Knocking at the Door of Supreme Court

The Supreme Court of India has original, appellate and advisory jurisdiction. Its
exclusive original jurisdiction extends to any dispute between the Government
of India and one or more States or between the Government of India and any
State or States on one side and one or more States on the other or between two
or more States. Besides, Article 32 of the Constitution gives an extensive
original jurisdiction to the Supreme Court regarding enforcement of
Fundamental Rights. The appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under
Article 132(1), 133(1) or 134 of the Constitution can only be invoked on the
basis of a certificate granted by the High Court concerned, on the other hand,
the Supreme Court also has a vast appellate jurisdiction over all Courts and
Tribunals in India in as much as it may, in its discretion, grant special leave to
appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution from any judgment, decree,
determination, sentence or order in any cause or matter passed or made by any
Court or Tribunal. 

The Supreme Court also has a unique advisory jurisdiction in matters which
may be referred to it by the President of India under Article 143 of the
Constitution. Under Articles 129 and 142 of the Constitution, the Supreme
Court has been vested with the power to punish for contempt of Court,
including the power to punish for contempt of itself. There are provisions for an
appeal to the Supreme Court, separately provided under different statutes, such
as the Competition Act, 2002, the Companies Act, 2013, the Armed Forces
Tribunal Act, 2007, etc. 

However, the fact remains that Articles 32 and 136 of the Constitution are
mostly resorted to for approaching the Apex Court, more often than other
provisions discussed above and not to mention, it is Article 32 of the
Constitution, which is the genesis for the Public Interest Litigations in the
Supreme Court of India. 
  
Article 136  of the Constitution of India is worded in the broadest terms
possible. It vests in the Supreme Court a plenary jurisdiction in the matter of
entertaining and hearing appeals by granting special leave against any judgment
or order made by a Court or a Tribunal in any cause or matter, and the powers
can be exercised in spite of the specific provisions for appeal contained in the
Constitution or other laws. The powers given by the article are, however, in the
nature of special or residuary powers, which are exercisable outside the purview
of ordinary law, in cases where the needs of justice demand interference by the
Supreme Court. Therefore, Article 136 does not confer a right of appeal upon
any party but merely vests discretion in the Supreme Court to interfere in a
particular case if there are reasons to do so. 
In the past, there have been efforts to consider restricting the scope of Article
136, possibly to see that if the Supreme Court restricts its powers under Article
136, arrears of cases may not increase further. [Refer: Mathai v. George, (2010)
4 SCC 358].

However, upon perusal of the law laid down by the Supreme Court itself has
held that no effort should be made to restrict the powers under Article 136
because while exercising its powers under Article 136 of the Constitution of
India, the Supreme Court can, after considering facts of the case to be decided,
very well use its discretion and in the interest of justice, it would be better to use
the said power with circumspection, rather than to limit the power forever.
[Refer: Mathai v. George, (2016) 7 SCC 700]

Usually, before filing a petition under Article 32 or, for that matter, under
Article 136, there should be recourse to alternate efficacious remedies.
Nevertheless, this is a rule of practice and not of jurisdiction. The Supreme
Court is competent to entertain a petition even where the aggrieved party has
not exhausted the remedies available under the statute or the Constitution.    

It is also true that the Supreme Court normally does not exercise its jurisdiction
under Article 136 of the Constitution in respect of an interlocutory order except
in particular circumstances to prevent manifest injustice or abuse of the process
of the Court. However, if there are special circumstances warranting
interference in any particular case, the Supreme Court can indeed be approached
even against an interim order.

Considering the broad scope of the powers conferred on the Supreme Court
under Article 32 and Article 136, it is not possible and, indeed, it would not be
correct to specify any general rule that would govern all cases. It is true that
despite the Supreme Court having the most comprehensive jurisdiction, a
litigant cannot knock the doors of the Supreme Court for anything or
everything. The question as to whether the jurisdiction under Articles 32 or 136
would be exercised or not by the Supreme Court depends on the facts and
circumstances of each case.