Introduction
Article 137 gives the Supreme Court of India the power to review its own judgments and orders. This means the Court can re-examine a decision it has already delivered if a serious mistake is shown. The Constitution allows this power so that justice does not suffer because of human error. At the same time, Article 137 protects the idea that court judgments should normally be final. This balance between correction and certainty makes Article 137 an important part of India’s constitutional system.
Why Does the Supreme Court Have Review Power Under Article 137?
The main purpose of Article 137 is to ensure justice in exceptional situations. Judges are human and may sometimes overlook facts, evidence, or legal principles. Review power allows the Supreme Court to correct such errors without forcing people to approach another forum. This strengthens public trust in the judiciary. However, this power is not meant for regular re-hearing of cases. It exists only to prevent grave injustice and not to satisfy dissatisfaction with a judgment.
What Is the Exact Meaning of Article 137?
Article 137 clearly states that the Supreme Court may review any judgment or order passed by it. This power operates subject to laws made by Parliament or rules framed by the Supreme Court under Article 145. In simple terms, the Court can review its decisions, but only by following strict legal procedures. Parliament and Supreme Court rules guide how and when this power can be used, ensuring discipline and consistency.
How Did Article 137 Develop Historically?
Article 137 was introduced during the Constituent Assembly debates as Draft Article 112A. The framers of the Constitution wanted the Supreme Court to have limited self-correction powers. Some members worried that allowing reviews could weaken final judgments. Others argued that justice required a safety mechanism. Ultimately, the Assembly agreed that review power should exist but be exercised carefully. The Article was adopted without major changes, showing a shared belief in cautious judicial oversight.
What Is the Scope of Review Under Article 137?
The scope of Article 137 is narrow and well-defined. A review petition is not an appeal. The Supreme Court does not hear the case again from the beginning. Instead, it checks whether a serious error is visible on the face of the record. The Court focuses only on correcting mistakes that affect justice. This limited scope ensures that Article 137 does not become a tool for endless litigation.
What Are the Grounds for Filing a Review Petition?
Review petitions follow principles similar to Order 47 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code. A review may be allowed if new and important evidence is discovered that was not available earlier. It may also be allowed if there is a clear and obvious error in the judgment. In rare cases, the Court may accept other sufficient reasons. Mere disagreement with the judgment or dissatisfaction with the outcome is never enough.
What Is the Time Limit and Procedure for Review Petitions?
Under the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, a review petition is usually filed within thirty days of the judgment. The same bench of judges that delivered the original decision generally hears the review. In most cases, the Court decides review petitions without oral arguments. This practice saves time and prevents misuse. Oral hearings are allowed only when the Court feels they are absolutely necessary.
How Has the Supreme Court Interpreted Article 137?
The Supreme Court has consistently emphasized restraint in using review power. In the case of R.D. Sagar v. V. Nagary, the Court clarified that reviews are permitted only to correct grave errors. The judges made it clear that review jurisdiction is not meant for routine re-examination of cases. Sometimes, the Court may modify or clarify observations without fully reversing the judgment. These interpretations protect the authority and finality of Supreme Court decisions.
Why Are Review Petitions Rarely Allowed?
Review petitions are allowed only in exceptional circumstances. The judiciary believes that frequent reviews would weaken confidence in court judgments. Finality is essential for legal stability and social order. If every judgment were easily reviewed, litigation would never end. By allowing reviews only in rare cases, the Supreme Court ensures both justice and certainty. This careful approach maintains respect for judicial decisions.
How Is Article 137 Different From an Appeal?
An appeal challenges a decision before a higher court. A review, under Article 137, happens within the same court. In a review, the Supreme Court does not reassess the entire case. It only checks for serious mistakes. Appeals focus on correctness, while reviews focus on preventing injustice caused by clear errors. Understanding this difference helps students grasp the limited nature of review jurisdiction.
For any specific query call at +91 – 8569843472
Conclusion
Article 137 strengthens India’s judicial system by allowing self-correction in rare cases. It ensures that serious mistakes do not destroy justice. At the same time, it respects the need for final judgments. The Supreme Court uses this power carefully and sparingly. This disciplined use makes Article 137 a symbol of mature constitutional governance and judicial wisdom.
