Review and Curative Petitions Lawyer in Supreme Court of India

When a criminal matter reaches the apex of the Indian judicial hierarchy, the procedural regime that governs any subsequent challenge to a Supreme Court judgment is confined to the extraordinary mechanisms of review and curative petition, both of which are rooted in the Court’s inherent power to correct its own orders and in the limited statutory provisions that have been incorporated into the present procedural framework. The statutory basis for a review petition in criminal cases is found in the provisions that permit a party to seek reconsideration of a final judgment on the ground that a material error, which could not have been raised earlier, has been discovered in the record, thereby satisfying the threshold that the Court has expressly recognized as a narrow gateway to its own appellate jurisdiction. Conversely, the curative petition, which was fashioned by the Court in response to the perceived inadequacy of the review remedy, rests upon the principle that a final order may be reopened only when a violation of the basic structure of natural justice, such as a breach of the rule of audi alteram partem, is demonstrably evident, and when the petitioner can establish that the earlier proceedings were marred by a patent oversight that the Court itself failed to notice. In practice, the order that typically gives rise to a review or curative petition is a final judgment of conviction, acquittal, or sentencing that has already become operative, and the petitioner must first ensure that the record of the case, including the certified copy of the judgment, the annexures, and any interlocutory orders, is complete and accurately reflected in the petitionary documents submitted to the Supreme Court registry. The procedural threshold for invoking the review jurisdiction requires the petitioner to demonstrate, within a period prescribed by the Supreme Court Rules, that the alleged error is not merely an error of law that could have been raised on appeal but a substantive factual or procedural flaw that materially affected the outcome, thereby obligating the Court to entertain the petition only after a stringent scrutiny of the pleadings and the accompanying affidavit. Similarly, the curative petition imposes an even higher evidentiary burden, demanding that the applicant establish, by clear and convincing material, that the original judgment was obtained through a breach of the principles of natural justice or that the Court itself overlooked a manifest error, and that the petitioner has exhausted all other available remedies, including a review, before the extraordinary relief may be considered. It is crucial for a litigant to appreciate that the Supreme Court does not treat a review or curative petition as a de novo hearing; rather, the Court confines its analysis to the material already placed before it, refrains from re-examining evidence afresh, and limits its intervention to correcting the identified defect, thereby preserving the finality of its own adjudicatory function. Consequently, before approaching the Supreme Court, the party must meticulously prepare a paper-book that complies with the registry’s specifications, ensure that the petition is accompanied by a certified copy of the judgment, a concise statement of the ground relied upon, and an affidavit affirming the truth of the facts alleged, because any defect in the filing may result in the petition being dismissed without any substantive consideration. Finally, the litigant should be aware that the consequences of a dismissal are severe, as the order of dismissal itself becomes a final determination on the merits of the review or curative application, precluding any further recourse except in the rare circumstance where the Court itself issues a notice to show cause for non-compliance, thereby underscoring the importance of strict adherence to procedural mandates.

Grounds for Maintainability of Review Petitions in Supreme Court Criminal Judgments

A review petition in a criminal matter before the Supreme Court may be entertained only when the petitioner demonstrates that a material error, which could not have been raised in the appellate stage, exists in the judgment and that such error has a decisive impact on the adjudicatory outcome. The error must be of a factual or procedural nature that directly influences the conviction, acquittal, or quantum of sentence, and cannot be a mere misinterpretation of law that was open to argument during the regular appeal process. In addition to the substantive error, the petitioner must establish that the error was not apparent from the record at the time of the original hearing, thereby satisfying the requirement that the ground for review be one which could not have been discovered with reasonable diligence during the trial or appellate proceedings. The Supreme Court also requires that the petitioner demonstrate that the material error has not been previously raised in any other proceeding, including a review petition before the same Court, thereby precluding repetitive litigation and ensuring that the extraordinary jurisdiction is invoked only as a last resort. A further prerequisite for maintainability is that the petition be filed within the period prescribed by the Supreme Court Rules, which typically mandates that a review be presented within thirty days from the date of the judgment, unless the petitioner can satisfactorily explain the delay and obtain condonation of the same from the Court. The petitioner must accompany the review petition with a certified copy of the judgment, a complete paper-book containing all relevant pleadings, evidence, and annexures, and an affidavit stating that the facts alleged in support of the material error are true and that no other remedy remains available. When the Court examines the record, it confines its scrutiny to the documents already placed before it, refrains from calling fresh witnesses, and evaluates whether the alleged error, if proven, would have altered the legal conclusion reached by the majority of the judges. If the Court is satisfied that the error satisfies the twin criteria of materiality and non-discoverability, it may either set aside the impugned portion of the judgment, modify the sentence, or remit the matter to the appropriate subordinate court for fresh consideration, thereby providing a tailored remedy that aligns with the nature of the defect. Conversely, if the Court finds that the alleged error is either immaterial to the final outcome or could have been raised earlier, it will dismiss the review petition, and the dismissal order itself becomes a final determination, precluding any further challenge except in the rare circumstance where the Court issues a notice to show cause for non-compliance with procedural requirements. A dismissal may also trigger ancillary consequences such as the continuation of the original sentence, the maintenance of custody, and the denial of bail, unless the petitioner obtains a separate stay of execution from the Court, thereby underscoring the practical importance of precise compliance with the procedural prerequisites. In certain instances, the Court may, upon satisfaction of the material error test, remit the case to the High Court for a fresh review of the substantive issues, thereby preserving the hierarchical integrity of the judicial system while simultaneously granting the petitioner an opportunity to obtain relief without the need for a full rehearing before the apex Court. Thus, the grounds for maintainability of a review petition in a criminal judgment before the Supreme Court are confined to the demonstration of a material, non-discoverable error that decisively affects the judgment, compliance with the prescribed filing timeline, exhaustion of earlier remedies, and the submission of a complete, defect-free paper-book, failure of any of these elements resulting in dismissal and the finality of the original order.

Procedural Requirements and Timeline for Filing a Curative Petition after Review Dismissal

When a review petition concerning a criminal judgment is dismissed by the Supreme Court, the aggrieved party may, as a matter of last resort, invoke the extraordinary curative petition mechanism, which is expressly confined to situations where the Court itself has failed to notice a manifest violation of natural justice or a gross miscarriage of law. The curative petition, however, is not a fresh appeal but a limited remedial application that can be entertained only after the petitioner demonstrates that the review petition was dismissed on merits, that no other statutory remedy remains available, and that the alleged breach pertains to a fundamental procedural right that the Court overlooked. The first procedural prerequisite is the procurement of a certified copy of the dismissal order, together with the certified judgment and any annexures, which must be annexed to the curative petition and verified by an affidavit stating that the petitioner has exhausted all alternative remedies. The filing timeline is strictly governed by the Supreme Court Rules, which ordinarily require that a curative petition be presented within thirty days from the date of the dismissal order, although the Court may, upon a detailed explanation of exceptional circumstances, entertain a condonation application extending the period. In addition to the temporal limitation, the petitioner must submit a concise statement of facts, not exceeding two pages, articulating the precise nature of the violation of audi alteram partem, the specific error that escaped the Court’s notice, and the consequential prejudice suffered by the petitioner. The petition must also be accompanied by a meticulously prepared paper-book, bound in accordance with the registry’s specifications, containing the original judgment, the complete record of the review petition, the order of dismissal, all annexures, and any supplementary material that the petitioner relies upon to demonstrate the alleged miscarriage. Every document annexed to the paper-book must bear a proper certification indicating authenticity, and the index of the paper-book must reflect accurate page numbers, headings, and cross-references, because any discrepancy or omission may invite a dismissal on technical grounds without substantive consideration. Upon receipt of the curative petition, the registry issues a notice to the opposite party, granting it a period of fifteen days to file a written response, and simultaneously forwards the petition to the concerned bench for preliminary scrutiny of jurisdictional and procedural compliance. If the bench identifies any deficiency, such as an incomplete paper-book, lack of certification, or failure to demonstrate exhaustion of remedies, it may issue a notice to show cause to the petitioner, thereby providing an opportunity to rectify the defect before a final decision is rendered. The substantive test applied by the Court in a curative petition is the demonstration of a gross miscarriage of justice, requiring the petitioner to establish, on a balance of probabilities but with a heightened evidentiary threshold, that the original judgment was rendered in violation of a basic procedural right that the Court itself failed to safeguard. When the Court is satisfied that the curative petition meets the stringent criteria, it may grant interim relief such as a stay of execution of the sentence, release on bail, or suspension of custody pending a detailed consideration of the merits. Alternatively, the Court may remand the matter to the High Court for a fresh review of the specific issue raised, or it may modify the operative portion of the Supreme Court judgment, thereby altering the quantum of sentence or directing a re-examination of the evidentiary record. Conversely, if the Court finds that the petitioner has failed to establish a violation of natural justice, that the alleged error does not rise to the level of a gross miscarriage, or that procedural defects remain unremedied, it will dismiss the curative petition, and such dismissal will constitute a final determination, leaving the original conviction, sentence, and custodial status undisturbed. Accordingly, meticulous adherence to the prescribed filing timeline, exhaustive preparation of a defect-free paper-book, precise articulation of the breach of natural justice, and prompt response to any notice issued by the Court are indispensable for preserving any prospect of relief and for averting the severe consequences of an unremedied dismissal.

Preparation and Authentication of the Record (Paper-Book) for Supreme Court Review and Curative Petitions

The first step in initiating either a review or a curative petition before the apex court consists of assembling a paper-book that faithfully reproduces every document, order, and annexure that formed part of the original criminal proceeding, because the Supreme Court confines its scrutiny to the material already placed before it and will not entertain any evidence that is not reflected in the certified record. The registry mandates that each page of the paper-book be numbered consecutively, that the index be prepared in the prescribed format, and that every document be accompanied by a certification signed by the officer in charge of the court of original jurisdiction, thereby establishing the authenticity of the record and precluding any allegation of tampering at the stage of preliminary examination. In order to satisfy the requirement of authentication, the petitioner must obtain a certified copy of the judgment from the Supreme Court registry, a certified copy of the order of dismissal (if the curative petition follows a rejected review), and certified copies of all interlocutory orders that were pronounced during the trial, because any omission of a certified document may be construed as a material defect that invites dismissal on technical grounds. The paper-book must be bound in the manner prescribed by the Supreme Court Rules, typically using a hard-cover binding with a spine label indicating the case number, the parties’ names, and the nature of the petition, because the registry’s inspection process includes a physical verification of the binding to ensure that the record cannot be altered after submission. Once the paper-book is prepared, the petitioner is required to file an affidavit stating that the contents of the record are true, that no other document exists which has not been produced, and that the petitioner has complied with the statutory limitation period, because the Supreme Court treats any false declaration as contemptuous and may dismiss the petition summarily. The registry, upon receipt of the petition and the accompanying paper-book, conducts a preliminary check for completeness, and if any page is missing, any certification is absent, or the index does not correspond to the actual pagination, the registry issues a notice to show cause to the petitioner, granting a reasonable period for rectification before the bench can entertain the petition. Should the bench find that the paper-book satisfies all authentication requirements, it proceeds to examine the substantive ground raised in the review or curative petition, but the examination is limited to the documents reproduced in the paper-book, meaning that any argument relying on evidence not reflected therein will be deemed inadmissible and may result in the petition’s dismissal for lack of material. The consequences of a defect-free, properly authenticated paper-book are significant, because the Supreme Court may, upon satisfaction of the material error test, stay the execution of the sentence, release the petitioner on bail, or remit the matter to the High Court for fresh consideration, thereby altering the custodial status of the accused. Conversely, if the paper-book is found to contain unauthenticated annexures, missing pages, or erroneous certifications, the bench is empowered to dismiss the petition outright, and such dismissal operates as a final determination that the original judgment remains operative, thereby preserving the existing sentence, custody, and any forfeiture of liberty. In practice, the Supreme Court’s emphasis on meticulous preparation and authentication of the record reflects the principle that the Court’s own jurisdiction to revisit its orders is exceptional and must be exercised only when the procedural foundation of the original judgment is demonstrably compromised, and therefore the paper-book functions as the sole gateway through which the petitioner may seek relief, making its flawless compilation indispensable for any chance of success.

Jurisdictional Limits: When Supreme Court Review or Curative Relief is Barred by Prior Appeals or Finality

When a criminal judgment of the Supreme Court attains the status of a final order, the Court’s extraordinary jurisdiction to entertain a review or a curative petition becomes subject to the principle that once the appellate ladder is exhausted, the judgment acquires the quality of finality that bars any further substantive interference unless a narrow statutory gateway is satisfied. The doctrine of res judicata, as applied by the apex court, precludes a party from relitigating issues that have already been finally decided by a competent tribunal, and this preclusion extends to review applications where the same factual or legal controversy has been conclusively resolved in an earlier Supreme Court decision. Consequently, if a subsequent Supreme Court judgment expressly affirms, modifies, or overturns the earlier order, the earlier judgment ceases to be the operative basis for a review, and any petition seeking to revisit that earlier judgment will be dismissed on the ground that the Court has already exercised its appellate authority over the matter. In the curative jurisdiction, the bar is even more stringent because the Court will entertain a curative petition only when the petitioner demonstrates that the review was dismissed on merits and that a fundamental breach of natural justice, such as denial of the right to be heard, remained undiscovered, thereby precluding relief where the review dismissal itself was based on a substantive finding. When a Supreme Court bench remands a case to a High Court and the High Court subsequently renders a final decree, the original Supreme Court order is deemed to have been superseded, and the jurisdiction to file a review of that original order is extinguished because the matter is no longer pending before the apex court, rendering any later review petition infructuous. To establish that no further appellate avenue remains, the petitioner must annex to the petition a certified copy of the remand order, the subsequent High Court judgment, the docket entry indicating closure of the case, and an affidavit affirming that no other appeal, revision, or reference has been filed, because the absence of such documentary proof invites an immediate jurisdictional objection. The bench, in conducting its preliminary scrutiny, applies a three-fold test: first, whether the order impugned is a final judgment; second, whether any later Supreme Court decision has already addressed the same question; and third, whether the petitioner has exhausted every statutory remedy, because failure on any of these prongs results in dismissal on jurisdictional grounds. When the Court dismisses a petition on the ground of jurisdictional bar, the dismissal operates as a final determination, the execution of the original sentence proceeds unabated, any pending bail application is automatically rejected unless a separate stay is obtained, and the petitioner is precluded from filing any further review or curative petition on the same issue. Therefore, a diligent litigant must first verify that no subsequent Supreme Court order has altered the operative judgment, procure certified copies of all intervening orders, explicitly state in the petition the absence of any pending appeal, and ensure that the paper-book reflects a complete, unblemished record, because only by satisfying these jurisdictional prerequisites can the Court entertain the extraordinary relief sought.

Framing of Relief: Drafting Specific Orders, Remand Directions, and Suspension of Sentence in Criminal Context

When a review or curative petition is entertained by the Supreme Court in a criminal matter, the petitioner must articulate a precise relief clause that specifies the exact order, remand direction, or suspension of sentence sought, because the Court will not entertain vague or indefinite prayers. Such a relief clause must satisfy the jurisdictional test that the Supreme Court’s extraordinary power to revisit its own judgment is limited to correcting a material error, and consequently the prayer must be confined to the specific portion of the judgment that is alleged to be erroneous, without seeking a wholesale rehearing of the entire case. In drafting the specific order, the petitioner typically frames language such as ‘set aside the conviction on the charge of … and direct the High Court to re-examine the evidence and pass a fresh judgment’, or alternatively ‘modify the term of imprisonment from ten years to five years and remit the case for re-determination of the fine’, thereby providing the bench with a clear operative directive that can be immediately implemented upon acceptance. When the relief sought includes a remand direction, the petition must expressly state the factual and legal basis for returning the matter to the High Court or the trial court, such as a misappreciation of evidence or a procedural irregularity that materially influenced the quantum of sentence, because the Supreme Court will only order remand if it is convinced that the lower forum is better positioned to rectify the identified defect without re-opening the entire controversy. In instances where the petitioner requests suspension of the operative sentence, the relief clause must articulate the necessity of preserving liberty pending a final determination, citing factors such as the pendency of the review or curative petition, the absence of a risk of tampering with evidence, and the existence of a viable bail alternative, because the Supreme Court’s power to stay execution of a sentence is exercised only after a careful balancing of the interests of justice and the rights of the accused. Procedurally, the relief must be presented in a distinct prayer paragraph following the statement of material error, must be signed by the petitioner or counsel, and must not exceed the scope of the error identified, because any attempt to obtain relief beyond the material defect, such as a full acquittal when only a sentencing error is alleged, will be rejected as ultra vires and may lead to dismissal of the entire petition. The bench, upon receiving the petition, cross-examines the relief clause against the authenticated paper-book to verify that the specific order sought can be logically derived from the material error and that the record contains the necessary factual foundation to support such an order, because a mismatch between the prayer and the documentary evidence, for example seeking remission of a fine that was never imposed, will result in the Court refusing to grant the relief and may also raise a question of frivolous pleading. If the Court is satisfied that the relief is properly framed and supported, it may issue an order suspending the execution of the sentence, directing the respondent prison authorities to release the petitioner on bail pending further proceedings, and/or remanding the matter to the High Court with explicit instructions to re-evaluate the evidence and re-determine the appropriate quantum of punishment, thereby immediately altering the custodial status of the accused and providing a procedural roadmap for the lower forum. Conversely, where the relief clause is found to be defective, overly expansive, or unsupported by the record, the Supreme Court will dismiss the petition on the ground of lack of maintainability, and the dismissal order will operate as a final determination that the original sentence remains in force, the petitioner’s custody will continue unabated, any pending bail applications will be automatically rejected, and the petitioner may also be exposed to contempt proceedings for filing a frivolous or vexatious petition. In sum, the art of framing relief in a Supreme Court review or curative petition demands meticulous alignment of the prayer with the identified material error, strict adherence to the procedural mandates governing paper-book authentication, timely filing, and clear articulation of the specific order, remand direction, or suspension sought, because any deviation not only jeopardizes the prospect of obtaining interim protection or modification of the sentence but also risks a definitive dismissal that solidifies the existing custodial consequences and forecloses any further extraordinary remedy.

Consequences of Dismissal or Grant of Review/Curative Petition: Effects on Bail, Sentence Execution, and Stays

When the Supreme Court either dismisses a review petition or a curative petition, the operative effect is that the judgment, conviction, or sentence that formed the basis of the petition continues to be binding on the parties and on all subordinate courts, thereby rendering any request for stay of execution or bail ineffective unless a separate interim order is obtained from a competent authority. In the event that the Court grants the petition, it customarily issues an order staying the execution of the sentence, directing the prison authorities to refrain from imposing the custodial term, and often simultaneously authorises the release of the petitioner on bail conditioned upon personal bond or surety, thereby altering the immediate liberty status of the accused. The stay order issued upon grant of relief is binding not only upon the prison administration but also upon any lower court or tribunal that might otherwise proceed with the execution of the sentence, because the Supreme Court’s order operates as a supreme injunction that supersedes all subordinate processes until such time as the Court either lifts the stay or modifies the substantive judgment. When bail is sought after a dismissal, the lower court must treat the dismissal as an affirmation of the conviction, and although the bail provisions under the applicable criminal procedure law remain technically available, the court is likely to refuse bail on the ground that the Supreme Court’s dismissal indicates that the substantive issues have been finally decided against the petitioner. Conversely, if the Supreme Court stays the sentence, the petitioner may be released on bail without prejudice to the eventual outcome of the petition, because the stay operates as a temporary suspension rather than a substantive acquittal, and the petitioner remains liable to any subsequent order that may reinstate the sentence after the petition is finally disposed of. If the Court, in addition to staying execution, remands the matter to the High Court for fresh consideration of a specific issue, the remand direction automatically suspends the operative portion of the sentence pending the High Court’s determination, and the petitioner is required to remain out of custody unless the remand order itself contains a condition to the contrary. The effect of a dismissal on pending applications for remission, commutation, or parole is that such applications continue to be processed on the basis of the original sentence, because the dismissal does not alter the substantive terms of the conviction, and any relief sought therein must be evaluated independently of the review or curative petition. A dismissal also precludes the petitioner from invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in any subsequent petition on the same ground, because the Court’s dismissal is deemed a final determination on the merits, and any attempt to re-file would be barred by the doctrine of res judicata and by the procedural rule that a matter once dismissed cannot be reopened without a fresh ground of error. Nevertheless, the petitioner may still seek ordinary bail under the applicable criminal procedure law after a dismissal, but the bail court will ordinarily consider the Supreme Court’s dismissal as an indication that the conviction is affirmed, and consequently the bail court is likely to impose stringent conditions or to refuse bail altogether, especially where the nature of the offence carries a high risk of tampering with evidence. If the Supreme Court grants relief that includes modification of the term of imprisonment, the modification takes immediate effect upon issuance of the order, and the prison authorities are required to adjust the remaining period of custody accordingly, which may result in the petitioner’s release if the revised term has already been served. In contrast, where the Court merely stays execution without altering the substantive judgment, the original sentence remains enforceable once the stay is lifted, and the petitioner must be prepared to resume custody or to face the imposition of the original penalty at that later stage. Finally, the issuance of a notice to show cause by the Supreme Court, whether in the context of a dismissal for procedural defect or in the context of a grant of interim relief, obliges the opposite party to file a response within the stipulated period, and failure to comply may result in the Court imposing its own order ex parte, thereby affecting the bail or custody status of the petitioner without further participation of the other side.

Strategic Use of Interim Protection and Notice Requirements during the Pendency of Review or Curative Petitions

When a party files a review or curative petition in a criminal matter before the Supreme Court, the immediate tactical objective often becomes the procurement of interim protection that prevents the execution of the operative sentence while the extraordinary remedy is being examined, because the Court’s power to stay execution is discretionary and hinges upon a demonstration that the pendency of the petition creates a substantial risk of irreparable prejudice to the petitioner’s liberty. The procedural vehicle for obtaining such interim protection is ordinarily a separate application for stay of execution or bail filed concurrently with the petition, and the applicant must attach a verified affidavit that sets out, in precise chronological detail, the material error alleged, the potential miscarriage that would ensue if the sentence were carried out, and the absence of any alternative remedy capable of averting the contemplated injury, thereby satisfying the Court’s requirement that the balance of convenience tilt in favour of the petitioner. In addition to the affidavit, the applicant is required to serve a notice upon the opposite party, usually the respondent State, by way of a formal notice to show cause, which must be filed with the registry and must specify the relief sought, the factual matrix supporting the request, and a concise statement of why the respondent should not be permitted to proceed with the execution of the sentence, because the Supreme Court’s rules mandate that the opposite side be given an opportunity to contest the interim relief before any order is pronounced. The timing of the notice is critical, as the Court will typically refuse to entertain an interim protection application that is filed after the execution of the sentence has commenced, and the petitioner must therefore ensure that the notice is dispatched and the registry entry is made within the narrow window that begins on the date of filing of the review or curative petition, because any lapse may be construed as a waiver of the right to seek a stay and may result in the automatic operation of the original judgment. The strategic calculus also involves anticipating the possibility that the Court may issue a conditional stay, whereby the petitioner is released on bail subject to the execution of a personal bond, the surrender of passport, or the undertaking not to tamper with evidence, and the petitioner must be prepared to comply with such conditions promptly, as failure to do so can lead to the revocation of the interim protection and the immediate reinstatement of custodial measures. Moreover, the notice to show cause issued by the Court often contains a specific deadline for the respondent to file its opposition, and the petitioner must vigilantly monitor that deadline, because a failure by the respondent to file a response within the stipulated period is deemed a deemed consent, which the Court may interpret as an implicit waiver of objection and may result in the grant of the interim protection ex parte, thereby strengthening the petitioner’s position. Conversely, if the respondent files a robust opposition raising, for example, the argument that the alleged error is purely legal and therefore not a ground for stay, or that the petitioner has not demonstrated any imminent irreparable loss, the petitioner must be ready to file a rejoinder within the time fixed by the Court, articulating, with reference to the authenticated paper-book, why the opposition is untenable and reinforcing the necessity of preserving liberty pending the final determination of the extraordinary petition. The Court’s assessment of interim protection also incorporates a procedural limitation that the stay cannot be granted for an indefinite period; consequently, the petitioner should request a time-bound stay, often aligning the expiry of the stay with the anticipated date of disposal of the review or curative petition, because an indefinite stay may be viewed as an abuse of process and may invite the Court to dismiss the petition for frivolous or vexatious pleading. In the event that the Court ultimately dismisses the review or curative petition, any interim protection that was in force automatically lapses, and the petitioner must be prepared for the immediate re-imposition of the sentence, which underscores the importance of having a contingency plan, such as filing a fresh bail application under the ordinary criminal procedure law, to mitigate the risk of sudden re-custody. Finally, the strategic use of interim protection and meticulous compliance with notice requirements not only influences the immediate liberty of the petitioner during the pendency of the extraordinary petition but also shapes the Court’s perception of the petitioner’s good-faith conduct, because a petitioner who respects procedural mandates and promptly satisfies conditions imposed by the Court is more likely to obtain a favourable interim order, whereas neglect of notice obligations or failure to adhere to the terms of a stay can precipitate a swift dismissal and the reinforcement of the original punitive order.