Explanation of the editorial article in The Hindu on 27th April 2024
Page 8, 1st article
Sounding the gavel on curative jurisdiction.
The article is law-based and is related to the recent judgement of the Supreme Court where it exercised its power of curative jurisdiction first time in a case of the arbitral tribunal in DMRC vs DAMEPL
Background Understanding.
The article involves an understanding of the case of DMRC vs DAMEPL. DMRC which stands for Delhi Metro Rail Corporation is a government firm whereas DAMEPL which stands for Delhi Airport Metro Express Line is a private firm owned by a reliance subsidiary of Anil Ambani, younger son of Dhirubhai Ambani, a very well-renowned industrialist. In 2008, the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) and the Delhi Airport Metro Express Private Limited (DAMEPL) joined forces on a 30-year project. The agreement involved the design, construction, launch, operation, and upkeep of a rapid metro line. This line would connect New Delhi Railway Station to Sector 21 Dwarka, with a stop at Delhi Airport.
While DMRC handled civil engineering, including building bridges and stations, DAMEPL was responsible for all the systems needed to run the trains. Unfortunately, DAMEPL identified issues with the elevated sections built by DMRC and stopped operating the line. They then notified DMRC, who were ultimately accountable for fixing the viaduct.
In October 2012, DAMEPL terminated the project due to issues found with the metro line. Authorities checked things out in November 2012 and declared the line safe for operation in January 2013. DAMEPL restarted the line in January but abandoned the project by June 2013. DMRC then took the matter to arbitration, a process for resolving disputes outside of court. In 2017, the arbitration panel ruled in favour of DAMEPL, ordering DMRC to pay Rs 2,782.33 crore.
DMRC wasn’t happy with the arbitration decision and appealed to the Delhi High Court. Initially, they lost, but a higher court within the High Court overturned the arbitration award, arguing it violated India’s public policy. DAMEPL, not giving up, appealed to the Supreme Court. In 2021, the Supreme Court sided with DAMEPL, stating that arbitration decisions are generally final.
This Supreme Court decision didn’t end the story though. DMRC then filed a special type of appeal called a “curative petition,” which the Supreme Court surprisingly accepted.
What is Curative Jurisdiction?
Curative jurisdiction is the power of the apex court to review its judgement once it is final, however, this is different from appellate jurisdiction and should not be confused with that.
What does the article say?
The article is written by Srinath Sridevan and Anirudh Krishan, advocates at the Madras High Court. The article first talks about the curative judgement power of the apex court which came into being in 2002 and argues that the Supreme Court does more harm than good in this particular exercise of curative jurisdiction. The article says while ‘‘Curative jurisdiction is effectively the supreme court seeking to correct its mistake and while it is beneficial for an individual to correct mistakes, it is not the same for an institution which underpins the country’s judiciary and is the final interpreter of law and also says that the supreme court does more harm than good in the exercise of curative jurisdiction”
THE PRESENT SITUATION IS THAT DAMEPL IS SUPPOSED TO PAY A REFUND OF RS.8000 CRORE WHICH INCLUDES THE PREVIOUS AMOUNT AS WELL AS THE INTEREST. THIS IS NOT IN FAVOUR OF DAMEPL AND IS A SHOCK FOR ANIL AMBANI WHO WAS ALREADY LIVING IN DEPT OF VARIOUS OTHER CRORES.
DISCLAIMER- THIS ARTICLE IS JUST AN EXPLANATION OF THE EDITORIAL ARTICLE OF THE HINDU, IT IS IN NO WAY A REPLICA OF THE ARTICLE OR ANYTHING IN THE NEWSPAPER. THE PURPOSE OF THE ARTICLE IS TO SPREAD KNOWLEDGE OF THE EDITORIALS IN A SIMPLER MANNER, SO IT IS EASY FOR THE MIND.