The review of the Supreme Court judgment in the divestment case, as proposed by the central government, is not likely to yield the desired results, say legal experts.

Firstly, a review petition is intended to correct "errors apparent on the face of the record," according to the Supreme Court Rules. It means that the court will correct only glaring mistakes in law or fact, which had been overlooked in the judgment under consideration.

Such mistakes like typing errors, wrong figures or wrong application of jurisdiction would qualify for a review petition. But no new arguments could be raised in a review petition.

Secondly, the review petition is examined by the same judges who delivered the original judgment. Therefore, one should not expect a serious change in the minds of the judges in a review of their own reasoning and order.

Thirdly, review petitions are examined in chambers. Lawyers do not appear before the judges. There are no oral arguments. The judges merely read the grounds for review.

Owing to these factors, the rate of admission of review petitions is very low. Every day, review petitions are massacred by the judges during their lunch recess.

Only on Thursday, the court rejected two review petitions in cases, which created waves recently. One was the right of the government servants to go on strike.

The other raised the issue of the age of air hostesses in Air-India.

In both cases, the respective Benches denied permission even to move review petitions.

There are rare exceptions, though, like the Antulay case where the Supreme Court had made a serious error of jurisdiction and the matter was brought to open court and argued before a Constitution Bench.

The former Maharashtra chief minister who was accused of corruption by the media won and the court corrected its own mistake.

There are more hurdles in the path of the government if it wants to raise issues before a Constitution Bench. New questions cannot be raised in a review petition.

Moreover, the two-judge Bench, which delivered the divestment judgment, cannot straightaway refer the case to a Constitution Bench.

The best they can do is to refer the matter to the Chief Justice to place the issue before a three-judge Bench.

This Bench, in turn, has to decide whether the matter deserves to be heard by a Constitution Bench. Then the Chief Justice has to set up a Constitution Bench.

This Bench need not consist of the judges who had already examined the issues. It could be a new set of judges picked by the Chief Justice.

However, clients do go in for review petitions as a matter of course. This is mainly because the litigant who lost at the final court is naturally frustrated. His lawyer friend is most likely to advise him to file a review petition. This brings more money for the lawyer and some sop from the loss of face.