Overview
Article 137 empowers the Supreme Court of India to review its own judgments or orders, subject to provisions made by law or rules framed under the Constitution. It provides a constitutional basis for correcting errors in Supreme Court decisions.
The provision exists to ensure justice, fairness, and correction of mistakes. It recognises that even the highest court may commit errors and must have a limited mechanism to rectify them without undermining finality of judgments.
Scope of Review Power
The review power under Article 137 is not an appeal in disguise. It is exercised only on limited grounds such as:
- Error apparent on the face of the record
- Discovery of new and important matter or evidence not available earlier despite due diligence
- Violation of principles of natural justice
- Manifest injustice
Procedural Framework
- The procedure for review is governed by Supreme Court Rules, framed under Article 145
- Review petitions are usually heard by the same bench that delivered the original judgment
- Oral hearing is rare; review is generally decided in chambers
Review vs Curative Petition
- Review Petition: Directly flows from Article 137; first level of correction
- Curative Petition: Not mentioned in the Constitution; evolved judicially to prevent gross miscarriage of justice after dismissal of review
Limitations
- Review jurisdiction is exceptional and narrow
- Re-argument on merits is not permitted
- Used sparingly to maintain certainty and authority of judicial decisions
Constitutional Significance
Article 137 balances two competing principles:
- Finality of judgments, essential for legal certainty
- Corrective justice, essential for fairness and credibility of the judiciary
Article 137 ensures that the Supreme Court remains a court of justice, not merely a court of finality, by allowing limited self-correction while preserving institutional stability.
