Curative Petition in Bangladesh 2026: Finality, Article 104 and the Case for Reform

Curative petition Bangladesh: where the law stands in 2026

A curative petition Bangladesh lawyers sometimes ask about does not yet exist in the country's law. Once the Appellate Division has decided a case and dismissed a review under Article 105 of the Constitution, the Appellate Division Rules 1988 shut the door on any further application for review. India answered the same problem in 2002 by creating a narrow "curative" remedy for final judgments produced by a broken process: a party never heard, or a judge with an undisclosed connection to the case. Whether Bangladesh should follow, and how, is a live question in 2026.

This insight explains the Indian remedy, the Pakistani and UK positions, where Bangladesh stands, the arguments on each side, what a litigant can lawfully do after a review is dismissed, and how a curative rule could be designed under Article 107. The mechanics of an ordinary review are in our guide to the review petition in the Supreme Court of Bangladesh, which we link rather than repeat.

Summary: Bangladesh has no curative petition. Article 105 lets the Appellate Division review its own judgments, and Order XXVI rule 8 of the Appellate Division Rules 1988 provides that after the first review is finally disposed of, no subsequent application for review lies and the Registry will not entertain one. We found no verifiable Bangladeshi decision recognising or rejecting a "curative" petition. Article 104 (complete justice), Article 108 (court of record) and the inherent-powers saving in Order XXXIV rule 8 supply arguable foundations, but the cleaner route to recognition is a rule made under Article 107.

Key point: A curative petition is not a second review. In India it exists to correct a failure of the judicial process itself, such as a decision against a party who was never served or a judge who failed to disclose a connection with the case. It is not a vehicle for rearguing the evidence or the law, and Indian data show it succeeds very rarely.

At a glance

Swipe or scroll →

Table of Contents

What a curative petition is, and what it is not

A curative petition asks a country's highest court to reconsider its own final judgment after both appeal and review have been exhausted. It is the last safety valve in a system that otherwise treats the apex court's word as final, justified by a simple idea: a final court should not be forced to leave in place a decision reached through a process so defective that the judgment cannot be trusted.

The essential feature is the target of the complaint. An appeal attacks a lower court's decision. A review attacks an error apparent on the face of the apex court's own judgment, or rests on new evidence. A curative petition attacks the integrity of the process: who was heard, who sat, and whether the court was misled.

Review, clemency and curative compared

Presidential clemency under Article 49 of the Constitution can pardon or alter a sentence, but it does not reopen the adjudication or declare the trial unfair.[4] Review under Article 105 corrects patent errors in the judgment. A curative remedy would sit between the two: a judicial power, but one confined to defects of process rather than errors of judgment. If it were available whenever a party believed the court had misread the evidence, it would become a third appeal, which is why every system that recognises it surrounds it with filters.

Origin: Rupa Ashok Hurra v Ashok Hurra (2002)

In Rupa Ashok Hurra v Ashok Hurra, decided on 10 April 2002 and reported at (2002) 4 SCC 388, a five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court of India led by Chief Justice S P Bharucha considered writ petitions that sought to challenge final judgments of that court after review petitions had been dismissed.[5] [9]

The court rejected the writ route: certiorari issues to inferior courts, and no bench of the Supreme Court can issue a writ to another.[5] But drawing on its powers as a court of record and to do complete justice, it held that it may, "to prevent abuse of its process and to cure a gross miscarriage of justice, … re-consider its judgments in exercise of its inherent power".[5]

The grounds

The court declined to list every ground but held that a petitioner is entitled to relief ex debito justitiae if they establish either of two things.[5]

• A breach of natural justice. The petitioner was not a party but was adversely affected, or was a party but was never served and the matter proceeded as if they had been.
• Apprehended bias. A judge failed to disclose a connection with the subject matter or the parties, giving scope for an apprehension of bias.

The procedural filters

To stop the remedy becoming "a second review petition as a matter of course", the court required the petition to aver that its grounds were taken in the review and that the review was dismissed by circulation, and to carry a Senior Advocate's certificate.[5] It is first circulated to the three senior-most judges and the judges who passed the judgment, if available, and is listed only if a majority think it needs a hearing. The bench may appoint an amicus curiae and impose exemplary costs if the petition is vexatious.[5]

Codification in the Supreme Court Rules 2013

Order XLVIII of India's Supreme Court Rules 2013 now governs the remedy. It repeats the 2002 requirements, adds an Advocate-on-Record's certificate that this is the first curative petition in the matter, requires filing within a reasonable time of the review order, and provides for disposal by circulation without oral argument unless the court orders otherwise. The fee is the same as on the original proceedings.[6]

How Indian curative practice has developed

Because petitions are decided on the papers in the first instance, the court can test them against the strict grounds without reopening the litigation.[6]

What the numbers show

The only official figures we could verify come from a reply in the Lok Sabha on 28 July 2021. From 2010 to 22 July 2021 the Supreme Court had allowed 92 civil and 48 criminal review petitions, but only three criminal curative petitions and no civil ones.[7] The reply did not give numbers filed, so a success rate cannot be calculated, but the remedy is plainly exceptional.

DMRC v DAMEPL (2024): grave miscarriage of justice

On 10 April 2024, in Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd v Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt Ltd, 2024 INSC 292, a three-judge bench led by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud allowed curative petitions against the court's own 2021 judgment, which had restored an arbitral award against the state-owned metro company after the High Court had set it aside.[8] The ground was neither natural justice nor bias: restoring a "patently illegal award" had "caused a grave miscarriage of justice". The court warned that the jurisdiction should not "create a fourth or fifth stage of court intervention in an arbitral award".[8]

Surendra Koli (2025): inconsistent outcomes on one record

On 11 November 2025, in Surendra Koli v State of Uttar Pradesh, 2025 INSC 1308, a bench led by Chief Justice B R Gavai recalled the court's 2011 judgment dismissing a criminal appeal in a murder case and its 2014 review order, and acquitted the petitioner, because final outcomes resting on the same evidence could not lawfully coexist.[9] The court stressed that a curative petition "is not a second review" and that it "does not reappraise evidence", but described the Rupa Ashok Hurra grounds as "illustrative and not exhaustive".[9]

Curative petition Bangladesh: the present position

Bangladesh's constitutional text closely tracks India's, but its rules point the other way: an express review power, an express bar on a second review, and no curative practice in the gap. A Law Vision commentary by Satirtha Chakma in The Daily Star on 2 September 2026 put it plainly: the concept "is not formally recognised in Bangladesh".[4]

Article 105 and Order XXVI

Article 105 gives the Appellate Division power, "subject to the provisions of any Act of Parliament and of any rules made by that division", to review any judgment or order made by it.[1] Order XXVI rule 1 allows review of the court's own motion or on a party's application, on Order XLVII grounds in civil cases and only for an error apparent on the face of the record in criminal cases.[2] The thirty-day limit, Senior Advocate's certificate and Tk 10,000 security are explained in our review petition guide.

Some of those features already resemble India's curative filters: a Senior Advocate must certify in a reasoned opinion that review is justifiable, and the application goes, as far as practicable, to the bench that decided the case.[2] Bangladesh front-loads into its single review safeguards that India reserves for the curative stage.

The bar on second review: Order XXVI rule 8

Rule 8 is the provision any curative remedy would have to get past: "After the final disposal of the first application for review no subsequent application for review shall lie to the Court and consequently shall not be entertained by the Registry."[2] Order X rule 2 adds that, subject to Order XXVI, a judgment pronounced in open court shall not be altered or added to save to correct a clerical or arithmetical mistake or an accidental slip or omission.[2] Together they leave one review and the slip rule.

Has any Bangladeshi court considered a curative petition?

We searched the Supreme Court's published bulletins and judgments and English and Bangla press reports for any decision that entertained, rejected or commented on a "curative" petition or a second review in terms. We found none we could verify from a primary source, so we cite no DLR, BLD or ADC report on the point.

The reported cases do show a firm commitment to finality. In Md Zahangir Alam v State, 18 SCOB [2023] AD 45, an eight-judge bench said on 2 March 2023 that the apex court's opinion "should be given finality", with departure justified "only when circumstances of a substantial and compelling character make it necessary".[3] Any curative petition Bangladesh adopts would have to be reconciled with that authority.

Finality and its limits in Bangladeshi law

Finality is not a technicality. Interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium: the public interest requires litigation to end, so that parties can plan, judgments can be enforced and overloaded courts are not asked to hear the same case three times. In Zahangir Alam the court warned that if cases are reopened on flimsy grounds "there will be no end to the litigation", while accepting that "there are exceptional cases where the court can remedy its judgment".[3] Three openings already exist.

The slip rule

Order X rule 2 permits correction of clerical or arithmetical mistakes and accidental slips at any time.[2] It cannot change the substance of a decision.

Review of the court's own motion

Order XXVI rule 1 allows review "either of its own motion or on the application of a party", while rule 8 bars a "subsequent application for review".[2] Whether an own-motion power survives a dismissed party review has not, so far as we could find, been decided. It is an argument, not settled law, and no party can compel the court to act of its own motion.

The inherent-powers saving in Order XXXIV

Order XXXIV rule 8 provides that nothing in the Rules limits "the inherent powers of the Court to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court", and rule 1 lets the court excuse compliance with any requirement of the Rules for sufficient cause.[2] The wording is close to the Indian court's description of its curative power.[5] The counter-argument is that Order XXVI rule 8 is the specific provision, and a general saving is not normally read to override a specific bar.

Could Article 104 ground a curative remedy?

Article 104 empowers the Appellate Division to issue "such directions, orders, decrees or writs as may be necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it".[1] It is Bangladesh's counterpart to the Indian complete-justice power and the provision most often proposed as a home for a curative remedy.[4]

The "pending before it" problem

The difficulty is the last four words. Once an appeal has been decided and review dismissed, nothing is pending, so a literal reading lets Article 104 shape relief in a live case but not revive a concluded one.[1] [4] One answer is that a curative petition, once accepted, is itself a pending matter, with jurisdiction to entertain it supplied from elsewhere. Either way, Article 104 is better seen as a supporting power than a stand-alone source of curative jurisdiction.

Article 108 and the court of record

Article 108 makes the Supreme Court a court of record with "all the powers of such a court".[1] In India the court-of-record provision was one pillar of the curative power.[9] A Bangladeshi argument combining Article 108, Article 104 and Order XXXIV rule 8 is respectable. On present authority it is not a winning one.

Article 105 and the role of the Rules

The deeper obstacle is that the review power is expressly "subject to" the Division's own rules, and those rules permit one review.[1] [2] A court that created a curative remedy by judgment would be departing from its own rule; one that amended the Rules would not. Commentators add that a judgment produced by a biased bench, or without hearing the person it condemns, sits uneasily with the protection of law, life and liberty and an impartial trial in Articles 31, 32 and 35(3).[4]

Comparative position: India, Pakistan and the UK

The three jurisdictions closest to Bangladesh's tradition give three answers. The real choice is not between finality and justice, but who decides when finality yields, and through what procedure.

India

India recognises the remedy by judgment and by rule. Its grounds began with natural justice and bias, were extended to grave miscarriage of justice in 2024 and were called illustrative in 2025, with filters that are procedural rather than substantive.[6] [8] [9]

Pakistan

Pakistan has refused it. In 2021 the federal government filed "curative review" petitions against the Supreme Court's April 2021 review judgment in the Justice Qazi Faez Isa case; in 2023 a later government sought to withdraw them. Allowing withdrawal in July 2023, Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial recorded that a second review is barred by law and that curative review is not recognised in Pakistani jurisprudence, as distinct from suo motu review.[13]

In a ruling reported on 5 October 2026, the Federal Constitutional Court, to which pending reviews were transferred after the 27th Constitutional Amendment, held that a second review is barred by Order 27 rule 8 of the Supreme Court Rules 2025, that "recall" applications seeking reconsideration in substance are barred second reviews, and that inherent powers cannot circumvent the restriction. Recall remains possible only for an independent procedural defect.[14] Bangladesh's rule 8 is in materially similar terms.[2]

United Kingdom: Pinochet (No 2)

In R v Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, ex parte Pinochet Ugarte (No 2) [2000] 1 AC 119, the House of Lords set aside its own order of 25 November 1998 on Senator Pinochet's immunity because Lord Hoffmann, who sat on the appeal, was a director and chairperson of Amnesty International Charity Limited, and Amnesty International had intervened. The order was set aside on 17 December 1998, with reasons on 15 January 1999.[10]

Lord Browne-Wilkinson held that the House's "inherent jurisdiction remains unfettered", but that it "will not reopen any appeal save in circumstances where, through no fault of a party, he or she has been subjected to an unfair procedure", and not "just because it is thought that the first order is wrong".[10]

The UK Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal

In R (Bancoult) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs [2016] UKSC 35, on 29 June 2016, the UK Supreme Court confirmed that it has the same inherent jurisdiction, but dismissed by three to two an application based on an alleged breach of the government's duty of candour.[11] For the Court of Appeal, Taylor v Lawrence [2002] EWCA Civ 90, [2003] QB 528 requires it to be clearly established that "a significant injustice has probably occurred and that there is no alternative effective remedy".[11] CPR 52.30 now codifies that test: real injustice, exceptional circumstances, no alternative remedy, permission on paper and a final permission decision.[12]

The case for recognition

The first argument for a curative petition Bangladesh could recognise is institutional integrity. An apex court that cannot correct a judgment produced by an undisclosed conflict, or reached without hearing the person it binds, depends on the hope that such failures never happen. Pinochet shows they can happen in the most senior courts and surface only after the decision.[10]

Second, the remedy can be confined. Strict grounds, certification, screening and costs keep numbers small: three curative petitions allowed in India in more than eleven years answers the floodgates objection.[7] Third, some outcomes are irreversible, and clemency, an executive act, does not answer whether the trial was fair.[4]

Fourth, Bangladesh's rules already concede the principle by preserving inherent power "to prevent abuse of the process of the Court" and allowing own-motion review.[2] A curative rule would regulate a power that exists in outline. Finally, a clear procedure is fairer than improvised "recall" applications, which Pakistan's experience shows are treated as disguised second reviews.[14]

The case against recognition

The strongest argument against any curative petition Bangladesh might introduce is finality itself. The Appellate Division has said that its decisions should stand save in substantial and compelling circumstances.[3] Each added layer lets well-resourced parties delay enforcement and pressure opponents into settlement.

Second, the grounds are hard to keep narrow. A remedy designed for natural justice and bias was used in India in 2024 to set aside a commercial judgment for grave miscarriage of justice, and in 2025 to recall a murder conviction.[8] [9] Supporters see flexibility; critics see a third appeal arriving by stages, and investors may ask whether a final award is ever final.

Third, creating jurisdiction by judgment raises legitimacy concerns when Article 105 makes review subject to rules that allow one review only.[1] [2] Pakistan's courts have declined the remedy on that footing.[13] Fourth, screening draws on the time of the most senior judges, at the expense of pending appeals and leave petitions; see our Supreme Court practice guide.

What a litigant can do today after review is dismissed

Until the law changes, the honest answer on a curative petition Bangladesh clients ask about is that none can be filed as of right. Some lawful steps remain, but each is narrow and none should be used to reargue a decided case.

Swipe or scroll →

Confirm what was actually decided

Start with the certified copy of the review order. A review withdrawn with liberty or dismissed for default may raise different questions from one finally disposed of on its merits under Order XXVI rule 8.[2] Check the case history and listings with our Supreme Court cause list tool before assuming the door is closed.

Use the slip rule where it genuinely applies

A wrong figure, a misnamed party or an omitted consequential direction can be corrected under Order X rule 2 whatever happened on review.[2] Dressing a substantive complaint as a clerical one will fail.

Look for the defect in the court below

Many process failures begin lower down. Where a decree was obtained without service, the remedy may lie in the court that passed it; see our guide to setting aside an ex parte decree. Our review petition guide discusses an Appellate Division case where failure of service and fraud on the court were corrected on review.

Clemency in criminal cases

Once the judicial process ends, Article 49 clemency is the remaining constitutional route to change a sentence. It acts on punishment, not on the fairness of the adjudication. Section 561A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, covered in our section 561A guide, cannot place the High Court Division above a final Appellate Division decision.[4]

An extraordinary application: only on a true process failure

Where a party can show a genuine curative-type defect, such as never having been served or a judge's undisclosed interest, an application invoking Articles 104 and 108 and Order XXXIV rule 8 is arguable. Expect the Registry to raise rule 8, a hearing on maintainability first, and costs if it fails.[2] Pakistan's treatment of "recall" applications shows the risk of a filing that looks like a disguised second review.[14]

What not to do

Do not file a second review under another name, and do not assume an extraordinary application suspends enforcement; seek any stay separately. Do not delay: even India requires filing within a reasonable time.[6] Above all, invest in the first review and raise every process ground in it within the thirty-day window.

Designing a curative petition Bangladesh could adopt

If Bangladesh recognises the remedy, design will decide whether it becomes a safeguard or a fourth tier. Comparative experience suggests six building blocks.

Rule-making under Article 107

Article 107 lets the Supreme Court, subject to any law made by Parliament and with the President's approval, make rules regulating the practice and procedure of each Division.[1] A new Order, or a proviso to Order XXVI rule 8, would give curative jurisdiction a textual basis consistent with Article 105 and avoid the objection to creating jurisdiction by judgment.

Closed, process-based grounds

Grounds should cover a person adversely affected who was not a party or not served; a judge's undisclosed connection giving rise to apprehended bias; and fraud on the court. Whether to add a residual "grave miscarriage of justice" ground is the key policy choice, and India's 2024 and 2025 decisions show what it can do.[8] [9]

Certification and screening

India and the UK agree on the essentials: a Senior Advocate's reasoned certificate, a statement that the grounds were raised on review or could not have been, a first-petition certificate, and screening on the papers.[6] [12] Screening by the three senior-most judges with any available member of the original bench, acting by majority, would mirror the Indian model.

Time limit and final screening

A fixed period running from discovery of the defect would be clearer than India's "reasonable time".[6] The screening decision should be final, as the permission decision is under CPR 52.30.[12]

Security and costs

Order XXVI rule 9 already uses a forfeitable cash security for review.[2] A curative rule could set a higher security, forfeited on dismissal, plus exemplary costs for vexatious petitions on the Indian model, with waiver for prisoners of limited means.[6]

No automatic stay

Filing should not suspend the judgment. Interim relief should require a separate application on exceptional grounds, so the remedy cannot simply buy time.

Where the debate goes next

The question of a curative petition Bangladesh might adopt is likely to arise first in a hard criminal case, the worst setting in which to invent a jurisdiction. A rule made in advance, with closed grounds and strict filters, would let the Appellate Division correct a true failure of process without inviting every losing party to try again.

Until then the law is clear: one review, the slip rule, and an untested argument from inherent power. TRW's constitutional and writ litigation practice advises on Appellate Division review and extraordinary applications, and our guide to the civil petition for leave to appeal covers the stage before review.

Frequently asked questions

Is there a curative petition Bangladesh courts will hear?

No. Neither the Constitution nor the Appellate Division Rules 1988 provide for one, and we found no verifiable Bangladeshi decision recognising it. After the first review is finally disposed of, Order XXVI rule 8 bars any further application for review.[2]

What is a curative petition?

An application to an apex court to reconsider its own final judgment after review has been dismissed, on narrow grounds going to the integrity of the process, such as a party not being heard or undisclosed judicial bias.[5]

Where does the curative petition come from?

India. The Supreme Court of India created it in Rupa Ashok Hurra v Ashok Hurra on 10 April 2002, and Order XLVIII of the Supreme Court Rules 2013 now regulates it.[5] [6]

Can I file a second review petition in the Appellate Division?

No. Order XXVI rule 8 provides that no subsequent application for review lies after the first is finally disposed of, and the Registry will not entertain one.[2]

Can Article 104 be used to reopen a decided case?

It is doubtful. Article 104 empowers the Appellate Division to do complete justice in a cause or matter "pending before it", and a concluded case is not pending. It may support relief once another basis of jurisdiction exists.[1]

How often are curative petitions granted in India?

Rarely. Figures given to the Lok Sabha in July 2021 showed three criminal and no civil curative petitions allowed between 2010 and July 2021. Later examples include the DMRC case in 2024 and Surendra Koli in 2025.[7] [8] [9]

Does Pakistan allow curative petitions?

No. In 2023 the Supreme Court of Pakistan recorded that curative review is not recognised in Pakistani jurisprudence, and in 2026 the Federal Constitutional Court held that second reviews, including disguised recall applications, are barred.[13] [14]

Can the UK Supreme Court reopen its own decisions?

Yes, under its inherent jurisdiction, but only where a party has through no fault of its own been subjected to an unfair procedure, as in Pinochet (No 2). The Court of Appeal's equivalent power is in CPR 52.30.[10] [11] [12]

What can I do after my review petition is dismissed?

Check how the review was disposed of, use the slip rule for clerical errors, consider remedies in the court below where the defect began, and in criminal cases consider clemency. Any extraordinary application should be limited to a genuine failure of process.[2] [4]

How could Bangladesh introduce a curative remedy?

Most cleanly by Supreme Court rules under Article 107, made with the President's approval, amending Order XXVI or adding a new Order with closed grounds, certification, screening, a time limit and costs.[1]