JUDGMENT :

1. A bunch of writ petitions were filed in this Court and referred to a Constitution Bench by an order dated 28.04.2014 to answer two basic issues that fell for determination, namely, (1) whether cases in which death sentence has been awarded should be heard by a Bench of at least three if not five Hon'ble Judges of this Court and (ii) whether hearing and disposal of the Review Petitions in death sentence cases should not be by circulation but should only be in open court and whether Order 40 Rule 3 of Supreme Court Rules, 1966 should to the extent the said Rule does not permit an open court hearing be declared unconstitutional inasmuch as persons on death row are denied such a hearing.

2. By a majority judgment of 4:1, this Court answered the first question in the affirmative, keeping in view an amendment to Order 6 Rule 3 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 which had introduced a provision to the effect that every case arising out of death sentence awarded to the convict shall be heard by a Bench consisting of not less than three Judges. This Court held that in the light of the said amendment all cases in which death sentences are awarded by the High Courts and appeals against such death sentences are pending in the Supreme Court, shall be heard by a Bench of three Hon'ble Judges. On the second issue, this Court observed:-

"No doubt, the Court thereafter reminded us that the time has come for proper evaluation of oral argument at the review stage. However, when it comes to death penalty cases, we feel that the power of the spoken word has to be given yet another opportunity even if the ultimate success rate is minimal".

3. Having said so this Court held that the limited right to oral hearing of the review petitions shall be applicable only in pending review petitions and petitions filed in future. The said right was also made available to case where a review petition stood dismissed but the death sentence was not yet executed. In such cases the petitioners were given the liberty to apply for reopening of their review petitions within one month from the date of judgment delivered by this Court. Cases in which even a curative petition stood dismissed were however singled out for denial of that limited hearing relief. The present review petition seeks review of the order passed by this Court to the extent limited hearing in open court is denied in cases where the curative petition filed against the judgment and order of this Court also stood dismissed.

4. The petitioners it is common ground is one such case and perhaps the solitary case in which after the dismissal of the review petition Curative Petition No.99-100 of 2013 filed by the petitioner was dismissed by circulation by order dated 23.03.2014. In the light of the said dismissal, the petitioner who stands sentenced to death is not qualified for an open court hearing in support of his review petition dismissed earlier by circulation.

5. Mr. Basant, learned senior counsel for the review petitioner made a two-fold submission before us. Firstly, it was contended that the classification made by this Court in the matter of extending or denying open court hearing was artificial inasmuch as this Court had overlooked the fact that Curative Petitions are maintainable only on two limited grounds recognized by this Court in Rupa Ashok Hurra vs. Ashok Hurra & Anr. [(2002) 4 SCC 388], where this Court declared:

"51. Nevertheless, we think that a petitioner is entitled to relief ex debito justitiae if he establishes (1) violation of the principles of natural justice in that he was not a party to the lis but the judgment adversely affected his interests or, if he was a party to the lis, he was not served with notice of the proceedings and the matter proceeded as if he had notice, and (2) where in the proceedings a learned Judge failed to disclose his connection with the subject-matter or the parties giving scope for an apprehensions of bias and the judgment adversely affects the pe