A petition before the Supreme Court seeking to set aside a judgment that has become final (after review and dismissal) on the ground that it was vitiated by a violation of the principles of natural justice or bias by the judges — the last resort remedy after all other remedies are exhausted.
Explanation
The curative petition is a judicial creation of the Supreme Court — established in Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra (2002) 4 SCC 388. After the Supreme Court's judgment and dismissal of the review petition, no further remedy was available — leading to the possibility of a final Supreme Court judgment that was grossly unjust. The curative petition was created as an extraordinary remedy to address this gap: if a final Supreme Court judgment violates natural justice (audi alteram partem was not followed) or if there is clear bias by a judge (nemo judex in causa sua), a curative petition may be filed before the same bench that decided the case.
Statutory Provision
No statutory provision — curative petitions were created by judicial order in Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra (2002) 4 SCC 388. The Supreme Court in Rupa Ashok Hurra held: 'We think that a petitioner is entitled to relief ex debito justitiae if he establishes (i) violation of principles of natural justice in that he was not a party to the lis but the judgment adversely affected his interests or, if he was a party to the lis, he was not served with notice of the proceedings and the matter proceeded as if he had notice and (ii) where in the proceedings a learned judge failed to disclose his connection to the subject-matter or the parties giving rise to an apprehension of bias and the judgment adversely affected the petitioner.'
Criminal activity carried out using computers, the internet, or digital networks — including hacking, identity theft, data theft, online fraud, phishing, cyberbullying, child pornography, and other offences under the Information Technology Act, 2000 and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
Explanation
Cyber crimes are governed in India by: (a) Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act) — primarily cyber crimes under Chapter XI (Sections 43-74); and (b) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023 — which expanded the scope of traditional criminal offences to cover the digital space. Key IT Act provisions: Section 43 — civil liability for unauthorised access and data theft; Section 66 — computer related offences (hacking); Section 66A — unconstitutional (struck down by Shreya Singhal 2015); Section 66B — receiving stolen computer resource; Section 66C — identity theft; Section 66D — cheating by personation online; Section 67 — publishing obscene material online; Section 70 — accessing protected systems. BNS 2023 added specific provisions for electronic crimes within the traditional offence definitions.
Statutory Provision
Section 66, Information Technology Act, 2000 (as amended in 2008): 'If any person, dishonestly or fraudulently, does any act referred to in section 43, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or with fine which may extend to five lakh rupees or with both.' Section 43 defines computer-related wrongs (damage to computer, unauthorised access, data theft). Section 66C IT Act: 'Whoever, fraudulently or dishonestly make use of the electronic signature, password or any other unique identification feature of any other person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine which may extend to rupees one lakh.'
