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

The Indian Constitution, adopted in 1950, is a pioneering document balancing the ideals of justice, liberty, equality, and fraternity. Among its numerous provisions, Article 136 uniquely empowers the Supreme Court, shaping the contours of India’s legal landscape. Often referred to as the “Special Leave Petition” (SLP) jurisdiction, Article 136 is not just a procedural tool—it is a vital check and balance, enabling the highest court to provide remedies where traditional routes fall short.

Article 136 has been invoked in cases ranging from civil disputes to criminal appeals, and even in landmark matters involving fundamental rights or national interest. Its scope and discretionary nature make it one of the Constitution’s most influential, yet sometimes controversial, articles. Understanding Article 136 is essential for legal professionals, policy enthusiasts, and citizens keen on how justice is ultimately served.

Understanding Article 136: Text and Core Components

Article 136 of the Indian Constitution states, in essence, that the Supreme Court may, at its discretion, grant special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, or order in any cause or matter passed or made by any court or tribunal in India.

This provision is unique for several reasons:

• Discretionary Power: The Supreme Court is not obliged to hear every appeal. The power under Article 136 is exceptional, intended for grave miscarriages of justice or questions of substantial legal importance.
• Universal Reach: It applies to judgments from any court or tribunal, except for those related to armed forces, giving it a remarkably broad scope.
• Non-Statutory Right: Unlike other appeals, Article 136 does not confer a statutory right. Thus, parties have no “right” to be heard—rather, the Supreme Court decides, case by case, whether to intervene.

The Special Leave Petition (SLP) Mechanism

A Special Leave Petition is the vehicle through which aggrieved parties seek the Supreme Court’s intervention. Across India, thousands of SLPs are filed annually, although only a fraction are admitted.

The process typically involves:

1. Application Submission: The petitioner outlines why the decision of a lower court warrants special review.
2. Preliminary Review: A Supreme Court bench assesses whether the case presents significant questions warranting intervention.
3. Final Admission: If admitted, the appeal is heard on merits; if not, the decision of the lower court stands.

Evolution Through Landmark Judgments

Over the decades, Article 136’s interpretation has evolved through judicial pronouncements. Early on, the Supreme Court clarified that this power was to be exercised sparingly, reserved for cases presenting flagrant errors or substantial questions of law.

In Pritam Singh v. State (1950), one of the earliest cases under Article 136, the Supreme Court underscored:

“The power under Article 136 is to be exercised in exceptional and rare cases where substantial and grave injustice has been done.”

Beyond this, in Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala (2000), the Court elaborated that dismissal of an SLP, without a reasoned order, does not amount to affirmation of the lower court’s decision, refining the understanding of precedential value.

Impact on Systemic Reforms and Public Interest

Article 136 has played a pivotal role in areas such as human rights, environmental protection, and administrative fairness. Cases like the Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996) on environmental issues, or recent interventions in electoral integrity and governmental accountability, reflect the provision’s practical significance.

“Article 136, when wielded judiciously, has enabled the Supreme Court to become the ultimate bastion against injustice, even when statutory channels fall short,” says Dr. M.K. Sharma, Senior Advocate at the Supreme Court.

Nonetheless, some critics argue that the increased admission of routine cases has led to congestion, moving Article 136 away from its original exceptionalist vision.

Article 136 vs. Statutory Appeals: Key Distinctions

Legal commentators often distinguish between Article 136 and regular appeals in several ways:

• Right to Appeal: Statutory appeals are rights granted by law, confined to specific grounds; whereas Article 136 is purely discretionary.
• Scope: SLPs under Article 136 can arise from almost any judgment, widening their applicability compared to strictly defined appellate channels.
• Admissibility: The bar for admission under Article 136 is high—the petitioner must demonstrate extraordinary circumstances.

A practical example: While an appeal against an acquittal in a criminal case may have defined statutory paths, Article 136 steps in where new evidence or a gross miscarriage of justice surfaces after the exhaustion of all other remedies.

Challenges and Criticisms

Despite its vital place in the legal system, Article 136 poses challenges:

• Judicial Backlog: The Supreme Court receives tens of thousands of SLPs annually. Many argue this volume burdens the Court, diverting attention from constitutional cases and policy matters.
• Dilution of Exceptionality: Increasingly, SLPs are admitted in routine civil and criminal disputes, which some say dilutes the ‘exceptional’ purpose of Article 136.
• Ambit of Review: While designed as a safety valve, overuse may, paradoxically, undermine speedy justice and the finality of decisions.

Recent judicial conferences and law commission reports highlight the need to streamline admissions and restrict the SLP power to truly exceptional cases.

Article 136 in Practice: Scenarios and Trends

To appreciate Article 136’s functional realities, consider:

• Human Rights Cases: When state action or administrative orders infringe on basic rights, SLPs have provided timely intervention.
• Electoral Disputes: The Supreme Court has occasionally used Article 136 to maintain electoral fairness, stepping in when lower tribunals failed to address serious allegations.
• Business Regulation: High-stakes corporate disputes, such as SEBI orders or competition law verdicts, often reach the Supreme Court through Article 136, showcasing its economic significance.

Yet, as noted by many practitioners, admission is not guaranteed; clear demonstration of injustice is essential.

Concluding Summary: The Continuing Relevance of Article 136

Article 136 remains one of the most adaptable and powerful tools in the Indian judiciary. By empowering the Supreme Court to correct grave injustices or important legal errors, it serves as both a remedy and a safeguard for the rule of law. At the same time, its proper use demands restraint, vigilance, and a keen sense of justice to preserve the Supreme Court’s role as a constitutional court.

Moving forward, legal reforms and judicial guidelines may further define and refine its exercise, ensuring Article 136 remains the “constitutional safety valve” envisioned by the framers—neither overused nor inaccessible, but always just.

---

FAQs

What is Article 136 of the Indian Constitution?
Article 136 grants the Supreme Court discretionary power to allow appeals in any case from any court or tribunal (except those concerning the armed forces), making it a unique “special leave” jurisdiction.

How does an SLP (Special Leave Petition) work?
A party aggrieved by a judgment files an SLP, requesting the Supreme Court to review the lower court’s decision. The Court decides whether the case merits admission, focusing on exceptional circumstances or substantial legal questions.

Can every judgment be appealed using Article 136?
No, the right is not automatic. The Supreme Court’s intervention under Article 136 is discretionary and reserved for cases featuring grave injustice or important constitutional questions.

Why is Article 136 considered both a strength and a challenge for India’s Supreme Court?
Its broad scope allows for correction of serious errors, but overuse may contribute to judicial delays and dilute the focus on critical constitutional matters.

What types of cases commonly reach the Supreme Court through Article 136?
Cases involving human rights, electoral disputes, complex commercial matters, and serious criminal appeals often invoke Article 136 when no other legal remedy is adequate.

Is dismissal of an SLP the same as affirmation of the lower court’s decision?
Not necessarily. If the Supreme Court rejects an SLP without a detailed order, it usually means the Court did not find exceptional grounds, but it does not always amount to a full endorsement of the lower court’s reasoning.