In India, the process for reviewing a Supreme Court judgment is primarily governed by Article 137 of the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court has the power to review its own judgments under certain circumstances. The review process is outlined in Order XL Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013. Here is an overview of the process for the review of a Supreme Court judgment: Grounds for Review: A review petition can be filed on the grounds of an error apparent on the face of the record, a discovery of new and important matter or evidence that was not available during the original hearing, or for any other sufficient reason. Who Can File a Review Petition: A review petition can be filed by a party aggrieved by the Supreme Court judgment or by any person interested in the matter. Time Limit for Filing: The review petition must be filed within 30 days from the date of the judgment or order sought to be reviewed. However, the Supreme Court may entertain a review petition even after the expiration of this period if there is a sufficient cause for the delay. Procedure for Filing: The review petition is typically filed in the form of a formal application. It must be accompanied by an affidavit stating the grounds on which the review is sought. Consideration by the Same Bench: The review petition is generally considered by the same bench that delivered the original judgment. The judges who heard the matter may reconsider the decision based on the grounds raised in the review petition. Oral Arguments: In some cases, the court may allow oral arguments during the review process. However, the emphasis is usually on reconsideration based on the written submissions. Outcome of the Review: After considering the review petition, the Supreme Court may either confirm, modify, or set aside its earlier judgment. The court may also dismiss the review petition if it finds no merit in the grounds raised. Limitations on Review: The scope of a review petition is limited, and it is not an opportunity for a re-hearing of the entire case. The court primarily considers whether there is an error apparent on the face of the record or other valid grounds for review. It's important to note that the review process is distinct from an appeal, and the grounds for seeking a review are more limited. If a party is dissatisfied with the outcome of the review petition, further avenues may be explored, such as filing a curative petition, although the criteria for a curative petition are stringent.