Article 136 of Indian Constitution: Special Leave Petition and Supreme Court Powers

At the heart of India’s judicial system lies Article 136 of the Indian Constitution—an extraordinary provision empowering the Supreme Court to grant Special Leave to Appeal. This Article, while seldom discussed outside of legal circles, has proven pivotal in shaping the contours of Indian justice. Over decades, Article 136 has evolved from a juridical safety valve to a critical instrument for correcting grave miscarriages of justice, bolstering public confidence in the Supreme Court’s oversight of the judiciary at large.

Article 136 can be seen as the Supreme Court’s ‘residual power’—a discretionary lever not of routine justice, but of exceptional intervention, where no other legal remedy exists. Whether invoked in high-profile criminal appeals or obscure administrative disputes, its reach is both a testament to constitutional vision and a focal point of ongoing debate.

The Text and Scope of Article 136

Constitutional Language and Intent

Article 136 states: “Notwithstanding 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.”

Intentional constitutional ambiguity surrounds these words. The framers of the Constitution envisaged the need for a broad, flexible instrument to address cases otherwise beyond the ordinary appellate trails. This aligns with the spirit articulated by constitutional scholar H.M. Seervai, who noted that Article 136 was designed “not to provide a regular appeal, but to confer a residual extraordinary power in the Supreme Court to intervene in cases of gross injustice.”

The Breadth of Application

The scope of Article 136 is striking—encompassing all courts and tribunals (except those dealing with the armed forces). It functions as a last-resort mechanism, giving the Supreme Court latitude to transcend procedural constraints. SLPs (Special Leave Petitions) may involve:

• Civil and criminal law matters
• Decisions by tribunals (e.g., administrative, tax, company law)
• Orders from High Courts or lower courts, except for interlocutory or purely procedural matters

But crucially, the Supreme Court does not act as a regular forum for appeal, and SLPs are not granted lightly.

Special Leave Petition (SLP): Process and Importance

The SLP as a Legal Recourse

Special Leave Petitions are the practical tool through which Article 136 operates. When litigants exhaust the remedies available in lower courts or tribunals, they may petition the Supreme Court for “special leave” to appeal. Unlike statutory appeals, there is no automatic right—each SLP is scrutinized on its own merits.

The filing process typically involves:

1. Drafting and submitting the petition, highlighting the miscarriage of justice or a substantial question of law.
2. Preliminary scrutiny by the Registry for technical compliance.
3. Listing before a Supreme Court bench, which decides whether to grant leave—this is entirely discretionary.

Statistics suggest that while thousands of SLPs are filed annually, only a small proportion are admitted for hearing. This selectivity preserves the exceptional nature of Article 136.

Real-World Illustrations

Article 136 has featured heavily in landmark decisions. In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), an SLP paved the way for expanding the interpretation of “personal liberty.” Similarly, criminal appeals, like those in death penalty cases, have seen the Supreme Court wield Article 136 to prevent irreversible harm and ensure justice.

“Article 136 is not to be used as a general right of appeal. It is a corrective tool to be employed in those rare situations where grave injustice would otherwise go unaddressed,” observes senior constitutional advocate A.K. Ganguly.

Judicial Interpretation and Evolution

Supreme Court’s Approach to Discretion

Jurisprudence over the years has refined the boundaries of Article 136. The Supreme Court, in Pritam Singh v. State (1950), set the foundational approach, declaring that SLPs would be granted primarily where substantial questions of law or extraordinary injustice were evident.

Over time, the bench has established certain guiding principles:

• Not a right, but a privilege: SLP is discretionary and not an ordinary appellate remedy.
• Used sparingly: The Court routinely dismisses the majority of SLPs, underscoring their exceptional status.
• No new factual inquiries: The Supreme Court usually refrains from re-examining questions of fact, focusing on legal errors or perverse findings.

Criticism and Call for Reform

While Article 136 is celebrated for its flexibility, critics argue that the flood of SLP filings clogs Supreme Court dockets. Some legal commentators suggest that more stringent procedural filters are needed to prevent overuse, reserving Article 136’s power for genuinely extraordinary cases. Others caution against restricting access, pointing to its role as a bulwark against judicial error.

Article 136 in Contemporary Practice

The Supreme Court’s Role as a National Corrective

Modern judicial trends reveal that Article 136 remains a vital, if controversial, part of India’s appellate landscape. High-profile cases—ranging from property disputes with national implications to constitutional challenges—routinely see SLPs filed. The Supreme Court’s use of Article 136 has enabled it to clarify legal principles, harmonize discordant rulings among high courts, and intervene where justice mandates a corrective hand.

Nonetheless, the volume of pending SLPs has prompted administrative efforts within the judiciary to streamline case management and enhance the efficiency of the appellate process.

Institutional Checks and Balances

Despite its power, Article 136 is not unlimited. Parliament retains the authority to exclude specific tribunals from its ambit, and internal judicial discipline circumscribes its use. For instance, matters under the jurisdiction of military courts or those specifically excluded by statute fall outside its reach.

In practice, the Supreme Court often reiterates its reluctance to become a “third or fourth forum” for routine appeals, reinforcing the extraordinary—not ordinary—nature of Article 136 jurisdiction.

Conclusion: Article 136’s Enduring Significance

Article 136 of the Indian Constitution stands as both a judicial safety net and a constitutional balancing act. It gives the Supreme Court the latitude to intervene in cases of manifest injustice, but also demands disciplined restraint to prevent judicial overreach and maintain system efficiency. As India’s legal system continues to evolve, ongoing discussions about procedural reform and case management may further shape how this article serves justice—balancing intervention with institutional integrity.

FAQs

What is Article 136 of the Indian Constitution?

Article 136 empowers the Supreme Court to grant special leave to appeal from any judgment or order of any court or tribunal in India (except military courts). It is a discretionary provision intended to correct serious miscarriages of justice.

How is a Special Leave Petition (SLP) different from an ordinary appeal?

An SLP under Article 136 is not an automatic right but is granted by the Supreme Court selectively, based on the petition’s merit and the interest of justice. Ordinary appeals follow statutory procedures and are available as legal rights.

Can Article 136 be used for any type of case?

Though Article 136 has broad wording, the Supreme Court typically reserves its use for cases involving substantial questions of law or obvious injustice. Some tribunal decisions, especially military ones, may be excluded by law.

Why do critics sometimes call for limits on Article 136?

The sheer volume of SLPs filed each year can burden the Supreme Court and slow down justice delivery. Legal experts argue that stricter screening or reforms might help preserve the Article’s truly exceptional role.

Is there a time limit for filing an SLP under Article 136?

Generally, there’s a 90-day limit from the date of the impugned judgment or order, though the Supreme Court may entertain delayed petitions if justified by exceptional grounds.

What are examples of notable cases involving Article 136?

Landmark cases like Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India and major criminal appeals have utilized Article 136 to address substantial constitutional questions or prevent grave injustice, solidifying the Supreme Court’s role as the guardian of fundamental rights.