On January 23, the Supreme Court's division bench, which was comprised of Justices AS Bopanna and Sudhanshu Dhulia, decided to investigate the issue of whether the court's registry could refuse to register a curative petition merely because a review petition in the case had been heard and rejected in open court. 

Senior Advocate Raju Ramachandran was named amicus curiae in the case by the bench. 

The applicant's advocate, Anand Sanjay M. Nuli, contended before the Supreme Court that the registry's determination conflicts with the ruling in Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra and Another (2002).

Additionally, it was argued that the aforementioned problem necessitates a reading of Rule 2(1) Order XLVIII of the Supreme Court Rules 2013.

"We have also been apprised at the Bar that there would be many other matters of similar nature, which are liable to be affected by any decision reached by this Court in this case," The Court made this observation while scheduling a hearing for January 30. 

The Supreme Court Rules of 2013's Order XLVIII, which addresses "curative petition," says:

"1. Curative Petitions shall be governed by Judgment of the Court dated 10th April, 2002 delivered in the case of Rupa Ashok Hurra.

2. (1) The petitioner, in the curative petition, shall aver specifically that the grounds mentioned therein had been taken in the Review Petition and that it was dismissed by circulation. (2) A Curative Petition shall be accompanied by a certificate of the Senior Advocate that the petition meets the requirements delineated in the above case. (3) A curative petition shall be accompanied by a certificate of the Advocate on Record to the effect that it is the first curative petition in the impugned matter.

3. The Curative Petition shall be filed within reasonable time from the date of Judgment or Order passed in the Review Petition.

4. (1) The curative petition shall be first circulated to a Bench of the three senior-most judges and the judges who passed the judgment complained of, if available. (2) Unless otherwise ordered by the Court, a curative petition shall be disposed of by circulation without any oral arguments but the petitioner may supplement his petition by additional written arguments. (3) If the Bench before which a curative petition was circulated concludes by a majority that the matter needs hearing then it shall be listed before the same Bench, as far as possible. (4) If the Court, at any stage, comes to the conclusion that the petition is without any merit and vexatious, it may impose exemplary costs on the petitioner."

The Court was handling a request from a party who had submitted curative petitions in the case that the registry was handling. The Supreme Court registry, however, had declined to accept and register the curative petition on the grounds that the applicant's review petitions had been rejected after being heard in public court and that this rejection had not occurred by circulation.

Case Title: M/s Brahmaputra Concrete Pipe Industries v. The Assam State Electricity Board
Citation: Miscellaneous Application No.  2045/2022 in Curative Petition D.No. 23828/2020