Powers of Special Leave to Appeal by Supreme Court in India
The Constitution of India under Article 136 vests the Supreme Court of India with a unique power to grant special leave to appeal against any judgment, order, or decree in any matter or cause passed or made by any Court/tribunal in the territory of India. This special power is bestowed upon the Supreme Court of India which is the country's Apex Court to grant leave to appeal against any judgment in case any substantial constitutional question of law is involved or gross injustice has been done.
“Special leave petition” or SLP holds a prime place in the Indian judicial system. It provides the aggrieved party special permission to be heard in Apex court in an appeal against any judgment or order of any Court/tribunal in the territory of India.
A special Leave petition or SLP can be presented under the following circumstances:
- SLP can be filed against any judgment or decree or order of any High Court /tribunal in the territory of India.
- Or, SLP can be filed in case the High court refuses to grant the certificate of fitness for appeal to the Supreme Court of India.
Time frame within which SLP can be filed:
- SLP can be filed against any judgment of the High Court within 90 days from the date of judgment.
- Or SLP can be filed within 60 days against the order of the High Court refusing to grant the certificate of fitness for appeal to the Supreme Court.
The scope of power vested with the Supreme Court of India under Article 136
The constitution of India vests “discretionary power” in the Supreme Court of India. The Supreme Court of India may at its discretion be able to grant special leave to appeal from any judgment or decree or order in any matter or cause made or passed by any Court/tribunal in the territory of India. The Supreme Court of India may also refuse to grant the leave to appeal by exercising its discretion.
An aggrieved party from the judgment or decree of the high court cannot claim special leave to appeal as a right but it is a privilege which the Supreme Court of India is vested with and this leave to appeal can be granted by it only. An aggrieved party can approach the Apex Court under Article 136 in case any constitutional or legal issue exists and which can be clarified by the Supreme Court of India. This can be heard as a civil or criminal appeal as the case may be. This is “residual power” vested with the Supreme Court of India.
Judgments of various Courts of India on SLP
There is a catena of judgments mentioning the scope of power of the Supreme Court under Article 136, the maintainability of special leave petitions. The below mentioned are some of the prominent judgments mentioning SLP.
The Constitutional Bench observed that the Supreme Court is vested with “wide discretionary power” under this article and this power is required “to be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases”. The Court also observed that a more or less uniform standard should be adopted in granting Special Leave in a wide range of matters which can come up under this Article.
The court further observed that “this Court” should not grant special leave unless it is shown that “exceptional and special circumstance exists”, that “substantial and grave injustice” has been done and the case in question presents features of sufficient gravity to warrant a review of the decision appealed against. The power conferred upon the Supreme Court of India is of a “residual nature” and is a “discretionary power”.
Article 136 does not confer upon a litigant a right to appeal against any order or judgment but vests the Supreme Court of India with a discretionary power to interfere with the orders of the lower Courts only in cases of exceptional character where gross injustice has been carried out.
Kunhayammed vs. the State of Kerala(2000) 245 ITR 360 (SC)
The Supreme Court observed that Article 136 is of 2 distinct stages. The Court observed that while hearing the petition for special leave to appeal, this court is called to see whether the petitioner should be granted such leave or not.
The Court observed that while hearing such a petition, this Court is not exercising its appellate jurisdiction and is merely exercising its discretionary power to grant or not grant leave to appeal. The court observed that the petitioner is still outside the gate of entry though is aspiring to enter the Appellate arena of the Supreme Court and whether he enters or not shall depend upon the fate of the petition for special leave.
The court further observed that if the petition seeking a grant of special leave is dismissed then it is an expression of the opinion of the Court that a case invoking the appellate jurisdiction of the Court was not made out. And in case, the leave is granted then the appellate jurisdiction of the Court stands invoked. The court also observed that the Judgment, decree, or order against which leave to appeal is sought continues to be final and binding even in case the petition for special leave to appeal is filed and it is only in case the leave is granted that the finality of the judgment or order is put in jeopardy though it continues to be binding and effective between the parties unless it is a nullity or the court passes specific order suspending the operation or execution of the judgment or order.
The court relying on a catena of judgments concluded that in case there is dismissal at the stage of special leave without a speaking order or reasons then there shall be no resjudicata and no merger. And it can only be said that it was not a fit case where special leave could be granted. The court further said that it is not correct to assume that the court has decided implicitly all the questions about the merits of the case and it is open for the litigant to approach the High court under Article 226 for review of the decision and there could be a possibility whereby the Supreme Court has dismissed the petition only because the litigant can approach the High Court under Article 226.
The court said that just because the special leave is not granted does not mean that the aggrieved party is precluded from approaching High Court and it would not be just to deprive the aggrieved person of seeking relief in the review jurisdiction of the High Court in case the case is made out merely on the ground that special leave petition under Article 136 is stood rejected by Supreme Court by a non-speaking order. The court observed that the jurisdiction conferred by Article 136 of the Constitution is divisible into two stages. The first stage is up to the disposal of prayer for special leave to file an appeal. The second stage commences if and when the leave to appeal is granted and the special leave petition is converted into an appeal.
The court observed that under Article 136 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court may reverse, modify or affirm the judgment decree or order appealed against while exercising its appellate jurisdiction and not while exercising the discretionary jurisdiction disposing of petition for special leave to appeal. The doctrine of merger can therefore be applied to the former and not to the latter.
Smt. Tej Kumari vs. CIT (2001) 247 ITR 210
The Full Bench of the Patna High Court held that in case an SLP is summarily rejected or dismissed under Art 136 of the Constitution then such a dismissal does not lay down any law. The decision of the High Court against which the SLP is dismissed in limine would not operate as res-judicata. However, when Supreme Court dismisses an SLP with reason, it might be taken as the affirmation of the High Court's views on the merits of the case, thus there is no reason to dilute the binding nature of precedents in such cases.
Conclusion:
Special leave petition or SLP holds a prime place in the Indian judicial system and has been provided as a “residual power” in the hands of the Supreme Court of India to be exercised only in cases when any substantial question of law is involved or gross injustice has been done. It is a discretionary power vested in the Supreme Court of India and the court may in its discretion refuse to grant leave to appeal. The aggrieved party cannot claim special leave to appeal under Article 136 as a right but it is a privilege vested in the Supreme Court of India to grant leave to appeal or not.