Context: Recently, a five-judge Review Bench upholding the September 2018 Constitution Bench judgment has dismissed the review petitions.
Background

• The original judgment of the September 2018 Constitution Bench had held that Section 497 (adultery) of the Indian Penal Code cannot “command” married couples to remain loyal to each other for the fear of penal punishment and had struck adultery out of the penal statute book.
• The then Chief Justice had opined that two individuals may part if one cheats, but to attach criminality to infidelity was not right.
• Adultery was considered not a crime if the cuckolded husband connives or consents to his wife’s extra-marital affair.
• Section 497 treats a married woman as the commodity of her husband, the Bench had held.
• The court had reasoned that there was no data whatsoever to support claims that the abolition of adultery as a crime would result in “chaos in sexual morality” or an increase of divorce.

Key Points

• A five-judge Review Bench upholding the September 2018 Constitution Bench judgment has dismissed the review petitions.
• Adultery is not a crime if the cuckolded husband connives or consents to his wife’s extra-marital affair. Section 497 treats a married woman as her husband’s “chattel”. The provision is a reflection of the social dominance of men prevalent 150 years ago.
• “Husband is not the master… Obituaries should be written of these historic perceptions,” then chief justice Misra had observed.
• The Bench had also held that Section 198 (2) of the CrPC, which gave the cuckolded husband the exclusive right to prosecute his wife’s lover, was manifestly arbitrary.
• Adultery can however be a ground for civil remedy like dissolution of marriage, the 2018 verdict had said.

What is a review petition and when can it be filed?

• Under Article 137, the Supreme Court has the power to review any of its judgments or orders.

Scope for review

• When a review takes place, the law is that it is allowed not to take fresh stock of the case but to correct grave errors that have resulted in the miscarriage of justice.
• The court has the power to review its rulings to correct a “patent error” and not “minor mistakes of inconsequential import”.
• In a 1975 ruling, Justice Krishna Iyer said a review can be accepted “only where a glaring omission or patent mistake or like grave error has crept in earlier by judicial fallibility”.

In a 2013 ruling, the Supreme Court has laid down three grounds for seeking a review of a verdict it has delivered:

• The discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within the knowledge of the petitioner or could not be produced by him.
• Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record.
• Any other sufficient reason. It means a reason that is analogous to the other two grounds.
• In 2013 Union of India v. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd) case, the court laid down nine principles on when a review is maintainable.

Who can file a review petition?

• As per the Civil Procedure Code and the Supreme Court Rules, any person aggrieved by a ruling can seek a review. However, the court exercises its discretion to allow a review petition only when it shows the grounds for seeking the review.

Time- period within which a review petition should be filed?
As per 1996 rules framed by the Supreme Court:

• A review petition must be filed within 30 days of the date of judgment or order. While a judgment is the final decision in a case, an order is an interim ruling that is subject to its final verdict.
• In certain circumstances, the court can condone a delay in filing the review petition if the petitioner can establish strong reasons that justify the delay.

The procedure to be followed:

• The rules state that review petitions would ordinarily be entertained without oral arguments by lawyers. It is heard “through circulation” by the judges in their chambers.
• Review petitions are also heard, as far as practicable, by the same combination of judges who delivered the order or judgment that is sought to be reviewed.
• If a judge has retired or is unavailable, a replacement is made keeping in mind the seniority of judges.
• In exceptional cases, the court allows an oral hearing. In a 2014 case, the Supreme Court held that review petitions in all death penalty cases will be heard in open court by a Bench of three judges.