The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed a curative petition by the central government and the Airports Authority of India (AAI) that sought a review of its 2022 decision allowing GMR Group to operate and manage Nagpur’s Babasaheb Ambedkar International Airport, according to a report by Livelaw.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who represented the government, told a four-judge bench led by Chief Justice of India Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud that there were no grounds to pursue the petition. After reviewing the case, as previously requested by the court, Mehta concluded that there was no justification to challenge the 2022 judgement under curative jurisdiction.
“There was a view previously that the ground of bias could be pressed, but I am clear that such a ground can never be pressed against an order of this court,” Mehta explained, noting that his review was done independently, without consulting the government.
The bench, which also included justices Sanjiv Khanna, Bhushan R Gavai, and JK Maheshwari, agreed with Mehta’s position and dismissed the petition, stating that it did not meet the strict requirements for such appeals, including bias or lack of fair hearing.
Senior counsel Abhishek Manu Singhvi represented GMR Airports in the matter.
A curative petition is a legal recourse that can be filed in the Supreme Court of India as a last resort to address a miscarriage of justice in a final judgment.
Origins of the GMR group-Nagpur airport dispute
The dispute originally began in May 2022 when the Supreme Court upheld a Bombay High Court ruling in favour of GMR Airports. MIHAN India Ltd, a joint venture responsible for managing the Nagpur airport, had sought to cancel the 2019 contract awarded to GMR for the airport’s upgrade and operations. MIHAN argued that the 2019 letter given to GMR wasn’t a formal contract award, but both the High Court and Supreme Court disagreed, calling the cancellation unjustified.
In its 2022 ruling, the Supreme Court stated that government contracts must follow principles of fairness and equality. It upheld the reinstatement of GMR’s contract, noting that the high court’s decision was legally sound and free from errors. The court rejected MIHAN’s argument that GMR’s contract was conditional on approval from the Union Ministry of Civil Aviation.
During Friday’s proceedings, the bench acknowledged Mehta’s impartial review and noted that the Union government and AAI had chosen not to pursue the petition further. However, the court clarified that a specific observation in the 2022 judgment—that the Union government and AAI were not essential parties to the case—would not set a precedent for future matters.
First Published: Sep 27 2024 | 2:44 PM IST
