Topic: GS2 – Indian Polity – Judiciary The topic highlights legal precedent and judicial discretion, relevant for understanding judicial reform and constitutional interpretation, crucial for UPSC. |
| Context: |
| ● The article critiques the Supreme Court of India’s use of Curative Jurisdiction in overturning arbitral awards, questioning its impact on legal consistency. |
Introduction:
- The Supreme Court of India holds a unique position, possessing various powers including the recently acquired “Curative Jurisdiction” to rectify its final judgments.
- This article analyses the exercise of Curative Jurisdiction through a specific case, Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. vs Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt Ltd (“DMRC” vs “DAMEPL”), decided on April 10, 2024.
Background of the Case:
- DAMEPL terminated a long-term contract with DMRC based on alleged defects in the Delhi metro rail’s construction.
- An Arbitral Tribunal upheld DAMEPL’s claim, leading to a challenge in the Supreme Court, which initially upheld the award.
The Curative Jurisdiction Issue:
- The Supreme Court, for the first time, invoked Curative Jurisdiction to set aside an arbitral award, departing from its usual stance of minimal interference.
- This move was significant, considering the Court’s previous support for minimal interference in arbitral awards.
Basis of Interference:
- The Court interfered with the award on two grounds: a perceived misinterpretation of the termination clause and the disregarding of vital evidence, the CMRS sanction.
- However, this departure from its previous stance raises concerns about the Court’s consistency and role as the final interpreter of law.
Critique of Curative Jurisdiction:
- The analogy of a “curative procedure” in dentistry is used to illustrate the concept of Curative Jurisdiction.
- While acknowledging the need to correct mistakes, it’s argued that an institution like the Supreme Court should focus on broader legal principles rather than individual case errors.
- The Court’s role is to declare the law for the nation, not to correct one-off cases, as exemplified by its swinging back and forth based on changing trends.
Legal Consistency vs. Trend Influences:
- The article emphasises the importance of legal consistency and gravitas in the Supreme Court’s decisions, citing Justice Jackson’s view that the Court is final because it’s infallible, not vice versa.
Conclusion:
- In conclusion, while recognizing the need for error correction, the article suggests that the Supreme Court’s exercise of Curative Jurisdiction might undermine its role as the final interpreter of law, eroding consistency and gravitas.
- The Court’s decisions should reflect broader legal principles rather than being swayed by changing trends or immediate perceptions of right and wrong.
| What is curative jurisdiction? |
Curative Jurisdiction: ● Curative Jurisdiction is a unique power held by certain courts, notably the Supreme Court of India. ● It allows courts to review and correct their final judgments to remedy any miscarriage of justice. ● The concept originated to address exceptional circumstances where a gross injustice occurred due to a procedural or substantive flaw. ● Curative petitions are filed after exhausting all other legal remedies, serving as a last resort. ● This jurisdiction aims to uphold the principle of justice and rectify egregious errors that may have been overlooked during the judicial process. Concerns around curative jurisdiction: ● There’s apprehension regarding the potential misuse of curative jurisdiction, leading to frequent re-opening of settled matters. ● Critics argue that it undermines the finality of judgments and erodes judicial consistency. ● The subjective nature of what constitutes a “miscarriage of justice” raises questions about objectivity and impartiality. ● Concerns also exist about the impact of curative jurisdiction on the efficiency and credibility of the judicial system. ● Balancing the need for justice with the need for legal certainty remains a significant challenge. Way Forward: ● Implementing clear guidelines and principles for the exercise of curative jurisdiction to ensure consistency and fairness. ● Encouraging judicial training and education on the nuances of curative jurisdiction to enhance its effective application. ● Strengthening mechanisms for judicial accountability and oversight to prevent potential misuse of curative petitions. ● Promoting transparency in the curative process, including public access to information and reasoning behind decisions. ● Conducting regular reviews and evaluations of curative jurisdiction practices to identify areas for improvement. ● Fostering collaboration between legal experts, policymakers, and stakeholders to address emerging challenges and refine curative procedures. ● Emphasising the importance of balancing finality of judgments with the need for justice, considering the broader impact on legal certainty and judicial integrity. |
| Practice Question: Discuss the significance of Curative Jurisdiction in Indian judiciary, its implications on judicial review, and its role in ensuring justice. (250 Words /15 marks) |
