Sounding the gavel on curative jurisdiction

 Sounding the gavel on curative jurisdiction

A top court which swings back and forth based on changing trends lacks the constancy and gravitas that is fundamental to a court of last resort

एक शीर्ष अदालत जो बदलते रुझानों के आधार पर आगे-पीछे घूमती रहती है, उसमें स्थिरता और गंभीरता का अभाव है जो एक अदालत के लिए अखिरी  मौलिक सहारा है।  

The Supreme Court of India और उसकी शक्तियां 

  highest court of appeal, a federal court, as well as a court of advisory jurisdiction, it also possesses the power to appoint and transfer judges of the High Courts and the Court itself.

 “Curative Jurisdiction” 

१ In 2002, the Court took on a new power called the “Curative Jurisdiction”.

 २ It is a power to correct its judgments, after they have become final. This is distinct from the power of review under Indian law, which enables all courts to rectify errors which are apparent दिखाई देना  from their records.

३ Curative Jurisdiction is different. This is not merely the Court changing its view on a position of law but is a reversal of the Court’s own view in a specific case, above and beyond even the power of review. 

क्या है उपचारात्मक याचिका ?

• क्यूरेटिव पिटीशन शब्द की उत्त्पत्ति ‘Cure’ शब्द से हुई है, जिसका शाब्दिक अर्थ ‘उपचार’ होता है। उपचारात्मक याचिका में यह बताना आवश्यक होता है कि याचिकाकर्त्ता किस आधार पर सुप्रीम कोर्ट के फैसले को चुनौती दे रहा है।
• यह सर्वोच्च नायालय के वरिष्ठ अधिवक्ता (Senior Advocate) द्वारा प्रमाणित होना अनिवार्य होता है।
• याचिका उच्चतम न्यायलय के तीन वरिष्टतम न्यायाधीशों (जिनमें मुख्य न्यायाधीश भी शामिल होते हैं) को भेजी जाती है तथा यह याचिका से संबंधित मामले में फैसला देने वाले न्यायाधीशों को भी भेजी जाती है।
• यदि उच्चतम न्यायालय की यह पीठ उपरोक्त मामले पर पुनः सुनवाई का निर्णय बहुमत से लेती है तो उपचारात्मक याचिका को सुनवाई के लिये पुनः उसी पीठ के पास भेज दिया जाता है जिसने मामले में पहली/पिछली बार फैसला दिया था।
• उपचारात्मक याचिका पर निर्णय आने के बाद अपील के सारे रास्ते समाप्त हो जाते हैं 
• सामान्यतः उपचारात्मक याचिका की सुनवाई जजों के चेंबर (कार्यालय) में ही हो जाती है परंतु याचिकाकर्त्ता के आग्रह पर इसकी सुनवाई ओपन कोर्ट (Open Court) में भी की जा सकती है।
• उपचारात्मक याचिका की सुनवाई के दौरान उच्चतम न्यायालय की पीठ किसी भी स्तर पर किसी वरिष्ठ अधिवक्ता को न्याय मित्र (Amicus Curiae) के रूप में मामले पर सलाह के लिये आमंत्रित कर सकती है।

कानून घोषित करने में न्यायालय की संवैधानिक भूमिका है। 

The Court has a constitutional role to declare the law. The law must, and often does, progress with the growth in human knowledge and with societal change. 

 Examples of changes in the Court’s views include the right of privacy, decriminalisation of homosexuality and so on

The Delhi Metro Rail judgment

सर्वोच्च न्यायालय इस क्षेत्राधिकार के प्रयोग में फायदे से अधिक नुकसान करता है

 १ we propose to demonstrate this through the analysis of a judgment rendered on April 10, 2024. 

२ This was a decision of a three-judge Bench of the Court in a curative petition in Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. (“DMRC”) vs Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt Ltd (“DAMEPL”)

३ a plea that the termination, by DAMEPL, of a long-term contract relating to a stretch of the Delhi metro rail, was valid. 

३ Such termination was based on 

a termination clause which permitted DAMEPL to terminate the contract based on issuance of a notice to cure defects in the event that DMRC “failed to cure such breach or take effective steps for curing such breach”. 

४ breach according to DAMEPL 

(as upheld by the Arbitral Tribunal) was the existence of defects in the metro’s construction. According to DAMEPL and the Arbitral Tribunal, the failure to cure / रोकना  such defects had triggered DAMEPL’s right to terminate.

Commissioner of Metro Rail Safety 

Prior to the termination, DAMEPL had stopped rail operations on the basis that the line was unsafe to operate. Shortly after the termination, both parties had made a joint request to the Commissioner of Metro Rail Safety to reopen operations. The CMRS sanctioned this subject to certain conditions including speed restrictions.

Challenged in Supreme court 

The challenge to the award moved to the Supreme Court which upheld the award after setting out the limited scope to challenge an award under Indian law.

 A review petition was also dismissed. However, for the first time ever, the Court, in a curative petition, set aside an arbitral award.

Exercise of curative jurisdiction

The interference by the Court was on two grounds

 First, that interpretation of the termination clause was perverse since the Arbitral Tribunal had failed to recognise that it was sufficient for the DMRC to take effective steps to cure the breach — curing the breach in its entirety was not necessary.

 Second, that the CMRS sanction was vital evidence which had been ignored.

This is significant for two reasons

 

1 First, the Court had supported a position of minimal interference in arbitral awards. 

2 And second, that the Court to continue that its own verdict in 2019, which was in line with this pre-existing position, was wrong..

Arbitral Tribunal ignored 

vital evidence, a ground for interference would have been made out; but not when the Arbitral Tribunal, being the sole judge of weight of any evidence, had considered the evidence and held it to be of little significance.

Thus, the Court exercising its Curative Jurisdiction, reversed its own judgment which had upheld the arbitral award/ final and binding decision

The problems

Imagine if you went to a dentist to have your wisdom tooth removed. The procedure is carried out. You then go to a board of senior dentists who tell you that the dentist did the right thing. 

Four years later, they call you back in for a review, and then tell you that they are doing a “curative procedure” and putting your wisdom tooth back in.

Curative Jurisdiction is effectively the Supreme Court seeking to correct its mistakes.

While there is merit in correcting one’s mistakes, an institution which underpins the country’s judiciary and which is the final interpreter of the Constitution must look beyond errors in individual cases. 

While it is no doubt true that the interpretation set out by the Supreme Court in DMRC vs DAMEPL is the correct interpretation and would have been justified had it been an exercise of appellate jurisdiction,

 the exercise itself could be said to be beyond the contours of permissible interference with an arbitral award

incorrect interpretations are upheld

There are many such instances when awards based on incorrect interpretations are upheld owing to the principle of minimum judicial interference.

One looks to the Supreme Court for guidance and strength. It is the beacon of law. We expect it to be a pole star. The exercise of revisiting one’s own decisions is good in an individual, but is not good for an institution that declares the law. 

Our perceptions of right and wrong are often influenced by the immediacy of the trend of current thought. A Supreme Court which swings back and forth based on changing trends lacks the constancy and gravitas which we believe to be fundamental to a court of last resort.

To borrow Justice Jackson’s words, the Supreme Court is not final because it is infallible but infallible because it is final.

सोर्स द हिन्दू