme Court. Concept evolved by Supreme court to have statutorily recognized the right to approach supreme court in curative jurisdiction

1. What after dismissal of Review Petition by Supreme
Court?
Any aggrieved personapproached to Hon’ble Supreme Court with the
great hope and curiosity that their legal rights will be clearly and
precisely decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court after following due
process of law and with correct interpretation of law with no error of
such magnitude that judgment pronounced by Supreme Court will
reflect equity, reasonableness, soundness and proper interpretation
of law. It is an admitted fact that it is not easy for any person to
approach to Supreme Court which may be due number of facts and
not limited to financial constraints, procedural difficulties, lack of
proper knowledge, non-availability of sound legal opinion, distance
etc. However, with the acceptance of Public Interest Litigation by
Hon’ble Supreme Court & digitalization of technology and creation of
National Law Schools and transparency and upliftment of social
status etc, some of the aforesaid difficulties were overcomed, yet
some like ‘human err’ still crept and difficult to remove because due
to increase in number of cases, with decease of number of judges
over number of cases and other infra structural problems.
Some social reformers like advocates, time and again posed
questions a question before Hon’ble Supreme Court that since
Supreme Court of India is the last & final court of India and judgment
pronounced by Apex Court can’t be overturned between parties and
to correct the errors crept in judgment, if any, there is limited
jurisdiction to challenge it before Supreme Court in Review and
therefore in few instances, Supreme Court noticed that errors
occurred due to human err i.e. unintentional mistake due to oversight
were corrected by Supreme Court by exercising inherent jurisdiction
of Supreme Court which allows Supreme Court to correct manifest or
patent error in the interest of justice by applying principle of ex-debito

2. justitiate is founded on a recognition of a debt that the justice delivery
system owes to a litigant to correct an error in judicial evaluation.
That another opportunity to approach Supreme Court, in the light, that
justice has been delivered, right was recognized by Supreme Court
through its inherent powers, to allow any aggrieved person to
challenge the order after dismissalof review petition before Supreme
Court in the form of Curative in nature i.e. to cure. Since a review of a
review would not lie and an Article 32 petition would not be
maintainable and, therefore, such a method called ‘Curative’ was
evolved.1
Afterdismissalof review petition by Supreme Court, though
time limit is not fixed, not statutorily governed but such petition be
filed within reasonable time, to have last and final opportunity to
settled their grievance and that opportunity is granted on the grounds
like (1) Violation of Principle of Natural Justice (2) Failure of
Disclosure of Baisness of Judge etc. and to prevent abuse of its
process and to cure a gross miscarriage of justice, may reconsider its
judgments in exercise of its inherent power. This principle2
of Curative
Petition was recognized by Supreme Court by which parties were
allowed to file curative petition and such Curative Petition must be
signed by Senior Advocate certifying that petition comply and fits with
the direction passed in Rupa Ashok Hura (supra). That a curative
petition is not heard in open court and is circulated to a bench of the
three senior-most judges and the judges who passed the judgment
under challenge, if the latter were still available but if it is accepted
then it may be allowed to be heard in open Court. The parameters of
curative petition to be allowed are narrow and chances of allow are
quite low, nevertheless, it give an hope, an opportunity to final review
of order of Supreme Court and then consider the litigation to come to
an end in the interest of society and public at large.
1 [See: Yakub Abdul Razak Memon vs State of Maharashtra 2015 SCC OnLine
SC 661]
2 [See: Rupa Ashok Hurra vs Ashok Hurra 2002 (4) SCC 388]