GS Analyst: Daily Current Affairs

The Supreme Court's exercise of Curative Jurisdiction in the DMRC vs DAMEPL case has sparked debate over the Court's role in correcting its own judgments.

The Power of Curative Jurisdiction

• Origin: The Supreme Court gained the power of Curative Jurisdiction in 2002, allowing it to rectify its judgments even after they have become final.
• Reversal benefit: Unlike the power of review, Curative Jurisdiction enables the Court to reverse its own decisions, going beyond mere rectification of errors apparent on the record.
• Undermined authority: This jurisdiction challenges the traditional understanding of judicial review and underscores the Court's authority to correct perceived injustices.

The Delhi Metro Rail Judgment

• Ground: In the DMRC vs DAMEPL case, the Supreme Court set aside an arbitral award for the first time ever, citing grounds of perverse interpretation and ignored evidence.
• Questionable consistency: The exercise of Curative Jurisdiction led the Court to overturn its own earlier verdict, questioning the consistency and reliability of judicial decisions.
• Challenges and Implications: While correcting errors is essential, an institution like SC, tasked with shaping legal principles, should prioritize consistency and coherence. The fluctuation in judicial decisions erodes public trust in the Court's authority and undermines its role as the guardian of law and justice.

Mains Question:

Discuss the significance and implications of the Supreme Court's exercise of Curative Jurisdiction, citing the DMRC vs DAMEPL case as an example. Assess the challenges posed by the Court's reversal of its own judgments and its impact on the stability of legal principles in India.