The Supreme Court held that it may exercise its curative powers to prevent arbitrary disparity of outcomes in separate cases relying on identical evidence. It found that allowing a conviction based on evidence that was rejected as inadmissible in identical cases violates Articles 14 and 21.
Surendra Koli was convicted for killing Rimpa Haldar. This was alleged to be one of the Nithari Murders in 2006. Koli’s conviction and death sentence, handed down by a Trial Court in 2009, was affirmed by the Allahabad High Court in 2009 and ultimately by a two-judge Bench of the Supreme Court in 2011. In 2014, the Supreme Court dismissed a review petition against the decision. Koli’s death sentence was later commuted to life imprisonment in 2015. In 12 other cases connected to the Nithari murders, however, Koli was acquitted by the High Court based on the same evidence. The Supreme Court had upheld these acquittals in July 2025. Koli filed a curative petition before the Supreme Court citing this judgement.
The Supreme Court noted that Koli’s conviction in the Rimpa Haldar case was based on confession and supposed discoveries. However, 12 other cases had held the evidence to be “legally unreliable”. As the two outcomes were irreconcilable, the Court found that conviction in the Haldar case would result in a grave miscarriage of justice.
Read the Judgement here.
Surendra Koli v State of Uttar Pradesh
11 November 2025
Citation: 2025 INSC 1308 | 2025 SCO.LR 11(3)[12]
Bench: Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, Justices Surya Kant and Vikram Nath
Case Comment
Held, The curative jurisdiction of this Court exists to prevent abuse of process and to cure a gross miscarriage of justice. In Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra1, the Constitution Bench of this Court recognised that this power flows from the inherent authority of this Court to do complete justice and to protect the integrity of its judgments. However, the constitutional source of this power is coherent and limited. Article 129 of the Constitution of India (hereinafter “The Constitution”) declares this Court to be a court of record with inherent powers to preserve the purity of its process. Article 142 of the Constitution empowers this Court to make such orders as are necessary for doing complete justice. Article 137 of the Constitution recognises the power of review and marks its limits. Article 145 of the Constitution of India authorises the framing of rules. Order XLVIII of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, titled “Curative Petition” prescribes the filing requirements, the certification by a Senior Advocate, and the preliminary circulation to a bench as indicated in Rupa Ashok Hurra (Supra). These provisions together sustain a narrow jurisdiction that may be invoked only after review has failed to correct a grave defect.
Subscribe to our updates now and be the first to know about the latest news and developments. Subscribe here: https://legal.relegal.in/subscribe-newsletter/
#legalcousel #legalawareness #legaladvice #constitutionOFINDIA #Article142 #Nitharicase #curativepetition
Key words/phrases: Articles 14 & 21—arbitrary disparity—Rimpa Haldar murder—Surendra Koli—identical cases—Nithari murders—same evidence—curative petition filed—Supreme Court held evidence legally unreliable across cases—inconsistent outcomes violate fairness— miscarriage of justice