In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has reiterated the importance of adhering to procedural norms in the registration of curative petitions. The apex court emphasized that the registry does not possess the discretion to decline the registration of curative petitions solely on the grounds that a review petition was previously heard and dismissed in open court.

A bench comprising Justices Aniruddha Bose and Sudhanshu Dhulia delivered the verdict, asserting that the registry must seek instructions from the judge in chambers and communicate them to the concerned party when faced with such petitions. The court emphasized that proper guidance from the chamber judge is imperative in such cases.

Furthermore, the court clarified that petitioners must explicitly request an exemption from complying with Rule 2(1) of Order XLVIII of the Supreme Court Rules 2013. This rule stipulates that curative petitioners must indicate that the grounds mentioned were previously raised in the review petition, which was subsequently dismissed.

The ruling also mandates that curative petitions be circulated among the judges who participated in the review petition proceedings and the delivery of the original judgment, provided they are still serving in office. This ensures that all concerned parties are apprised of the petition and have the opportunity to consider it thoroughly.

The case prompting this ruling arose from an application submitted by a party seeking to file curative petitions, which the Supreme Court registry initially refused to accept. The registry's refusal was based on the contention that the review applications were not dismissed by circulation.

Advocate Anand Sanjay M Nuli, representing the applicant, argued before the Supreme Court bench that the registry's conclusion contradicted the precedent set in the case of Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra and Another (2002). Nuli contended that the issue at hand required an interpretation of Rule 2(1) of Order XLVIII of the Supreme Court Rules 2013.

In its ruling, the Supreme Court found no grounds to reconsider the appellant's case and subsequently declined to entertain the curative petition.

Senior Advocate Raju Ramachandran served as the Amicus Curiae in the matter, providing valuable insights into the legal intricacies involved.

Case: M/s Brahmaputra Concrete Pipe Industries vs. The Assam State Electricity Board.