UPSC EDITORIAL ANALYSIS : Sounding the gavel on curative jurisdiction
Kartavya Desk Staff
Source: The Hindu
• Prelims: Supreme Court, Judges of SC, Curative Jurisdiction, right of privacy, Tribunals etc
• Mains GS Paper I and II: Structure, organization and functioning of judiciary, role of CJI etc
ARTICLE HIGHLIGHTS
• The Supreme Court quashed an arbitral tribunal award directing the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) to pay ₹7,687 crore to Delhi Airport Metro Express Private Limited (DAMEPL), a special purpose vehicle of Reliance Infrastructure Limited and Spain’s Construcciones Y Auxiliar de Ferrocarriles SA.
• In 2002, the Court took on a new power called the “Curative Jurisdiction”.
INSIGHTS ON THE ISSUE
Context
Curative Jurisdiction:
• It is a power to correct its judgments, after they have become final.
• This is distinct from the power of review under Indian law, which enables all courts to rectify errors which are apparent from their records.
• Examples of changes in the Court’s views: Right of privacy Decriminalization of homosexuality
• Right of privacy
• Decriminalization of homosexuality
• Curative Jurisdiction is not merely the Court changing its view on a position of law but is a reversal of the Court’s own view in a specific case, above and beyond even the power of review.
#### The Delhi Metro Rail judgment(Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. (“DMRC”) vs Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt Ltd (“DAMEPL”):
#### ● This was a decision of a three-judge Bench of the Court in a curative petition in Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd.
• DAMEPL before an Arbitral Tribunal: The termination, by DAMEPL, of a long-term contract relating to a stretch of the Delhi metro rail, was valid. Such termination was based on a termination clause which permitted DAMEPL to terminate the contract based on issuance of a notice to cure defects in the event that DMRC “failed to cure such breach or take effective steps for curing such breach”. According to DAMEPL and the Arbitral Tribunal: The failure to cure such defects had triggered DAMEPL’s right to terminate.
• Such termination was based on a termination clause which permitted DAMEPL to terminate the contract based on issuance of a notice to cure defects in the event that DMRC “failed to cure such breach or take effective steps for curing such breach”.
• “failed to cure such breach or take effective steps for curing such breach”.
• According to DAMEPL and the Arbitral Tribunal: The failure to cure such defects had triggered DAMEPL’s right to terminate.
• The Supreme Court upheld the award after setting out the limited scope to challenge an award under Indian law. A review petition was dismissed. The Court, in a curative petition, set aside an arbitral award.
• A review petition was dismissed.
• The Court, in a curative petition, set aside an arbitral award.
Grounds of interference by the Court(Exercise of curative jurisdiction) :
• Interpretation of the termination clause was perverse since the Arbitral Tribunal had failed to recognise that it was sufficient for the DMRC to take effective steps to cure the breach curing the breach in its entirety was not necessary.
• curing the breach in its entirety was not necessary.
• The CMRS sanction was vital evidence which had been ignored. The Court had hitherto supported a position of minimal interference in arbitral awards. The Court held its own verdict in 2019, which was in line with this pre-existing position, and was wrong.
• The Court had hitherto supported a position of minimal interference in arbitral awards.
• The Court held its own verdict in 2019, which was in line with this pre-existing position, and was wrong.
• It settled law: A court, while setting aside an award, does not sit as a court of appeal. The Court is bound to accept a potentially incorrect, though plausible, view on the interpretation of a contract It does not have the power to re appreciate evidence. Court has the power to interfere with a “perverse” interpretation The subjective slope between a “perverse” interpretation and a “plausible but incorrect” interpretation is slippery.
• The Court is bound to accept a potentially incorrect, though plausible, view on the interpretation of a contract
• It does not have the power to re appreciate evidence.
• Court has the power to interfere with a “perverse” interpretation
• The subjective slope between a “perverse” interpretation and a “plausible but incorrect” interpretation is slippery.
• The Arbitral Tribunal, being the sole judge of weight of any evidence, had considered the evidence and held it to be of little significance.
Way Forward
• Curative Jurisdiction is effectively the Supreme Court seeking to correct its mistakes. An institution which underpins the country’s judiciary and which is the final interpreter of the Constitution must look beyond errors in individual cases.
• An institution which underpins the country’s judiciary and which is the final interpreter of the Constitution must look beyond errors in individual cases.
• The Supreme Court declares the law for the nation and posterity, and not for one-off cases. The interpretation set out by the Supreme Court in DMRC vs DAMEPL is the correct interpretation It would have been justified had it been an exercise of appellate jurisdiction The exercise could be said to be beyond the contours of permissible interference with an arbitral award. The exercise of revisiting one’s own decisions is good in an individual, but is not good for an institution that declares the law. Justice Jackson’s: The Supreme Court is not final because it is infallible but infallible because it is final.
• The interpretation set out by the Supreme Court in DMRC vs DAMEPL is the correct interpretation It would have been justified had it been an exercise of appellate jurisdiction The exercise could be said to be beyond the contours of permissible interference with an arbitral award.
• It would have been justified had it been an exercise of appellate jurisdiction
• The exercise could be said to be beyond the contours of permissible interference with an arbitral award.
• The exercise of revisiting one’s own decisions is good in an individual, but is not good for an institution that declares the law.
• Justice Jackson’s: The Supreme Court is not final because it is infallible but infallible because it is final.
QUESTION FOR PRACTICE
Critically examine the Supreme Court’s judgment on ‘National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, 2014’ with reference to appointment of judges of higher judiciary in India.(UPSC 2017) (200 WORDS, 10 MARKS)
Editorial Analysis – 27 Apr 2024