Explain how the curative jurisdiction of the Supreme Court developed. Is it a proper remedy for procedural or interlocutory orders?

A curative petition is a remedy created by the Supreme Court itself; the Constitution does not mention it. It lets the Court reopen its own final judgment even after a review has failed. Its limits are now being tested, because a curative petition seeks recall of the 23 September 2026 split verdict in the CEC-appointment case [3].

Evolution of curative jurisdiction

• Finality first: Article 137 allows one review, and dismissal of that review ordinarily ended the case.
• Seed: in A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak (1988), the Court recalled its own directions, holding that an act of the court should harm no one.
• Birth: in Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra (2002), a five-judge Bench used the Court's inherent powers to prevent abuse of its process and cure gross miscarriage of justice [1].
• Narrow grounds: breach of natural justice, or a judge's failure to disclose a connection that creates an apprehension of bias [1].
• Safeguards: a senior advocate must certify the petition. It first goes to the three senior-most judges and the original Bench, and is usually decided in chambers [1].
• Codification: Order XLVIII of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 [2].

Is it a proper remedy for procedural or interlocutory orders?

Against

• Design mismatch: the remedy assumes a final judgment and a dismissed review [2]. The split order only decided whether to refer the case to a Constitution Bench. It did not touch the merits [3].
• Better routes exist: when a Division Bench is divided, the matter normally goes to the CJI for a larger Bench. An application to recall the order is enough.
• Bench-hunting risk: if bias claims could be raised after every order, losing parties would have a reason to dig into judges' families.

For

• The ground fits: the judge's son is reportedly standing counsel for the ECI, and this link was allegedly not disclosed [3]. That is a textbook Hurra ground [1].
• High stakes: the 2023 Act gives the government two of the three seats on the selection panel [4]. Long uncertainty over the law damages the ECI's credibility.

Curative jurisdiction shows the Court choosing justice over rigid finality, but its value lies in being used rarely. For procedural orders, the proper tool is a recall application under the Court's inherent powers. It should be backed by a written rule on disclosure and recusal that builds on the Restatement of Values of Judicial Life (1997). Together these would protect both judicial impartiality and the Election Commission's independence under Article 324.