Article 137

Ordinarily, once the Supreme Court decides a case, that decision is final and binding under Article 141. But since the Supreme Court is the highest court with no further appeal above it, the Constitution makers built in a safety valve: Article 137 lets the Court correct genuine errors or address serious injustice in its own past decisions, rather than leaving mistakes uncorrectable forever. This power is deliberately narrow and procedural, meant for exceptional situations, not as a routine second appeal.

The Supreme Court has held that review is not an ordinary rehearing of the case; it is meant only for correcting an 'error apparent on the face of the record' or similar limited grounds, as laid down in cases like Sow Chandra Kante v. Sheikh Habib and later developed further. In Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra (2002), the Court went further and recognized a 'curative petition' as an additional, even narrower remedy after a review is dismissed, to prevent gross miscarriage of justice — though this curative jurisdiction flows more from the Court's inherent powers than directly from Article 137 itself. Courts have consistently emphasized that Article 137 review must be used sparingly to preserve the finality of judgments.

• Myth: A review petition lets you re-argue the entire case again like a fresh appeal.
  Fact: Courts have clarified that review is meant only for correcting clear, visible errors in the judgment, not for reopening arguments already considered and rejected.
• Myth: Article 137 itself creates the 'curative petition' remedy.
  Fact: The curative petition was developed by the Supreme Court in Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra using its inherent powers, as an additional safeguard beyond what Article 137 review provides.