Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(SC) 1918

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI, CJI, SURYA KANT, VIKRAM NATH, JJ.
Surendra Koli – Appellant
Versus
The State of Uttar Pradesh and Another – Respondents
Curative Petition (Crl.) No. 60 of 2025 [Diary No. 49297 of 2025], R.P. (Crl.) No. 395 of 2014, Criminal Appeal No. 2227 of 2010
Decided On : 11-11-2025

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Yug Mohit Chaudhary, Adv. Ms. Payoshi Roy, Adv. Mr. Siddhartha Sharma, Adv. Mr. Prabhu Ramasubramaniam, Adv. Mr. N. Sai Vinod, AOR Mr. Bharatimohan M, Adv. Ms. Kanu Garg, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Raja Thakare, A.S.G. Mr. Nachiketa Joshi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Mr. K. Parameshwar, Adv. Mr. Praneet Pranav, Adv. Mr. Rajendra Singh Rana, Adv. Ms. Vaishali Verma, Adv. Mr. Rohit Khare, Adv. Ms. Astha Singh, Adv. Mr. Rishikesh Haridas, Adv. Mr. Kritagya Kumar Kait, Adv.

Curative petitions can correct judicial errors based on fundamental defects or miscarriages of justice, ensuring consistency across similar cases.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 129, 137, 142, 145 - Curative jurisdiction - Recognized to prevent abuse of process and to cure gross miscarriage of justice - Essential element being a fundamental defect in the previous decision or violation of natural justice. (Paras 2, 3, 10, 12)

(B) Criminal Law - Principles of Evidence - Confessions admitted under Section 164 CrPC questioned for voluntariness; prosecutorial burdens illustrated in the Nithari case where confessions were obtained under coercive circumstances. (Paras 11, 17)

(C) Evidentiary Standards - Requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt for capital punishment; reliance on confessions rejected as unreliable in subsequent cases sharing evidentiary foundations. (Paras 13, 18)

Facts of the case:
The curative petition arises from an earlier death sentence for the murder of Rimpa Haldar, challenging the reliability of confessions deemed coerced and evidence mishandling reflected across trials.

Findings of Court:
The Court recalled earlier judgments, established irreconcilable outcomes and pronounced the acquittal of the petitioner undermined by previous unreliable evidence holdings.

Issues: Whether two sets of contradictory outcomes can stand on the same evidentiary foundation without breaching public confidence in judicial integrity was pivotal.

Ratio Decidendi: The petitioner’s conviction was found unsustainable due to established taint on the evidentiary merits leading to violations of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.

Result: The curative petition is allowed, leading to the petitioner’s acquittal and immediate release.

JUDGMENT :

VIKRAM NATH, J.

1. Delay condoned.

This curative petition presents an exceptional case for the exercise of our curative jurisdiction. The petitioner shows that a manifest miscarriage of justice endures and that two sets of outcomes resting on the same evidentiary foundation cannot lawfully coexist. When final orders of this Court speak with discordant voices on an identical record, the integrity of adjudication is imperilled and public confidence is shaken. In such a situation, intervention ex debito justitiae is not an act of discretion but a constitutional duty. We therefore entertain this petition to preserve the purity of this Court’s process and to vindicate the rule of law.

2. The curative jurisdiction of this Court exists to prevent abuse of process and to cure a gross miscarriage of justice. In Rupa Ashok Hurra vs. Ashok Hurra, (2002) 4 SCC 388 the Constitution Bench of this Court recognised that this power flows from the inherent authority of this Court to do complete justice and to protect the integrity of its judgments. However, the constitutional source of this power is coherent and limited. Article 129 of the Constitution of India (hereinafter “The Constitution”) declares this Court to be a court of record with inherent powers to preserve the purity of its process. Article 142 of the Constitution empowers this Court to make such orders as are necessary for doing complete justice. Article 137 of the Constitution recognises the power of review and marks its limits. Article 145 of the Constitution of India authorises the framing of rules. Order XLVIII of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, titled “Curative Petition” prescribes the filing requirements, the certification by a Senior Advocate, and the preliminary circulation to a bench as indicated in Rupa Ashok Hurra (Supra). These provisions together sustain a narrow jurisdiction that may be invoked only after review has failed to correct a grave defect.

3. Moreover, we must emphasize that Rupa Ashok Hurra (Supra) makes it clear that a curative petition is not a second review. Finality remains the rule and intervention is reserved only for very strong reasons that strike at the legitimacy of the adjudicatory process. The court has stated that only certain foundational circumstances demand relief as a matter of justice. One is a violation of natural justice where a person is adversely affected without being heard or without proper notice. Another is a case where a Judge failed to disclose a connection with the subject matter or with a party which gives rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias. The instances are illustrative and not exhaustive. The guiding principle for the exercise of curative jurisdiction is the duty of this Court to avert manifest injustice.

4. The controlling test is whether the earlier decision produces a result that offends the conscience of this Court because of a fundamental defect in process or because of a grave miscarriage of justice. Such defects may appear where outcomes are irreconcilably inconsistent on the same substratum of facts and evidence or where material circumstances bearing on fairness and reliability were overlooked or where the guarantees of equality and due process under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution stand compromised. Even when leave to proceed is granted, the inquiry remains narrow. This Court does not sit in appeal over its own final judgment and does not reappraise evidence as if in a second appeal. The question is whether intervention is necessary to vindicate the rule of law and to restore confidence in the administration of justice. With these principles in view we shall now examine whether the present case meets the exacting threshold for the exercise of the curative jurisdiction of this Court.

5. This curative petition arises from Criminal Appeal No. 2227 of 2010 decided on 15.02.2011, by which this Court affirmed the petitioner’s conviction and sentence of death in the Rimpa Haldar case. The review petition