Review Petition in the Supreme Court: Grounds, Time Limit and Procedure

The grounds the Court will accept

In civil proceedings the Rules borrow the grounds from Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure:

• discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after due diligence, was not within the petitioner's knowledge or could not be produced when the order was made;
• a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record;
• any other sufficient reason, which the courts read as a reason analogous to the first two, not as an open door.

In criminal proceedings the only ground is an error apparent on the face of the record.

The Supreme Court collected the principles in Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati (2013). An error apparent is one that is self-evident and does not need a long process of reasoning to detect. A review cannot be used to re-argue the case, to substitute one reasonable view for another, or to raise a point that could have been but was not urged at the hearing. A later change in the law, or a later decision of a larger bench, is also not by itself a ground to review a judgment that was correct when delivered.

Time limit and the papers that go with it

The petition must be filed within 30 days from the date of the judgment or order. Delay can be condoned on a separate application, but the explanation must cover every day and the Court is strict, because finality matters most at the top of the system.

The petition is limited to the grounds; it is not a fresh appeal with new pleadings. It is filed through an Advocate-on-Record, who certifies that it is the first application for review and that it is based on grounds the Rules allow. The Rules bar a second review application against the same judgment, and a review cannot be filed against an order dismissing an earlier review.

How a review petition is heard

Unless the Court orders otherwise, a review petition is disposed of by circulation: the judges read it in chambers, without the advocates appearing, and an order is issued. As far as practicable the same judges who delivered the judgment hear the review. If they find a prima facie case, they issue notice to the other side and list it in open court; most petitions never reach that stage.

There is one important exception. In Mohd. Arif v. Registrar, Supreme Court of India (2014), a Constitution Bench held that review petitions in cases where a death sentence has been confirmed must be heard orally in open court, for a limited time, because of the irreversibility of the sentence.

Because the bench decides on the papers alone, the petition has to make its point quickly. The best petitions identify the error in the first page, quote the passage of the judgment and the record or precedent that shows it to be wrong, and explain why it affects the result.

Reviewing a dismissed Special Leave Petition

A review can be sought against an order dismissing a Special Leave Petition, but it is rarely the best step. When the Supreme Court dismisses an SLP by a short order without reasons, the High Court's judgment does not merge into it. The Court explained this in Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala (2000) and confirmed it in Khoday Distilleries v. Sri Mahadeshwara Sahakara Sakkare Karkhane (2019): the litigant may still apply to the High Court to review its own judgment, on the grounds that the High Court's review power allows. Where the error lies in the High Court's reasoning, that route is often more promising than asking the Supreme Court to review its refusal of leave.

Deciding whether to file

We advise clients to ask three questions before a review is filed:

1. 1.Can the error be shown from the judgment and the record alone, in a page or two, without re-arguing the case?
2. 2.Does the error go to the result, so that correcting it would change the outcome, not just a passage of reasoning?
3. 3.Was the point actually put before the Court, or was the material genuinely unavailable at the time despite diligence?

If the answer to any of these is no, a review is unlikely to succeed and may only delay other steps such as complying with the judgment or negotiating. If the answers are yes, the petition should be filed early in the 30-day window, because a curative petition is available only after a review has been dismissed, and only on even narrower grounds.

Our appeals team also handles review applications before the Delhi High Court and the Punjab & Haryana High Court, where the grounds are the same in substance but the hearing is usually oral.