Introduction
Article 136 gives the Supreme Court of India a unique and powerful authority. It allows the Court to grant Special Leave to Appeal (SLP) against decisions made by any court or tribunal in India. This power is discretionary, which means no person can claim it as a matter of right. The Supreme Court uses Article 136 only when it finds serious injustice or grave legal error. Because of this, Article 136 acts as an extraordinary remedy rather than a routine appeal provision.
Why Is Article 136 Called an Extraordinary Power?
Article 136 is described as extraordinary because it overrides normal appellate procedures. The Supreme Court can intervene even when the law does not provide for an appeal. This makes the provision very wide in scope. However, the Court has consistently stated that it will exercise this power sparingly and cautiously.
The Supreme Court does not act as a regular appellate court under Article 136. Instead, it focuses on correcting substantial legal errors, procedural irregularities, or violations of natural justice. This approach helps maintain judicial discipline while preserving the exceptional nature of the provision.
What Is the Exact Text and Meaning of Article 136?
Article 136(1) states that the Supreme Court may grant special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, sentence, or order passed by any court or tribunal in India. The words “notwithstanding anything in this Chapter” show that this power is independent of other appeal provisions in the Constitution.
Article 136(2) clearly excludes judgments passed by courts or tribunals related to the Armed Forces. This limitation respects the separate legal framework governing military justice. Apart from this exception, the scope of Article 136 remains very broad.
What Is the Purpose Behind Article 136?
The main purpose of Article 136 is to prevent miscarriage of justice. It acts as a constitutional safety valve. When lower courts or tribunals commit serious errors, the Supreme Court can correct them using this provision.
Article 136 also helps maintain uniformity in legal interpretation across the country. When conflicting decisions arise or important questions of law affect public interest, the Supreme Court can intervene through an SLP. This strengthens the rule of law and public confidence in the justice system.
What Types of Cases Fall Under Article 136?
Article 136 applies to civil, criminal, and quasi-judicial matters. It covers decisions from High Courts, subordinate courts, and tribunals. Even interlocutory orders can be challenged if they cause serious injustice.
However, the Supreme Court avoids interfering in purely factual disputes. It focuses on legal principles, jurisdictional errors, and violations of fundamental legal procedures. This ensures that Article 136 does not become a substitute for regular appeals.
How Does the Two-Stage Process of SLP Work?
The process under Article 136 works in two stages. In the first stage, the Supreme Court decides whether to grant special leave. At this stage, the Court only examines whether the case deserves its attention.
If the Court grants leave, the second stage begins. The SLP then converts into a regular appeal. The Court hears detailed arguments and delivers a final judgment. If leave is refused, the matter ends there, and the lower court’s decision remains final.
What Are the Filing Requirements for a Special Leave Petition?
To file an SLP, the petitioner must submit a certified copy of the impugned judgment. The petition must include complete facts and legal grounds to convince the Court to grant leave. An Advocate on Record must file and sign the petition using the prescribed format.
The usual limitation period is ninety days from the date of judgment. In criminal matters, additional requirements apply, such as proof of surrender or custody where necessary. These requirements ensure procedural discipline while approaching the Supreme Court.
How Does the Supreme Court Exercise Restraint Under Article 136?
The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that Article 136 should not be used casually. In Dheneshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, the Court highlighted the inherent limits of this power. It clarified that Article 136 is not meant to bypass normal legal remedies.
In Mathai Joby v. George, the Court reaffirmed that although Article 136 is very wide, it must be exercised with caution. The Court avoids reappreciating evidence unless findings are perverse or shocking to judicial conscience.
For any specific query call at +91 – 8569843472
Conclusion
Article 136 strengthens India’s constitutional framework. It ensures that no injustice remains beyond correction simply because of technical limitations. At the same time, judicial restraint prevents misuse of this power.
In simple terms, Article 136 gives the Supreme Court the final word when justice demands intervention. That is why it remains one of the most powerful and respected provisions of the Indian Constitution.
