The concept of curative petitions plays a significant role in the Indian judicial system, particularly within the Supreme Court. Recently, several issues
have emerged concerning the use and misuse of curative petitions, especially in situations where judgments are overturned by subsequent benches.
This section provides a comprehensive overview of the principles governing curative petitions, notable recent cases, and the challenges currently
faced by the Supreme Court in this context.
JUDICIAL CONSISTENCY AND ARTICLE 141
The Supreme Court, in a recent bail matter where the accused sought modification of bail condition on two occasions, observed that there is a growing trend of filing revision/curative petition before succeeding benches for overturning earlier judgments. The Court invoked Article 141 of the Constitution, to state that, this article mandates that the law declared by the Supreme Court is binding on all courts in India. The Court emphasised that once it has pronounced its verdict on a particular issue, the controversy should be considered settled, ensuring consistency and finality in legal
interpretation. If subsequent benches are permitted to reopen and revisit settled matters solely because a different view appears preferable, the authority and purpose of Article 141 would be undermined. Nevertheless, the Court clarified that any party aggrieved by a judgment may seek a review under Article 137 or file a curative petition, as per guidelines set out in the landmark case of Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra.
Although the Hon’ble Bench did not name any specific judgment, it is inferred that the Court’s remarks were likely directed towards cases such as Vanashakti v Union of India, State of Tamil Nadu v Governor of Tamil Nadu, the
Bhushan Steel Insolvency matter, and the Delhi Fire Cracker Case.
A similar concern was echoed by another Supreme Court judge at a recent international convention on judicial independence hosted by OP Jindal Global University.
VANSHAKTI MATTER
In the case of Vanashakti v Union of India, the central disputes involved the validity of 2017 Notification and the 2021 Office Memorandum issued by the Ministry of Environment. These instruments allowed for ex-post facto or retrospective environmental clearances, which were challenged for diluting the requirements under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, and the EIA Notification, 2006, both of which mandated prior clearance before starting any project.
In Vanashakti v Union of India, the Division Bench ruled that prior environmental clearance is mandatory and that post-facto regularisation is impermissible. As a result, the 2017 Notification and the 2021 Office Memorandum were struck down as contrary to the statutory scheme. However, this judgment was later recalled by a larger Bench on the ground that it did not consider certain earlier Supreme Court judgments, therefore did not lay down good law and now it will be placed before the Hon’ble CJI for allocating the roster for fresh hearing.
Therefore, as on today the Vanshakti judgement has no force.
STATE OF TAMIL NADU V GOVERNOR OF TAMIL NADU
On 8 April 2025, in the case of State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu [2], a division Bench interpreted Article 200 and held that the Governor has only three options, either to approve or withhold assent, or return a Bill and must act within a reasonable time. Using Article 142, the Hon’ble court laid down specific timelines, wherein the Governor must take a decision within one month. If he goes against ministerial advice while rejecting or reserving a bill, he must return or reserve it within three months. Subsequently, if the Legislature passes the such Bill again, the Governor must approve it within one month. The Court said that long delay by the Governor harms responsible government and blocks democratic
functioning. It also ruled that the ten bills passed again by the Assembly were “deemed to have received assent.”
However, on 13 May 2025, the Union Government made a presidential reference under Article 143 asking for authoritative clarification and sending this matter to a larger Bench, effectively recalling the April 8 ruling. On 20.11.2025
[3], answering the reference made by the President of India, under Article 143 of the Constitution, the Hon’ble Court
held that the Court cannot impose any timelines for decisions of the President and the Governor on granting assent to bills under Articles 200/201 of the Constitution. The Court further held that the concept of Courts declaring “deemed assent” to the bills if the timelines are breached was antithetical to the spirit of the Constitution and against the doctrine of separation of powers. The concept of Courts declaring “deemed assent” is virtually a take-over of the functions reserved for the Governor. The Court held as under “We have no hesitation in concluding that deemed consent of the Governor, or President, under Article 200 or 201 at the expiry of a judicially set timeline, is virtually a takeover, and substitution, of the executive functions by the Judiciary, through judicial pronouncement, which is impermissible
within the contours of our written Constitution,” At the same time, the Court observed if there is a prolonged or unexplained delay by the Governor which frustrates the legislative process, then the
Court can exercise a limited power of judicial review to direct the Governor to decide in a time-bound manner, without observing anything on the merits of the Bill.
BHUSHAN STEEL MATTER
On 2nd May 2025, in the case of Kalyani Transco v Bhushan Power & Steel Ltd, the Hon’ble Court set aside the JSW Resolution Plan and directed liquidation. The Hon’ble Court rejected the Resolution Plan submitted by JSW Steel for Bhushan Steel and Power Ltd. Holding that the Resolution Plan of JSW was illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), the bench held that the Committee of Creditors (CoC) should not have accepted it. The bench also faulted the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) for approving the Resolution Plan. Since JSW’s resolution plan was rejected, the Court ordered the liquidation of Bhushan Steel and Power Ltd. On 31.07.2025, The Supreme Court made a prima facie observation that the above-mentioned judgement, which rejected the resolution plan of JSW Steel for Bhushan Power and Steel Ltd (BPSL) and directed the liquidation of BPSL, required a review as it was contrary to the law laid down in various precedents. The bench therefore recalled the judgment and decided to hear the matter (appeal challenging the resolution plan) afresh. On 26.09.2025, the Hon’ble Court upheld the resolution plan of JSW Steel Ltd. for Bhushan Power and Steel Ltd (BPSL) and rejected the objections raised by the ex-promoters and certain creditors of BPSL. The court held that the ex-promoters have the locus to challenge the NCLAT judgment,
given the wide meaning to be given to the term “person aggrieved” in Section 62 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. However, on merits, the Court upheld the NCLAT judgment, which approved the resolution plan. Delay in implementation cannot be the sole reason to invalidate the resolution plan, the Court held. The Court further held that the delay was attributable to various other factors, including proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). The conduct of the appellants was also criticised, saying that they were making attempts to stall the resolution process. The Court held that the commercial wisdom exercised by the Committee of Creditors (CoC) has to be given primacy and should not be lightly interfered with.
DELHI FIRE CRACKER CASE
On 03.04.2025, the Hon’ble Court in the case of M C Mehta vs UOI [4](WPC 13029 of 1985) passed an order imposing a year-long ban on the use, manufacture, sale and storage of firecrackers in the Delhi-National Capital Region. The Court observed that imposing such a ban only for a period of 3-4 months every year is not effective given the worsening air quality of the national capital. Due to the extraordinary situation prevailing in Delhi NCR, the Court said that no exception can be allowed, even for green crackers. Even online sales of firecrackers will remain banned.The Court observed that the crackers’ traders are also under an obligation under Article 51A of the Constitution to ensure that Delhi remains pollution free. The Court further directed, all NCR states to create a machinery for effectively implementing the firecracker ban. The machinery should ensure that preventive as well as coercive steps are taken against violators. The state should file affidavits regarding the machinery they propose to set up for effectively implementing the firecracker ban.
The Court has been monitoring pollution management in the National Capital Region (NCR) under the MC Mehta case, focusing on firecracker ban, stubble burning in Punjab, Haryana, and Uttar Pradesh, vehicular pollution, and solid waste management etc. On 10.10.2025, the Hon’ble court discussed the possibility of revisiting the 2018 judgment in Arjun Gopal v. Union of India [5], which allowed green crackers. The court held that:
“We will revisit Arjun Gopal in case there is a decline, with modifications suggested by you (Union) and with modifications suggested by the Amicus, we will try to balance it.”
In that case, court ruled against imposing a complete ban on firecrackers but has said that only less polluting green crackers can be sold, that too only through licensed traders. The Arjun Gopal judgment also fixed duration for the bursting of crackers. On the day of Diwali and other religious festivals, it will be between 8 PM and 10 PM. On Christmas and New Year eve, it will be allowed only between 11.45 PM and 12.45 AM. The Court had also ordered that crackers can be burst only in designated areas. The matter was revisited because arguments were raised by manufacturers, traders, and some States contending that there was inadequate evidence linking worsening pollution solely to fireworks and that certain bans were affecting livelihoods. At the same time, scientific material before the Court showed that immediate spikes in pollutants during Diwali were directly connected to firecrackers. The Court noted that earlier orders had accepted specific expert suggestions, but the issue needed refinement to balance public health concerns with limited, regulated enjoyment of
festivities. Thus, earlier directions had to be clarified not recalled because they were wrong, but refined because additional materials, objections, and scientific studies had been placed on record.
Finally, the Supreme Court held that fireworks could not be banned completely, but their use must be strictly regulated to prevent severe public health harm. The Court therefore reaffirmed and refined its earlier directions, only “green crackers” meeting reduced emission standards could be manufactured and sold, fireworks containing harmful chemicals such as barium salts were prohibited; fireworks could be burst only within strictly limited time slots i.e. 8:00 to 10:00 p.m. on Diwali and midnight to 12:30 a.m. on New Year and only in designated areas; manufacturers must comply with licensing norms under the Explosives Rules; and Delhi Police and other authorities were directed to enforce these restrictions rigorously. The Court emphasised that the right to conduct business does not include a right to endanger public health, and therefore regulatory measures were constitutionally justified.
POWER OF REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 137
The Hon’ble Court, under Article 137, retains the inherent power to review its own judgments if justified. However, recent developments suggest a trend, as judgments are being overturned by larger benches through curative or review petitions, raising concerns about judicial consistency.
Therefore as a student of law it is imperative here to discuss the scope of Curative petition and relevant issue on this.
[1] Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra, (2002) 4 SCC 388.
[2] State of T.N. v. Governor of T.N., (2025) 8 SCC 1.
[3] Assent, Withholding or Reservation of Bills by the Governor & the President of India, In re, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2501.
[4] M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2244.
[5] Arjun Gopal v. Union of India, (2019) 13 SCC 499
