In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court of India has utilised its exceptional powers to overturn its previous judgment of 2021, thereby alleviating the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) of a staggering financial burden amounting to ₹7,687 crore.
The ruling not only reaffirms the Court’s authority in matters of curative jurisdiction but also raises pertinent questions regarding the balance between legal finality and the imperative of substantive justice. The case stems from a dispute between the DMRC and Delhi Airport Metro Express Private Ltd. (DAMEPL), the former concessionaire responsible for constructing, maintaining, and operating the metro line from New Delhi railway station to Delhi airport. Following the termination of their agreement by DAMEPL in October 2012, citing alleged failures by DMRC to rectify certain defects, both parties engaged in arbitration proceedings. Despite the Commissioner of Metro Rail Safety (CMRS) issuing a safety certificate in favour of DMRC, validating the resumption of metro operations, legal battles ensued. Initially, the Delhi High Court upheld the arbitration award in favour of DAMEPL, only for a Division Bench to later overturn it, citing flaws in the award. However, in 2021, the Supreme Court, through a two-judge Bench, reinstated the award, dismissing the High Court’s objections. Subsequent attempts to challenge this decision via a review petition were fruitless.
The recourse to a curative petition, an extraordinary legal measure invoked after the Supreme Court rejects a review of its judgment, underscores the gravity of the situation. It serves as a safeguard against potential miscarriages of justice, recognising that the pursuit of fairness should not be overshadowed by the principle of legal finality. This ruling emphasises the critical role of arbitrators and appellate judges in ensuring the correctness of both factual assessments and legal interpretations. The outcome of the DMRC case underscores the necessity of upholding the integrity of arbitration processes to prevent undue discouragement among commercial litigants. It is a reminder that access to justice should not be impeded by procedural hurdles, particularly for those unable to navigate the complexities of legal recourse beyond standard appeal processes.
