Article 136 in the Constitution Of India 1949

136. Special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court

(1) Notwithstanding – (meaning there by) anything in this Chapter- the Supreme

Court may

-in its discretion

-grant special leave to appeal.

from - any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order in any cause or

matter

passed or made by any court or tribunal in the territory of India.

(2) Not apply to - court or tribunal under any law relating to the Armed Forces.

Non obstante clause- Art 136 unaffected by 132-134

Residuary Power

Plenary Power

Sweeping power- exercisable outside the purview of ordinary law- to meet justice

Based on wisdom and good sense of justice of judges.

Art 136- SLP

SC Jurisdiction- Two steps

1) Granting special leave to appeal and (SC testing that whether it should be
granted or not.) if granted then moved to next step of hearing
2) Hearing the appeal
Kunhayanmad vs. State of kerala AIR 2000 SC 2587

If the petition is dismissed then it can be filed under review petition application or
can be filed under Article 226 of Constitution under HC jurisdiction.

Jaswnat sugar mills ltd vs. Lakshmi Chand AIR 1963 SC 677

If a party wants to file SLP in SC under Article Art 136 that it must be of judicial
nature.

a) Must be of a judicial nature

b) order/ determination must be of judicial nature.

M C Mehta Vs. Union of India 2004

Judicial discretion- should be exercised in with law and set legal principles

Pritam Singh Vs. State 1958

Should be exercised in exceptional cases only, there should be uniform standard to

grant leave to appeal.

Standard- special circumstances must be shown, grave and substantial injustice

done.

Features of Art 136:-

1) Non obstante clause

2) 132-134 appeal from decision, 136 no such restriction
3) Order- Art 132-134- final order but under Art 136 not final- appeal can be
interlocutory/ interim order
4) Determination- judicial or quasi judicial not administrative or executive
5) Nature of proceeding- 132-134- defined but no defined clause in art 136
6) Art 136Applicable even if no provision in ordinary law
7) Cannot be curtailed or diluted by ordinary legislative process- only through
constitutional process.
8) Plenary jurisdiction- gives SC power of judicial supertindence over all
courts and tribunals.
 9) Article gives No right appeal- Its SC discretion only vests in SC- discretion
to intervene

Scope and object of Article 136

Article 136 confers a wide discretionary power on the SC.

Article 136 is in nature of special or residuary power exercisable outside the

purview of ordinary law where requirement of justice demand interference by the
Supreme Court.

The jurisdiction under Article 136 cannot be limited or taken away by any
legislation subordinate to the Constitution.

Extraordinary jurisdiction vested by the Constitution in the Court with trust and
faith and extraordinary care and caution.

Being extraordinary jurisdiction, it is meant to be exercised by the considerations

of justice, call of duty and eradicating injustice.

As per the language of Art 136 it clear that the SC is no expected to act as “regular
court of appeal” settling disputes by converting it into a “Court of error”.

While exercising power under Article 136, the Court acts not only as a Court f Law
but also a Court of equity and hence the power exercised by the Court must
ultimately the cause of justice.

Two principles must be satisfied for invoking Art 136(1) ----

1) the proposed appeal must be against a judicial or quasi-judicial and not a purely
executive or administrative order; and

2) the determination or order must have been made or passed, by any Court or
tribunal, in the territory of India.
[Judicial bodies are the ordinary courts of law - such as the Supreme Court, High Courts,
District Courts, and Taluka Courts etc. They are bound by strict rules of procedure (like in
Civil matters CPC is followed, in Criminal matters CrPC is adhered to, and Evidence Act
is applied to record evidence).

Quasi means semi, thus, such bodies which have some characteristics of a judicial body but
are not strictly bound by the rules of procedure (unless provided by law) are quasi-judicial
bodies. They have powers and procedures resembling those of a court of law or judge, and
are obliged to objectively determine facts and draw conclusions from them and proceedings
before such bodies may be judicial proceedings (if provided by law).

E.g.- Administrative Tribunals, Revenue Courts etc. ]

Arunchhalam V PSR Sadhanantham (1979)

Article 136 neither confers on anyone the right to invoke the jurisdiction of the
supreme court nor inhibits anyone from invoking the Courts jurisdiction. The
power is vested in the SC but the right to invoke the Court’s jurisdiction is vested
to no one. The exercise of the power of the SC is not circumscribed by any
limitation as to who may invoke it.

PSR Sadhanantham V Arunachalam (AIR1980 SC 856)

A constitutional bench of the SC upholding the right of a private person to file

petition under Art 136, observed:

It is a residuary power and is extraordinary in its amplitude. But the Constitution

makers intended in the very term of Article 136 that it shall be exercised by the
highest judges of the land with scrupulous adherence to judicial principles well
established by precedents in our jurisprudence.

N.N. khaware Vs. Parasnath Khaware AIR 2003 SC 2325

Held that powers of the SC under Art 136, “are not circumscribed by any
limitation as to who can invoke it”. “No one can invoke the powers but Court
cannot refrain from its duty and cannot abstain from interfering only because a
private person has invoked it”.

Tirupati Balajee Developers Vs. State of Bihar AIR 2004

Jurisdiction conferred under Article 136 is very wide and technically can prevent
the effective exercise of such jurisdiction, however, it is said that “as a rule of
prudence and self imposed discipline”, and the superior forum refuses to exercise
its jurisdiction in the first instance if the grievance raised is capable of being taken
care of by any lower forum competent to do so.

State of Punjab Vs. Karnail Singh AIR 2003SC 3609

In criminal matters, it has been established that SC would not grant SLP, unless it
is shown that- exceptional and special circumstances exist, substantial and grave
injustice has been done to the applicant or that there are compelling and
substantial reasons for interference or that the findings/judgement of the High
court are errounous , perverse, unreasonable and result in miscarriage of justice

Musheer Khan Vs State of MP AIR 2010 SC 762

When two views are possible and the High Court has chosen one view which is
just and reasonable or view of acquittal is favpured by the High Court, it is held
that Apex Court would not interfere.

State of UP Vs. Nandu Viswakarma AIR 2009 SC 3188

It is settled principle of law that where there were two views possible on the
evidence against an accused pointing towards his guilt and the other to the
innocence, the benefit of the doubt certainly goes to the accused.

However , this principle is said to be not followed just in a routine manner,

otherwise it would lead to miscarriage of justice to the victims of the Crime.

So ruled, a division Bench of the SC in State of Haryana Vs. Surinder Garg AIR
2007 SC 2312, set aside the acquittal verdict and ordered immediate arrest of the
accused.Disapproving the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s applying the law in a
routine manner, in such borderline cazaaqses, the Apex Court ruled that “there is
no embargo on the appellate Court reviewing the evidence upon which an order of
acquittal is based”.

Ganga kumar Srivatav Vs. State of Bihar AIR 2005 SC 3123

Laxman Tatyaba Vs. Smt T.H. Dhatrak AIR 2010 SC 3025

Mahesh Dattatray Thirthkar Vs. State of Maharasthtra AIR 2009 SC 2238

J.H Wadia Vs. Board of Trustees, Port of Mumbai 2004

Explaining the nature of jurisdiction conferred under Art 136, observed that the
framers visualized the SC as a Court having final and appellate jurisdiction on
questions relating to the constitutional validity of laws. Giving it overriding effect,
Article 136 confers a discretionary jurisdiction on the Supreme Court to grant
special leave to appeal.

Manish Goel Vs. Rohini Goel AIR 2010 SC 1099

Explaining the scope of Article 136 regarding SLP the Court observed :

Undoubtedly, under Article 136, in the widest possible terms, a plenary

jurisdiction exercisable on assuming appellate jurisdiction has been conferred
upon this court. However, it is an extraordinary jurisdiction vested with implicit
trust and faith and thus, extraordinary care and caution has to be observed while
exercising this jurisdiction. The object of keeping such a wide power with this
Court has been to see that injustice is not perpetuated or perpetrated by decisions
of Courts below. More so, there should be a question of law of general public
importance or a decision which shocks the conscience of the Court are some of the
prime requisites for grant of special leave.

Limitation on Court’s Discretion under Article 136

Karam kapahi Vs. Lal Chand Public Charitable Trust AIR 2010 SC2077

The jurisdiction of this Court under Article 136 is basically one of conscience. The
jurisdiction is plenary and residuary in nature. It is unfettered and not confined
within bounds. Discretion to be exercised here is subject to only one limitation and
that is the wisdom and sense of justice of the judges.

S.B. Minerals vs. Ms. MSPL Ltd. AIR 2010 SC 825

In this case the supreme said that the discretion under article 136 is not exercised :-

- Where the remedy by way of an appeal or revision is available against the

order.
- Where the subject matter is stale or frivolous or cantankerous
- Where the stakes or issue involved is so small and negligible, that grant of
leave or even issue of notice, will cost a heavy burden in terms of expense,
time and energy on a poor or ordinary respondent.
- Where the orders do not decide any issue.

Dr Buddi Kota Subbarao Vs. K. Parssaran AIR 1996 SC 2687

No litigant has a right to unlimited drought on the Court time and public
money in order to get his affairs settled in the manner he wishes.
However, access to justice should not be misused as a license to file
misconceived and frivolous petitions.

Tribunals- the SC may grant special leave to appeal, against any

determination or order, made or passed by a tribunal.