The Curative Petition in the Supreme Court of India: Innovation, Jurisprudence, and Practice

1. Introduction

The concept of the curative petition is among the most remarkable judicial innovations in the constitutional history of India. It represents the Supreme Court’s answer to a deeply vexing question: what remedy, if any, lies against a final judgment of the highest court of the land, after even the power of review has been exhausted? In most legal systems, the answer is simply “none.” The doctrine of finality demands that litigation must, at some point, reach its terminus. Yet, the Supreme Court of India, animated by the constitutional imperative of doing “complete justice,” carved out an extraordinary, self-created remedy that sits at the very outer edge of judicial power – the curative petition.^[1]

The curative petition was not born from any legislative enactment. It finds no express mention in the Constitution of India. It is, instead, a product of judicial creativity, fashioned by the Supreme Court in the landmark case of Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra & Anr., (2002) 4 SCC 388, where a five-judge Constitution Bench held that the Court possesses the inherent power to reconsider its own final judgments in the rarest of rare cases to prevent abuse of its process and to cure a gross miscarriage of justice.^[2] This remedy was subsequently formalised as Order XLVIII of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, giving it a procedural framework within the Court’s own rule-book.^[3] To be clear a curative petition after disposal of Special Leave Petition/ Appeal and Review Petition.

This article undertakes a comprehensive examination of the curative petition – its constitutional origins, the factual matrix and reasoning of the Rupa Ashok Hurra decision, the procedural framework under Order XLVIII, the cases where curative petitions have been allowed and where they have been denied, and the best practices for practitioners who may need to file this most extraordinary of remedies.

2. The Constitutional Foundation

The curative petition draws its juridical sustenance from three constitutional provisions, though none of them explicitly mentions it. Article 129 declares the Supreme Court to be a “court of record” with “all the powers of such a court, including the power to punish for contempt of itself.”^[4] Article 137 empowers the Supreme Court to review any judgment or order pronounced by it, subject to rules made under Article 145.^[5] Most significantly, Article 142 grants the Court the power to “pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it.”^[6]

The Supreme Court in Rupa Ashok Hurra case held that its curative power flows from the confluence of Articles 129 and 142, which together vest the Court with an inherent jurisdiction that exists independently of its statutory power of review under Article 137.^[7] As a court of record endowed with the constitutional mandate to do complete justice, the Supreme Court cannot be a helpless spectator to a gross miscarriage of justice caused by its own final order. The curative jurisdiction is thus a manifestation of the Court’s obligation ex debito justitiae – arising from a debt owed to justice itself.^[8]

3. The Genesis: Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra (2002)

3.1 The Factual Background

The case arose from a matrimonial dispute. Mrs. Rupa Ashok Hurra and her husband Mr. Ashok Hurra had entered into a consent decree for divorce before the Supreme Court. Subsequently, Mrs. Hurra challenged the decree, contending that her consent had been vitiated and the modification of the original consent terms amounted to a legal error causing her undue hardship. Her review petition was dismissed. She then filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, challenging the legitimacy of the Supreme Court’s own final judgment – an unprecedented step.^[9]

A three-judge Bench, recognising the gravity of the constitutional question, referred the matter to a five-judge Constitution Bench, framing the central question thus: whether an aggrieved person is entitled to any relief against the final judgment or order of the Supreme Court, after the dismissal of a review petition, either under Article 32 of the Constitution or through any other mechanism.^[10]

3.2 The Constitutional Holding

The Constitution Bench, speaking through a comprehensive judgment, held:

“The Court, to prevent abuse of its process and to cure a gross miscarriage of justice, may reconsider its judgments in exercise of its inherent power.”^[11]

However, the Court simultaneously held that Article 32 is not available as a mechanism to challenge the Supreme Court’s own final decisions. A writ petition under Article 32 cannot function as a further appeal against a judgment that has already passed through the review process.^[12] Instead, the Court devised the entirely new remedy of the curative petition, laying down strict conditions for its entertainment.

3.3 The Conditions Laid Down

The Court in Rupa Ashok Hurra established the following conditions, which were subsequently incorporated into Order XLVIII of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013:^[13]

(i) The petitioner must aver specifically that the grounds mentioned in the curative petition had been taken in the review petition and that the review petition was dismissed by circulation.

(ii) The curative petition must be accompanied by a certification from a Senior Advocate that the petition meets the requirements laid down in Rupa Ashok Hurra and is not frivolous or vexatious.

(iii) The Advocate-on-Record must certify that it is the first curative petition in the impugned matter.

(iv) The petition must be first circulated to a Bench of the three senior-most judges of the Supreme Court and to the judges who passed the impugned judgment, if available.

(v) Unless otherwise ordered, the curative petition shall be disposed of by circulation, without oral arguments, though the petitioner may supplement the petition with additional written arguments.

(vi) If the Bench concludes by a majority that the matter needs hearing, it shall be listed before the same Bench, as far as possible.

(vii) If the Court concludes that the petition is without merit and vexatious, it may impose exemplary costs on the petitioner.

4. Order XLVIII of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013: The Procedural Framework

Following the Rupa Ashok Hurra judgment, the curative petition was formally incorporated into the Supreme Court’s procedural rules as Order XLVIII of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013.^[14] The official text of Order XLVIII provides:

A critical procedural clarification came in the 2024 judgment of Brahmaputra Concrete Pipe Industries v. Assam State Electricity Board, where the Supreme Court held that the Registry does not have the power to decline registration of a curative petition solely on the ground that the review petition was dismissed after open court hearing (as opposed to by circulation). The Court held that such a determination is for the judges, not the Registry, and directed that in such cases, the petition must be circulated to the three senior-most judges and the original bench for their consideration.^[16] The Court further clarified that there is no fixed limitation period for curative petitions – Rule 3 merely requires filing within a “reasonable time.”^[17]

5. Grounds on Which a Curative Petition May Be Entertained

The Supreme Court in Rupa Ashok Hurra deliberately chose not to enumerate all possible grounds for a curative petition, but identified the following as the primary categories:^[18]

(a) Violation of principles of natural justice: Where the petitioner was not afforded a proper hearing, or material submissions were not considered, or the judgment was passed without giving the affected party an opportunity to be heard.

(b) Apprehension of bias: Where there are grounds to suspect that the judge who passed the impugned order was biased, or failed to disclose facts that could have given rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias.

(c) Abuse of the process of the Court: Where the judicial process itself has been manipulated or misused, resulting in a judgment that is the product of fraud, suppression of material facts, or misrepresentation.

Subsequent decisions have expanded the scope to include cases involving “gross miscarriage of justice” and “patent illegality,” as discussed in the case analyses below.^[19]

6. Landmark Cases Where Curative Petitions Were Allowed

6.1 Navneet Kaur v. State of NCT of Delhi (2014)

Facts: Navneet Kaur, the wife of Devender Pal Singh Bhullar, who had been convicted and sentenced to death under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA), filed a curative petition after her review petition was dismissed. The central grounds were two supervening circumstances: an inordinate delay of eight years in the disposal of her husband’s mercy petition under Article 72 of the Constitution, and his severe mental illness, diagnosed as paranoid schizophrenia, which had developed during his prolonged incarceration on death row.^[20]

Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the curative petition and commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment. The Court held that the unreasonable delay of eight years in disposing of the mercy petition, combined with the convict’s dire mental condition, constituted compelling supervening circumstances that warranted the exercise of curative jurisdiction. The Court overturned its earlier position that had categorically denied commutation in TADA cases, holding that supervening circumstances such as delay and mental illness must be considered irrespective of the statute under which the conviction was recorded.^[21]

Why allowed: The case demonstrated that even after all conventional remedies had been exhausted, gross injustice caused by inaction of the executive (delay in mercy petition) and humanitarian considerations (mental illness) could justify the exercise of the Court’s curative power. This decision marked a significant shift in capital punishment jurisprudence in India.^[22]

6.2 DMRC v. Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd. (2024)

Facts: In 2008, the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) partnered with Delhi Airport Metro Express Private Limited (DAMEPL), a Reliance Infrastructure-led consortium, to construct, operate, and maintain the Delhi Airport Metro Express line. Disputes arose over defective viaduct bearings, leading DAMEPL to terminate the agreement in 2013. DAMEPL invoked arbitration, and the arbitral tribunal ruled in its favour, awarding approximately ₹7,600 crores to DAMEPL. While the Delhi High Court’s Division Bench set aside the arbitral award in favour of DMRC, the Supreme Court, in a Special Leave Petition, restored the award in 2021. DMRC’s review petition was also dismissed. DMRC then filed a curative petition.^[23]

Decision: A three-judge Bench led by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud allowed the curative petition on 10 April 2024, setting aside the arbitral award. The Court found that the award suffered from “perversity and patent illegality”—specifically, the tribunal had failed to distinguish between “curing a defect” and “taking effective steps to cure a defect” under the contractual clause, and had ignored vital evidence in the form of the Commissioner of Metro Rail Safety (CMRS) Certificate, which demonstrated that DMRC had taken substantial steps to cure the defects.^[24]

Why allowed: The Court identified a “fundamental error” in its own earlier judgment that had restored a patently illegal arbitral award. The willful ignoring of vital evidence by the tribunal constituted a ground for interference under the curative jurisdiction. This decision was unprecedented in that a curative petition was allowed to set aside an arbitral award, and it generated considerable scholarly debate about the scope of curative jurisdiction in commercial arbitration matters.^[25]

6.3 National Commission for Women v. Bhaskar Lal Sharma (2014)

Facts: The Supreme Court had earlier set aside a conviction under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, holding that a mother-in-law merely kicking her daughter-in-law or threatening her with divorce did not amount to “cruelty” within the meaning of that provision. The National Commission for Women (NCW) filed a curative petition, arguing that the Court had failed to appreciate relevant evidence and had laid down an erroneous legal proposition that would affect women’s rights across the country.^[26]

Decision: A three-judge Bench allowed the curative petition, set aside the earlier judgment, and restored the Special Leave Petition for fresh hearing. The Court recognised the importance of correctly appreciating evidence before reaching conclusions about guilt, particularly in cases involving domestic violence against women.^[27]

7. Cases Where Curative Petitions Were Denied

7.1 Union of India v. Union Carbide Corporation (2023) — The Bhopal Gas Tragedy

Facts: The Union Government filed a curative petition in 2010 seeking additional compensation for the victims of the catastrophic Bhopal Gas Tragedy of December 1984, which killed thousands and affected hundreds of thousands. The curative petition challenged the adequacy of the settlement amount that had been approved by the Supreme Court in 1989.^[28]

Decision: A five-judge Bench led by Justice S.K. Kaul rejected the curative petition in 2023. The Court held that a curative petition can only be entertained where there is a “gross miscarriage of justice, fraud, or suppression of material facts,” and the Union Government had failed to establish any of these grounds. The Court further noted that the Union Government itself had not filed a review petition at the time of the original settlement, and the curative petition was being filed more than two decades after the settlement order. The Bench significantly narrowed the scope of the curative jurisdiction by emphasising that it cannot be used to re-open matters merely because the petitioner is dissatisfied with the outcome.^[29]

Reasons for denial: No fraud, suppression, or gross miscarriage of justice established; inordinate delay in filing the curative petition; failure to exhaust the review remedy at the appropriate time; the settlement was a conscious and deliberated decision of the Court.^[30]

7.2 Cases Dismissed on Procedural Grounds

A large number of curative petitions are dismissed on purely procedural grounds, including: failure to aver that the grounds were taken in the review petition; absence of the mandatory Senior Advocate certificate; filing by a person who is not an Advocate-on-Record; filing beyond a reasonable time without explanation; or raising entirely new grounds that were not urged in the review petition.^[31] In Sidram S. Patil v. Gurunath Shivappa Patil (2005) 2 SCC 358, Gurdeep Singh v. State of Punjab (2005) 10 SCC 468, and Bakshi & Co. v. CST (2005) 12 SCC 398, the Court dismissed curative petitions for failure to satisfy the Rupa Ashok Hurra conditions.^[32]

7.3 Vexatious Petitions and Costs

The Court has repeatedly warned that curative petitions cannot be used as a mechanism to re-agitate matters that have been conclusively decided. Where the Court finds a curative petition to be frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process, Rule 4(4) of Order XLVIII empowers the Court to impose exemplary costs. This provision serves as a critical deterrent against the misuse of this extraordinary remedy.^[33]

8. Distinguishing the Curative Petition from the Review Petition

It is essential to understand the distinction between the curative petition and the review petition, as the two are frequently conflated. The review petition is a statutory remedy under Article 137, governed by Order XL of the Supreme Court Rules, and may be filed on grounds such as error apparent on the face of the record, discovery of new and important evidence, or any other sufficient reason. It must be filed within 30 days.^[34]

The curative petition, by contrast, is a non-statutory, judicially created remedy derived from the Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Articles 129 and 142. As the Court clarified in Brahmaputra Concrete Pipe Industries (2024), the curative jurisdiction “does not flow from its power to review, but is derived from Articles 129 and 142 of the Constitution.”^[35] Consequently, the 30-day limitation for review petitions does not apply to curative petitions, which must merely be filed within a “reasonable time.” The grounds are also narrower; limited to natural justice violations, bias, and abuse of process; and the procedural requirements are far more stringent, including the mandatory Senior Advocate certification.^[36]

9. Best Practices for Filing and Drafting a Curative Petition

9.1 Threshold Assessment: Should You File at All?

The curative petition is the “rarest of rare” remedy. Before committing to filing, counsel must honestly assess whether the case genuinely falls within the narrow grounds identified in Rupa Ashok Hurra. Filing a frivolous curative petition not only wastes judicial time but exposes the petitioner to exemplary costs and the advocate to professional embarrassment. The question is not “is my client unhappy with the result?” but “was there a gross miscarriage of justice, a violation of natural justice, or a reasonable apprehension of bias?”^[37]

9.2 Mandatory Averments

The petition must contain a specific averment that the grounds urged in the curative petition were taken in the review petition. If the review petition was dismissed by circulation, this must be expressly stated. Failure to make these averments is a ground for the Registry to flag defects, though as Brahmaputra Concrete clarified, the Registry cannot dismiss the petition on this ground alone.^[38]

9.3 The Senior Advocate Certificate

This is not a mere formality. The Senior Advocate must personally satisfy himself or herself that the petition meets the conditions of Rupa Ashok Hurra before certifying it. The certificate lends credibility to the petition and is the first filter that the Court applies. A Senior Advocate who certifies a frivolous curative petition risks professional consequences. The practitioner must approach a Senior Advocate who has independently reviewed the matter and is genuinely persuaded of its merit.^[39]

9.4 The AOR Certificate

The Advocate-on-Record must certify that the curative petition is the first such petition in the matter. This prevents the mischief of serial curative petitions and ensures that the extraordinary remedy is not abused through repeated filings.^[40]

9.5 Drafting the Petition: Substance Over Volume

Given that curative petitions are ordinarily decided by circulation without oral arguments, the written petition is the petitioner’s sole opportunity to persuade the Court. The drafting must be:^[41]

Focused: Confine the petition to the specific ground—natural justice violation, bias, or abuse of process. Do not attempt to re-argue the merits of the underlying case.

Precise: Identify the specific paragraph or finding in the impugned judgment that is vitiated by the alleged error, and explain how it satisfies the Rupa Ashok Hurra threshold.

Brief: The judges are reading this petition by circulation, alongside potentially dozens of others. A 100-page curative petition defeats its own purpose. Aim for maximum impact in minimum pages.

Supplemented by Written Arguments: Rule 4(2) of Order XLVIII permits the petitioner to supplement the petition with additional written arguments. This option should be used strategically to present legal analysis and cite relevant precedents.

9.6 Filing Within Reasonable Time

While there is no fixed limitation period, unreasonable delay will weigh heavily against the petitioner. The Union Carbide case (2023) is a cautionary example—the curative petition was filed more than two decades after the settlement order. File as promptly as possible after the dismissal of the review petition.^[42]

9.7 No New Grounds

This is an absolute rule. The curative petition must not introduce grounds that were not urged in the review petition. The remedy is curative, not supplementary. New grounds will result in summary dismissal and potential imposition of costs.^[43]

9.8 Preparing for the Possibility of Open Court Hearing

Although most curative petitions are decided by circulation, if the Bench concludes by majority that the matter needs hearing, it will be listed in open court. The practitioner must be prepared for this eventuality, with a Senior Advocate briefed and ready to make oral submissions. The DMRC case and the Union Carbide case were both heard in open court after the initial circulation.^[44]

10. Conclusion

The curative petition stands as a testament to the creative genius of the Indian Supreme Court—a court that recognised that even the principle of finality must yield when the cause of justice demands it. From its birth in the matrimonial dispute of Rupa Ashok Hurra to its dramatic exercise in the ₹7,600-crore DMRC arbitration case, the curative jurisdiction has evolved into a vital, if sparingly used, instrument for correcting the most egregious judicial errors.

Yet, the very exceptionality of this remedy is its greatest strength. The stringent conditions—the Senior Advocate certification, the circulation to the senior-most judges, the prohibition on new grounds, the threat of exemplary costs—are not obstacles to justice; they are safeguards against its abuse. As the Supreme Court observed in Rupa Ashok Hurra, the inherent power “ought not to be exercised as a matter of course” but with circumspection, and only where the injustice is so grave that the conscience of the Court is moved to act.^[45]

For the practitioner, the curative petition is the ultimate test of drafting skill and professional judgment. It demands not only a mastery of the procedural requirements but a clear-eyed assessment of whether the case truly merits this extraordinary remedy. Filed wisely, it can be the instrument that rescues justice from the jaws of finality. Filed recklessly, it brings only costs and discredit. The distinction lies, as it always does in law, in the quality of the lawyering.

Endnotes

1. Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra & Anr., (2002) 4 SCC 388;
2. Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra & Anr., (2002) 4 SCC 388 at Para 42.
3. Supreme Court of India, “Jurisdiction”: “Order XLVIII of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 provides that the Supreme Court can reconsider its final judgment or order by way of a curative petition on limited grounds.” ↑
4. Article 129, Constitution of India. ↑
5. Article 137, Constitution of India. ↑
6. Article 142(1), Constitution of India. ↑
7. Rupa Ashok Hurra (2002), supra note 2; see also LiveLaw, “Curative – Rarest of Rare Case” (March 2024), by Sneha Kalita (AOR) and Kavya Jhawar. ↑
8. See Indian Journal of Constitutional Law, “The Indian Supreme Court and Curative Actions” (2007). ↑
9. See ALEC, “The Case of Rupa Ashok Hurra vs. Ashok Hurra: Introduction of Curative Petition”. ↑
10. Ibid.;
11. Rupa Ashok Hurra (2002), Para 42. ↑
12. Rupa Ashok Hurra (2002), Para 14; the Court held that a final Supreme Court decision cannot be assailed via Article 32. ↑
13. Rupa Ashok Hurra (2002), Para 42; incorporated into Order XLVIII, Supreme Court Rules, 2013.
14. IndianConstitution.in, “Supreme Court Rules 2013: Order XLVIII”. ↑
15. Full text of Order XLVIII, Supreme Court Rules, 2013
16. Brahmaputra Concrete Pipe Industries v. Assam State Electricity Board, 2024 INSC 145 (26 February 2024).
17. Ibid.; the Court held: “curative jurisdiction being a special jurisdiction derived from inherent power or jurisdiction of this Court, the limitation prescribed for filing of review petition cannot be extended to apply in the cases of curative petition.” ↑
18. Rupa Ashok Hurra (2002), supra note 2; see also
19. See DMRC v. DAMEPL (2024), discussed at section 6.2 infra; see also Mondaq, “Curative Jurisdiction – The Last Resort” (June 2024). ↑
20. Navneet Kaur v. State of NCT of Delhi (2014) 7 SCC 264.
21. Ibid.; the Court aligned with principles in Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of India (2014) 3 SCC 1. ↑
22. See NUJS Law Review, “The Curious Case of a Curative: A Contrarian” (2024). ↑
23. DMRC v. Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 522. ↑
24. Ibid.; see also Supreme Court Observer, “DMRC Arbitration: The Court Upheld Principles of Natural Justice in the Curative Petition” (July 2024). ↑
25. See NUJS Law Review, supra note 22; see also Supreme Court Observer analysis, supra note 24. ↑
26. National Commission for Women v. Bhaskar Lal Sharma, (2014) 4 SCC 252. See LiveLaw, “Explained: What Is Curative Petition?” (January 2020). ↑
27. Ibid. ↑
28. Union of India v. Union Carbide Corporation & Ors., Curative Petition (Civil) Nos. 345–347 of 2010, decided 14 March 2023. See Supreme Court Observer, “Curative Petitions: Court in Review” (October 2023). ↑
29. Ibid. ↑
30. Ibid. ↑
31. See LiveLaw, supra note 7; see also Xperts Legal, “Procedure of Curative Petitions in India” (April 2024). ↑
32. Sidram S. Patil v. Gurunath Shivappa Patil, (2005) 2 SCC 358; Gurdeep Singh v. State of Punjab, (2005) 10 SCC 468; Bakshi & Co. v. CST, (2005) 12 SCC 398. Cited in LiveLaw, supra note 7. ↑
33. Order XLVIII, Rule 4(4), Supreme Court Rules, 2013. ↑
34. Article 137, Constitution of India; Order XL, Supreme Court Rules, 2013; ↑
35. Brahmaputra Concrete Pipe Industries (2024), supra note 16. ↑
36. Ibid.; see also Legal Service India, supra note 15. ↑
37. See LiveLaw, supra note 7: “The power to entertain curative petition should be exercised sparingly. It is considered as the last and final resort of exercise of powers by the Apex Court.” ↑
38. Brahmaputra Concrete Pipe Industries (2024), supra note 16. ↑
39. Order XLVIII, Rule 2(2), Supreme Court Rules, 2013; ↑
40. Order XLVIII, Rule 2(3), Supreme Court Rules, 2013. ↑
41. Author’s synthesis drawing on the procedural requirements of Order XLVIII ↑
42. Union of India v. Union Carbide (2023), supra note 28. ↑
43. Order XLVIII, Rule 2(1), Supreme Court Rules, 2013; Rupa Ashok Hurra (2002), Para 42. ↑
44. See Supreme Court Observer, supra notes 24 and 28. ↑
45. Rupa Ashok Hurra (2002), supra note 2; quoted in Union of India v. Union Carbide (2023): “this Court in Rupa Ashok Hurra chose not to enumerate all the grounds on which a curative petition could be entertained; the Court was clear in observing that its inherent power ought not to be exercised as a matter of course.” ↑

Frequently Asked Questions on Curative Petition in the Supreme Court

1. What is a Curative Petition in the Supreme Court of India?

A Curative Petition is an extraordinary judicial remedy devised by the Supreme Court in Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra (2002) 4 SCC 388. It allows the Court to reconsider its own final judgment after dismissal of a review petition, but only in rare cases involving violation of natural justice, judicial bias, or gross miscarriage of justice. It is not a further appeal.

2. On what grounds can a Curative Petition be filed?

A Curative Petition can be filed only when the petitioner demonstrates (i) violation of principles of natural justice, (ii) reasonable apprehension of bias, or (iii) abuse of the judicial process resulting in gross miscarriage of justice. Mere error of law or dissatisfaction with the judgment is not sufficient.

3. Is there a limitation period for filing a Curative Petition?

There is no fixed statutory limitation period. Under Order XLVIII of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, a Curative Petition must be filed within a “reasonable time” after dismissal of the review petition. Unexplained delay may result in dismissal.

4. Does the Supreme Court hear Curative Petitions in open court?

Ordinarily, Curative Petitions are decided by circulation without oral arguments. They are first circulated to the three senior-most judges and the judges who delivered the impugned judgment. However, if the Bench considers the matter significant, it may list the case for open court hearing.

5. How is a Curative Petition different from a Review Petition?

A Review Petition is filed under Article 137 of the Constitution to correct an error apparent on the face of the record. A Curative Petition, on the other hand, is a judicially created remedy derived from Articles 129 and 142 and is invoked only after dismissal of the review petition to address fundamental procedural injustice, not to re-argue the merits of the case.