Page 55 - ELT_2nd_15th April 2020_Vol 372_Part

2020 ] CURATIVE JURISDICTION OF HON’BLE SUPREME COURT A71

of consideration of the curative petition to ask a senior counsel to assist it as
amicus curiae. In the event of the Bench holding at any stage that the petition is
without any merit and vexatious, it may impose exemplary costs on the peti-
tioner.”
[Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra and Another - AIR 2002 SC 1771]
Above decision has been relied on/followed in the decisions in N.T.P.C.
Ltd. v. Karri Pothuraju and Others (AIR 2005 SC 4288) and it was observed that no
case was made out for entertaining the petition within the parameters laid down
in Rupa Ashok Hurra’s case (supra) and the curative petition was dismissed in
limine. In CBI and Ors. v. Keshub Mahindra (AIR 2011 SC 2037), relying on the
above decision it was observed that no ground falling within the parameters of
Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra, was made out in the curative petitions and also,
no satisfactory explanation was given to file such curative petitions after about 14
years from 1996 judgment of the Supreme Court, hence the curative petitions
were dismissed. In Zakarius Lakra and Others v. Union of India and Another (AIR
2005 SC 1560), it was observed that the appropriate remedy was only to file a
curative petition as per the procedure indicated by Hon’ble Court in the said de-
cision and the petitioners were permitted to convert the present petition into cu-
rative petition by making necessary amendments and following due procedure.
Doctrine of Ex debito justitiae
It is noteworthy that it was observed in para 51 of the decision in Rupa
Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra and Another case that the petitioner was entitled to
relief ex debito justitiae. In this context, meaning of the expression ‘ex debito justiti-
ae’ need be made clear.
Trayner’s Latin Maxim :
“On account of justice; a claim, the refusal of which would involve an injus-
tice, and therefore one which justice owes it to the claimant to recognise and
allow. Dickson, 1660”
In this regard, it was observed in Ashiq Hussain Faktoo v. Union of India
case that the principle of ex debito justitiae is founded on a recognition of a debt
that the justice delivery system owes to a litigant to correct an error in a judicial
dispensation :
“10. The principle of ex debito justitiae is founded on a recognition of a debt
that the justice delivery system owes to a litigant to correct an error in a judi-
cial dispensation. Its application, by the very nature of things, cannot be
made to depend on varying perceptions of legal omissions and commissions
but such recognition of the debt which have the potential of opening new vis-
tas of exercise of jurisdiction to relook concluded cases, must rest on surer
foundations which have been discerned and expressed in Rupa Ashok Hurra
(AIR 2002 SC 1771) (supra). Frantic cries of injustice founded on perceived er-
roneous application of law or appreciation of facts will certainly not be
enough to extend the frontiers of this jurisdiction.
11. The opinion of Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J. with regard to the sit-
uations in which an aggrieved litigant would be entitled to relief under the
doctrine of ex debito justitiae has been set out in paragraph 51 of the report
which may be reproduced herein below :
…….

EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th April 2020  71