Special Leave to Appeal | Important Acts and Laws for Judiciary Exams PDF Download

Introduction

• The judicial system operates with a hierarchical structure, where the Supreme Court stands as the apex court in India, serving as the final court of appeal.
• Article 136(1) grants the Supreme Court the discretionary power to provide special leave to appeal any judgment, decree, or order from any court or tribunal across India.
• Article 136 establishes a unique jurisdiction for the Supreme Court, characterized by its broad and unqualified nature, allowing the Court to address pressing justice needs beyond ordinary legal boundaries.
• The Supreme Court's authority under Article 136 is considered a residual power, unconstrained by specific qualifications, and is described as a reservoir of power guided primarily by the wisdom and justice of the Judges.
• While traditionally intended for determining substantial legal questions, the Court has increasingly utilized its Article 136 jurisdiction to address individual disputes, aiming to rectify instances of perceived injustice.
• However, the Court has cautioned against excessive individualized justice, emphasizing the need for circumspection and adherence to legal principles to avoid creating judicial chaos or uncertainty.
• The Supreme Court is advised to exercise its Article 136 jurisdiction sparingly and primarily in exceptional cases, maintaining a consistent standard in granting special leave across a wide range of legal matters.

Nature of Article 136 - Supreme Court Jurisdiction

Comprehensive Scope of Article 136

• Article 136 grants the Supreme Court extensive jurisdiction for hearing appeals.
• It is framed in broad terms, allowing the Court to address various cases.

Features of Article 136

• Supreme Court can bypass limitations in Articles 132 to 134 when necessary for justice.
• Unlike Articles 132-134, Article 136 is not limited to appeals from High Courts.
• Article 136 empowers the Supreme Court to hear appeals from any court, not just High Courts.

Illustrative Example

• In the case of Rajendra Kumar v State, the Supreme Court entertained an appeal from a decision of a Chief Judicial Magistrate, demonstrating its wide jurisdiction.

Effect of Dismissal of Special Leave Petition (SLP)

• When the Supreme Court dismisses a special leave petition in limine without providing reasons, it signifies that the Court was not inclined to grant leave to file the appeal under Article 136. This dismissal does not reflect any judgment on the merits of the case or the correctness of the lower court's decision.
• Dismissal of an SLP with reasons leads to the merging of the High Court judgment with the Supreme Court's order.
• Contrary views exist regarding the impact of dismissing an SLP without reasons by the Supreme Court. While some argue that it does not confirm the High Court's view, others suggest that it can have precedential value.
• Findings made by the trial court, endorsed by the first appellate court, are typically binding on the Supreme Court. However, such decisions do not establish a precedent or create a binding law under Article 141.
• A subsequent petition contesting a lower court's refusal to review its previous decision is generally deemed not maintainable.

Interpretation of Dismissal of SLP

• Orders dismissing an SLP by the Supreme Court can be either speaking or non-speaking. In either case, the doctrine of merger does not apply. The refusal of special leave to appeal does not replace the challenged order but simply indicates that the Court chose not to allow the appeal to proceed.
• If a special leave petition against a High Court decision is withdrawn without obtaining permission to file another SLP, a fresh SLP against the same decision is generally not admissible. This restriction is based on public policy considerations.
• Res judicata comes into play when a second SLP is sought after the Supreme Court has already dismissed a previous petition, unless there is evidence that the earlier decision was contrary to existing law.

Court's Discretion

• It is a well-established principle that when the Court grants special leave to appeal, its discretionary power continues throughout the hearing on merits. This principle applies to all appeals admitted by special leave under Article 136, regardless of the subject matter.
• At the final hearing of the appeal, only points raised at the preliminary stage when leave for appeal was sought can be argued. Consistency in standards is crucial across all stages of a case.
• Even after clarifying the legal position, the Court may choose not to decide on the merits but base its decision on equitable considerations specific to the case.
• The Supreme Court, in the case of Taherakhatoon, emphasized that even after granting special leave, they are not obligated to delve into the merits and may refrain from interference based on the facts of the case.
• In a specific instance, although errors by the High Court were highlighted, the Supreme Court opted not to intervene in the decree passed by the High Court due to the unique circumstances of the case.
• The width of discretion may allow the Supreme Court to consider arguments at length, even if the appeals are deemed not maintainable, and decide on the merits.
• In instances such as appeals regarding delay condonation, costs may be imposed as a deterrent against frivolous cases to ensure the court's time is dedicated to genuine causes deserving attention.
• Imposing exemplary costs serves the purpose of preventing abuse of the legal system and ensuring access to justice for those with legitimate grievances.
• In certain situations, the Supreme Court may take direct action instead of delegating tasks to lower authorities, emphasizing compliance within specified timelines to avoid contempt of court.
• Some appeals may be disposed of without addressing merits if subsequent events render the litigation moot.
• Appeals before the Supreme Court challenging High Court findings based on evidence appraisal may warrant interference by the Supreme Court when necessary.
• The Supreme Court may intervene when lower authorities fail to adjudicate disputes on their merits, especially in cases involving industrial disputes or issues of justifiability.

Dismissal of Appeal

• Once the Supreme Court grants leave to appeal, it proceeds to hear the appeal on its merits.
• Following the presentations of arguments by both parties, the Court issues its decision.
• The Court holds the authority to dismiss the appeal with or without providing reasons.
• Alternatively, the Court may choose to reverse, modify, or simply affirm the decision made by the lower court or tribunal.
• Regardless of the outcome, the decision being appealed becomes integrated with the Supreme Court's decision.
• This integration implies that the original decision under appeal cannot be contested via a writ petition under Article 226 in a High Court post the Supreme Court's ruling.
• Furthermore, the lower court or tribunal is barred from reviewing its decision that was subject to the Supreme Court's appeal.
• In instances where the Supreme Court issues a suo moto show cause notice and hears both sides, it is obligated to make a decision, even if the accused expresses a desire to not pursue the appeal against conviction.
• Under such circumstances, the appellant is not allowed to withdraw the appeal.

Limitations of Article 136 of the Indian Constitution

Overview

• Article 136 of the Indian Constitution grants the Supreme Court plenary jurisdiction to hear appeals.
• Despite the broad powers granted, the Supreme Court has self-imposed limitations to manage the flow of appeals and prevent case backlog.

Grounds for Appeal

• The State cannot challenge a dismissal order through an SLP solely based on disagreement with the Chief Justice's decision.
• Article 136 allows appeals under exceptional circumstances, overriding specific appeal provisions in the Constitution or other laws.
• Proceedings under Article 131 are barred if there is a law conferring jurisdiction to decide disputes by a Tribunal.

Exhaustion of Remedies

• Before invoking Article 136, the aggrieved party must exhaust all available remedies at lower appellate levels or the High Court.
• The Supreme Court may hear appeals if a High Court Judge commits a significant error.

Delay and Condoning

• The Court can condone delays to ensure substantial justice, especially when the government is the appellant.
• The Court aims to address bureaucratic delays and societal losses if the state is denied an appeal opportunity.

Conciliation

• The Supreme Court directs the establishment of committees to resolve disputes between the Government of India and State Governments before litigation.
• Courts and Tribunals must demand clearance from the Committee before proceeding with disputes.

Consistency in Revenue Appeals

• If the Revenue accepts a legal decision in one case, it cannot challenge the same decision in other cases without valid reasons.

Relief

• Article 136 of the Indian Constitution grants the Supreme Court the authority to provide necessary and appropriate relief based on the specifics of each case.
• The Supreme Court has the power to shape the relief according to the unique circumstances of the case and can utilize Article 142 for this purpose.
• In a notable case, a police officer's promotion to Deputy Superintendent of Police was challenged in the Supreme Court after being directed by the High Court in 1975. Despite ruling against the High Court's decision in 2000, the Supreme Court decided to maintain the benefits granted to the officer.
• In the case of Badrinath v Government of Tamil Nadu, the appellant, who was promoted to the selection grade in 1972 but not further, appealed to the Supreme Court under Article 136. The Court found the denial of further promotion unjustified.
• The Supreme Court has utilized its powers to issue directives for actions such as registering marriages, removing adverse remarks from judgments, and imposing significant fines for illegal possession of property.
• It is important to note that any remarks made in judgments are solely for the purpose of the case's resolution and do not impact the individual's career.

Appeals in Constitutional/Civil Cases

• The Supreme Court has the authority to hear appeals in cases involving significant constitutional questions when the High Court denies the necessary certificate.
• Similarly, in civil cases, the Supreme Court can consider appeals where substantial legal questions exist, not covered by specific articles.
• The Supreme Court typically does not entertain appeals on matters of judicial discretion unless exercised unfairly, arbitrarily, or resulting in a miscarriage of justice.
• The court generally respects the factual findings of lower courts unless there are substantial grounds to review the evidence to prevent a miscarriage of justice.
• The court's intervention is warranted when there is a clear misinterpretation of law by lower courts leading to a failure of justice.

Appeals in Criminal Cases

• Article 134 outlines the limited scope of appeals to the Supreme Court in criminal matters, while Article 136 provides broader appeal possibilities.
• The jurisdiction under Article 136 is considered one of conscience, giving the Court plenary and residual powers to hear appeals in appropriate cases.
• The Court's jurisdiction under Article 136 is not bound by strict legal requirements, allowing flexibility in deciding which issues to address.
• The Supreme Court's role under Article 136 is not that of a typical criminal appeal court, and it does not generally reexamine facts or review evidence unless there has been a miscarriage of justice.

Appeal from Quasi-Judicial Body under Article 136

• An important aspect of Article 136 is that it grants the Supreme Court the authority to consider appeals not just from regular courts but also from tribunals.
• The term 'tribunal' in Article 136 is significant as it signifies that the Supreme Court can review decisions made by bodies that may not be conventional courts. While all courts are considered tribunals, not all tribunals function as courts.
• Given the existence of numerous adjudicatory bodies operating outside the formal judicial system, it is crucial to have a mechanism to rectify any potential misuse of power or procedural errors by such entities.
• The Supreme Court, through Article 136, plays a role in overseeing these bodies to prevent the emergence of unchecked power, ensuring that the rule of law is upheld. Failing to subject these bodies to judicial oversight could lead to abuses of power, undermining the principles of justice.

Conclusion

• The Indian Constitution allows appeals to the Supreme Court from High Courts under Articles 132-134. There are cases where appeals can be made directly to the Supreme Court, particularly when dealing with residuary powers beyond ordinary law, conferred under Section 136 of the Constitution.
• Section 136 grants the Supreme Court the authority to grant special leave petitions from any judgment, decree, or order issued by any court or tribunal within India.