Appellate Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of India — Constitutional, Procedural, and Doctrinal Dimensions - Legal Service India

Overview

The appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, rooted in Articles 132–134A of the Constitution, enables the Court to hear appeals from High Court judgments, decrees, or orders in constitutional, civil, and criminal matters. Complementing this statutory jurisdiction, Article 136 confers an extraordinary, discretionary power on the Court to grant Special Leave to Appeal (SLP) from virtually any decision of any court or tribunal.

Table of Contents

Articles 132–134A: Statutory Appellate Routes

Article 132 — Constitutional Questions

Appeals under Article 132 lie where a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution is involved. The provision ensures uniformity in constitutional interpretation.

Article 133 — Civil Appeals

Article 133 provides for appeals in civil cases, typically where important legal principles or substantial questions of law are at issue and the High Court has passed the impugned decree or order.

Article 134 & 134A — Criminal Appeals and Certification

Article 134 enables appeals in criminal matters, often where severe sentences are imposed or significant legal errors affect the trial’s fairness. Article 134A governs certification by High Courts for certain criminal appeals to be entertained by the Supreme Court.

Article	Focus	Typical Use
132	Constitutional law	Substantial question of constitutional interpretation
133	Civil matters	Important legal principles in civil appeals
134 / 134A	Criminal matters	Serious criminal appeals; High Court certification

Article 136 — Special Leave to Appeal (SLP)

Article 136 vests the Supreme Court with wide discretionary powers to grant an SLP against any judgment, decree, or order of any court or tribunal. This extraordinary jurisdiction functions as a corrective mechanism for grave injustice, procedural failure, or matters of substantial legal importance not otherwise covered by a statutory right of appeal.

Discretionary nature: Granting an SLP is not a matter of right; the Court may refuse leave without assigning reasons.
Scope: The Court may entertain SLPs even where no express appellate provision exists, subject to judicial restraint.
Purpose: To prevent miscarriage of justice and to develop consistent legal doctrine.

Practical Significance

The combined effect of Articles 132–134A and Article 136 ensures that the Supreme Court operates both as a statutory appellate tribunal and as a guardian of justice with extraordinary corrective powers. This dual role preserves national legal uniformity while providing an exceptional safety valve against injustice.

Part I: Constitutional Foundations of the Appellate Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of India

The Supreme Court of India, established under Part V, Chapter IV of the Constitution, stands as the apex judicial institution in the country. It performs multiple functions: original, appellate, and advisory. Among these, its appellate jurisdiction serves as the principal mechanism for ensuring the uniformity of law, correcting errors of lower courts, and upholding constitutional supremacy. The jurisdiction is both statutory and discretionary — a dual character that reflects a careful constitutional design balancing judicial accessibility with institutional restraint.

The appellate jurisdiction derives from a cluster of provisions: Articles 132 to 134A (which define the Court’s mandatory appellate powers) and Article 136 (which grants it discretionary authority through the Special Leave to Appeal mechanism). Together, these provisions render the Supreme Court not merely a court of law, but also a guardian of justice — one that supervises the entire judicial hierarchy to ensure coherence and fairness.

II. Historical Background and Constitutional Evolution

The framers of the Constitution were influenced by the appellate traditions of the Privy Council and the Federal Court of India. Before 1950, appeals from High Courts in British India were often carried to the Privy Council in London, which functioned as the final appellate authority. The Federal Court, established under the Government of India Act, 1935, also had limited appellate powers. However, it lacked the wide discretionary jurisdiction that the Supreme Court later inherited under Article 136.

During the Constituent Assembly debates, several members raised concerns about potential overload of the apex court if its appellate powers were too broad. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, defending Article 136, noted that the discretionary nature of the provision would prevent misuse, allowing the Court to intervene only in cases involving “grave injustice” or “substantial questions of law.” This rationale has shaped the Supreme Court’s cautious approach to appellate intervention over decades.

III. Constitutional Framework: Articles 132–134A and 136

1. Article 132 — Appeals in Constitutional Matters

Article 132 provides that an appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from any judgment, decree, or final order of a High Court in India if the High Court certifies that the case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution. This ensures that constitutional interpretation remains consistent across jurisdictions. The certificate requirement serves as a filtering mechanism to prevent routine appeals in every constitutional case.

Judicial Interpretation: In Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), the Court reaffirmed that appeals under Article 132 lie only when the constitutional interpretation itself is central to the case. Purely statutory disputes do not qualify. Similarly, in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997), the Court underscored its role as the ultimate arbiter of constitutional meaning, emphasizing that appellate review under Article 132 preserves judicial coherence.

2. Article 133 — Appeals in Civil Matters

Article 133 governs civil appeals. An appeal lies to the Supreme Court from any judgment, decree, or final order in a civil proceeding if the High Court certifies that the case involves a substantial question of law of general importance which needs to be decided by the Supreme Court. The 30th Constitutional Amendment (1973) significantly modified this article by replacing earlier monetary thresholds with a “substantial question of law” standard — making the test qualitative rather than quantitative.

The jurisprudence under Article 133 focuses on distinguishing between “substantial” and “trivial” questions of law. In Sir Chunilal Mehta v. Century Spinning & Manufacturing Co. Ltd. (1962), the Court laid down that a substantial question of law is one of general public importance or one that directly and substantially affects the rights of the parties. Routine factual disputes or concurrent findings of fact typically do not qualify.

3. Article 134 — Appeals in Criminal Matters

Article 134 confers appellate jurisdiction in criminal cases on three principal grounds:

Where the High Court has reversed an order of acquittal and sentenced the accused to death;
Where the High Court has withdrawn a case from a subordinate court and, after trial, sentenced the accused to death; or
Where the High Court certifies that the case is fit for appeal to the Supreme Court.

The provision recognizes the gravity of criminal appeals, especially those involving capital punishment. The certification process under clause (c) ensures judicial scrutiny before escalation to the apex level. In State of Bihar v. Madan Mohan Singh (1954), the Supreme Court clarified that the right of appeal is purely statutory and cannot be expanded by judicial discretion outside the explicit terms of the Constitution.

4. Article 134A — Certification Procedure

Inserted by the 44th Constitutional Amendment (1978), Article 134A mandates that immediately after delivering judgment, the High Court shall determine whether a certificate of appeal should be granted. This procedural reform sought to reduce delays and uncertainty in the appellate process. The requirement of “immediate determination” ensures that the litigant’s right to approach the Supreme Court is not frustrated by procedural lapses or administrative inertia.

IV. Nature and Scope of the Appellate Jurisdiction

The appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court serves dual purposes: correcting judicial errors and unifying legal interpretation. Its scope extends across constitutional, civil, and criminal domains. Unlike the original jurisdiction (which is limited to inter-governmental disputes and certain writ petitions), appellate jurisdiction enables the Court to oversee and harmonize the entire judicial system.

Appellate power is not merely corrective; it is also creative. Through appellate review, the Court develops doctrine, clarifies ambiguities, and, at times, fills legislative gaps. For instance, doctrines such as the “basic structure” (in Kesavananda Bharati) and the “public trust” doctrine (in M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath) evolved in appellate proceedings, underscoring the jurisprudential depth of this jurisdiction.

V. Objectives and Rationale of Appellate Powers

Uniformity of Law: To ensure that constitutional and legal principles are applied uniformly across all High Courts.
Correction of Errors: To rectify substantial errors in legal interpretation or miscarriage of justice by lower courts.
Development of Jurisprudence: To create binding precedents that guide future adjudication.
Protection of Fundamental Rights: To act as a final safeguard for individual liberties.

In Union of India v. Raghubir Singh (1989), the Court emphasized that the appellate structure of India’s judiciary is designed to secure consistency and continuity of judicial thought, which is essential for the stability of the rule of law.

VI. Doctrinal Foundations

The appellate jurisdiction is anchored in several underlying doctrines:

Doctrine of Finality: The Supreme Court’s decision is final and binding under Article 141, ensuring closure in legal disputes.
Doctrine of Precedent: Judgments delivered in appellate jurisdiction bind all subordinate courts, reinforcing judicial discipline.
Doctrine of Judicial Review: The appellate function is intertwined with the power of judicial review, particularly where questions of constitutional validity are raised.
Doctrine of Stare Decisis: Stability in law through adherence to precedents evolved primarily through appellate adjudication.

VII. Conclusion to Part I

The constitutional provisions from Articles 132 to 134A lay the foundation of India’s appellate framework, defining both rights and responsibilities of litigants and courts. They reflect a careful equilibrium — promoting access to justice while safeguarding the Court from becoming a routine court of second appeal. Yet, this framework would be incomplete without Article 136, which provides the Supreme Court with extraordinary discretionary power to intervene in any case of grave injustice. The next part will delve deeply into the procedural architecture and institutional mechanisms that operationalize these constitutional guarantees.

II. Procedural and Institutional Framework of Appellate Jurisdiction

The constitutional vision of appellate jurisdiction, articulated in Articles 132–134A and 136, attains operational meaning through the procedural machinery of the Supreme Court and the High Courts. This framework ensures that appellate rights are neither abused nor denied due to procedural inefficiencies. It encompasses not only filing and certification processes but also case management, bench allocation, and institutional controls. The procedural dimension, therefore, functions as the bridge between the abstract constitutional right to appeal and its practical realization in the Indian judicial system.

I. Modes of Appeal to the Supreme Court

Appeals may reach the Supreme Court through multiple constitutional and statutory routes. Broadly, these can be classified into the following categories:

(a) Appeals as of Right — under Articles 132, 133, and 134 (subject to High Court certification).
(b) Appeals by Special Leave — under Article 136 (discretionary jurisdiction).
(c) Statutory Appeals — under specific legislations such as the Representation of the People Act, the Companies Act, or the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.

While the first category ensures a constitutional right to approach the apex court, the second provides a safety valve through which the Supreme Court may correct exceptional miscarriages of justice. Statutory appeals supplement these by offering special pathways in technical or subject-specific domains.

II. Certification Process under Articles 132–134A

1. Certificate Granting Authority

The High Court serves as the primary gatekeeper of appellate access. Under Articles 132, 133, and 134, it grants or denies certificates that validate the right to appeal. Article 134A, inserted by the 44th Constitutional Amendment (1978), mandates that the High Court shall immediately consider the question of granting a certificate upon delivering its judgment, order, or decree.

2. Criteria for Grant of Certificate

The High Court must be satisfied that:

the case involves a substantial question of law (Article 132 or 133), or
in criminal matters, that the case is fit for appeal (Article 134(1)(c)).

This certification mechanism performs a critical filtering role. It ensures that the Supreme Court’s attention is reserved for questions of national importance, constitutional interpretation, or grave legal error. The test of “substantial question of law” was expounded in Sir Chunilal Mehta v. Century Spinning & Manufacturing Co. Ltd. (1962), where the Court held that a question of law is substantial if it affects the rights of parties on a general level or if it calls for an authoritative decision by the Supreme Court.

3. Consequences of Rejection

If the High Court refuses a certificate, the litigant is not without remedy. Under Article 136, they may still petition the Supreme Court for special leave to appeal. Thus, the appellate framework is hierarchical yet flexible, allowing the Supreme Court to retain a discretionary corrective power even in cases denied certification.

III. The Appeal Filing Process

1. Initiation of Appeal

Appeals are typically initiated by filing a Petition of Appeal accompanied by the High Court’s certificate and certified copies of the impugned judgment or decree. The Supreme Court Rules, 2013, particularly Order XXI to Order XXV, prescribe the detailed procedure for filing and hearing appeals.

2. Limitation Periods

The time frame for filing an appeal to the Supreme Court varies depending on the nature of the case:

Civil appeals — 60 days from the date of the High Court’s certificate.
Criminal appeals — 30 days from the date of judgment.
SLP under Article 136 — 90 days from the date of judgment or order.

These limitation periods may be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 if sufficient cause is shown. However, the Supreme Court has emphasized that delay condonation is not a matter of right. In Collector (L.A.) v. Katiji (1987), it recognized the need for a liberal approach in public interest cases but maintained that procedural discipline is equally important.

3. Fees, Documentation, and Compliance

Every appeal must be accompanied by requisite court fees and an affidavit verifying the correctness of facts. Supporting documents include:

Certified copy of the judgment or order appealed from,
Copy of the certificate of fitness (if applicable),
Index of papers (paper-book),
Vakalatnama or authorization, and
Statement of questions of law involved.

The Registry of the Supreme Court scrutinizes the papers for compliance. Non-compliance results in “office objections,” which must be rectified before listing.

IV. Bench Composition and Case Management

1. Allocation of Benches

The Chief Justice of India (CJI) allocates matters to different benches, which may be:

Division Benches (two judges) — handle routine appeals and SLPs,
Three-Judge Benches — decide cases involving important legal questions,
Constitution Benches (five or more judges) — mandated under Article 145(3) when a substantial question of constitutional interpretation arises.

This tiered structure ensures efficient disposal and doctrinal coherence. The CJI’s administrative prerogative under Article 145 is complemented by the Supreme Court Rules, ensuring that constitutionally sensitive matters receive appropriate judicial attention.

2. Listing and Preliminary Hearing

After scrutiny, appeals are listed for preliminary hearing. At this stage, the Court determines whether the appeal raises issues warranting a full hearing. In many cases, especially SLPs, the Court may dismiss petitions summarily with short orders. Only when the Court finds substantial merit does it grant leave and convert the petition into a formal civil or criminal appeal.

V. Interlocutory Appeals and Stay Orders

Appellate jurisdiction also extends to interlocutory matters — interim orders, injunctions, or bail decisions — provided they raise substantial legal issues. Under Article 136, the Supreme Court may grant stay of execution of decrees or orders pending appeal. The grant of stay is discretionary and guided by the principles of balance of convenience, irreparable harm, and prima facie case.

In State of Rajasthan v. Swaika Properties (1985), the Court cautioned that interim stays must not paralyze lawful administrative action unless grave injustice is demonstrated. This doctrine maintains a balance between judicial oversight and administrative efficacy.

VI. Appeals from Tribunals and Special Courts

With the rise of specialized tribunals under the 42nd and 44th Amendments, appellate pathways expanded beyond High Courts. Article 136 empowers the Supreme Court to entertain appeals from “any court or tribunal” in India, except those constituted under military law. This includes bodies such as the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), and Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT).

In L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997), the Supreme Court held that while tribunal decisions are subject to judicial review by High Courts, the apex court retains its power under Article 136 as the ultimate appellate authority. Thus, the tribunal system functions within — not outside — the constitutional appellate hierarchy.

VII. Role of the Registry and Administrative Oversight

The Supreme Court Registry plays a pivotal role in managing the flow of appeals. It handles:

Initial scrutiny of filings,
Allocation of diary numbers,
Listing before appropriate benches, and
Maintenance of cause lists and judgments database.

Technological advancements, particularly the Integrated Case Management Information System (ICMIS) and e-filing portals, have streamlined these processes. Yet, administrative bottlenecks remain a key reason for pendency in appellate matters.

VIII. Jurisdictional Conflicts and Transfer Powers

Article 139A empowers the Supreme Court to transfer cases or appeals from one High Court to another or to itself when the same or substantially similar questions of law are involved. This ensures consistency and prevents contradictory rulings across jurisdictions.

In Union of India v. Mohindra Supply Co. (1962), the Court used its transfer powers to consolidate multiple appeals involving identical constitutional issues. Such procedural consolidation enhances judicial economy and preserves the coherence of appellate jurisprudence.

IX. Practical Challenges in the Appellate Process

Despite procedural sophistication, several challenges persist:

Excessive Pendency: Over 70,000 cases are pending before the Supreme Court (as per 2024 statistics), a significant portion being SLPs.
Fragmentation of Jurisprudence: Divergent High Court decisions strain the certification process.
Delays in Certification: Many High Courts fail to comply with Article 134A’s immediate determination mandate.
Costs and Accessibility: High filing costs and procedural formalities deter indigent litigants.

To address these issues, judicial reforms such as pre-hearing filters, time-bound certification, and enhanced technological integration have been proposed. These are explored in Part IV of this series.

X. Conclusion to Part II

The procedural and institutional architecture of appellate jurisdiction embodies both efficiency and inclusivity. It ensures that only cases of true constitutional or national significance ascend to the Supreme Court, thereby protecting the Court’s capacity to function as a policy-defining constitutional tribunal rather than a routine forum of appeal. Yet, as the caseload expands, procedural discipline and institutional modernization will determine whether the Court can sustain its dual identity — as a court of law and a court of justice.

Part III will now examine the most dynamic and debated dimension of appellate power — the Special Leave to Appeal (SLP) under Article 136 — which represents the Supreme Court’s discretionary yet far-reaching jurisdiction over all courts and tribunals in India.

III. Special Leave to Appeal under Article 136 — Nature, Scope, and Jurisprudential Evolution

The Special Leave to Appeal (SLP) under Article 136 represents the most distinctive and far-reaching feature of India’s appellate structure. Unlike Articles 132–134A, which delineate appeals as of right, Article 136 confers upon the Supreme Court a discretionary power to grant leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence, or order passed by any court or tribunal in India. This provision transforms the Supreme Court into a court of equity and conscience — a sentinel against miscarriage of justice.

I. Text and Structural Features of Article 136

The provision reads:

“(1) 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. (2) Nothing in clause (1) shall apply to any judgment, determination, sentence or order passed or made by any court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the Armed Forces.”

The non obstante clause (“Notwithstanding anything in this Chapter”) underscores the overriding nature of Article 136. It operates as a constitutional residuary clause — empowering the Court to intervene in cases that may fall outside the formal appellate routes of Articles 132–134A or any statutory appeal provisions. It thus functions as the ultimate corrective mechanism within India’s judicial system.

II. Nature and Character of Jurisdiction under Article 136

Article 136 does not confer a right of appeal. It vests a discretionary jurisdiction in the Supreme Court. The petitioner must first obtain special leave, which is granted only if the Court is satisfied that the case warrants its intervention. Once leave is granted, the petition is converted into a formal appeal.

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

“The wide discretionary power conferred by Article 136 is to be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases where grave injustice has occurred or where a substantial question of law is involved.”

This principle continues to guide the exercise of discretion under Article 136. It differentiates the Supreme Court from an ordinary court of appeal and underscores its role as a guardian of justice rather than a mere revisional authority.

III. Scope and Extent of Article 136

The reach of Article 136 is remarkably wide. It extends to:

All courts and tribunals in India, including administrative and quasi-judicial bodies;
All types of proceedings — civil, criminal, constitutional, service, tax, and commercial;
All forms of orders — final, interlocutory, or interim.

However, the Court has self-imposed limitations to prevent abuse of this jurisdiction. It rarely re-evaluates findings of fact, unless those findings are perverse, unsupported by evidence, or vitiated by procedural irregularity.

1. Appeals from Tribunals

Article 136’s inclusion of “tribunals” is one of its most significant innovations. It ensures that specialized bodies such as the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), and Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) remain subject to the Supreme Court’s oversight.

In L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997), the Court clarified that while tribunals act as substitutes for High Courts in certain matters, their decisions are open to scrutiny under both Articles 226/227 by High Courts and Article 136 by the Supreme Court. Thus, the integrity of the appellate hierarchy is constitutionally preserved.

IV. Judicially Evolved Tests for Granting Special Leave

Over the decades, the Supreme Court has developed consistent tests and guiding principles for granting or denying special leave. The following are key judicial benchmarks:

1. Grave or Manifest Injustice

The Court intervenes where a lower court’s decision results in gross injustice, miscarriage of justice, or violation of principles of natural justice. In Durga Shankar Mehta v. Raghuraj Singh (1954), it held that the purpose of Article 136 is to “prevent injustice wherever it is found.”

2. Substantial Question of Law

Where a case raises an important legal question of general or constitutional importance, the Court may grant leave. This aligns Article 136 with the certification standards of Articles 132 and 133 but with wider flexibility.

3. Perversity or Procedural Illegality

If a finding of fact is perverse or reached without due process, the Supreme Court may intervene even in factual matters. For example, in State of U.P. v. Babul Nath (1994), the Court interfered with concurrent findings due to evident procedural unfairness.

4. Public Importance and Systemic Impact

The Court often admits matters that carry implications beyond individual grievances — those affecting public institutions, government accountability, or fundamental rights. In Union Carbide Corporation v. Union of India (1989) (Bhopal Gas Tragedy case), the Court’s intervention under Article 136 was justified on grounds of public safety and social justice.

V. Self-Imposed Limits and Judicial Restraint

Despite its wide amplitude, the Supreme Court consistently emphasizes that Article 136 should be used sparingly. In Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala (2000), it clarified that dismissal of an SLP without a speaking order does not amount to affirmation of the High Court’s reasoning, thereby avoiding unintended precedential effects.

Similarly, in Arunachalam v. P.S.R. Sadhanantham (1979), the Court observed that it would not convert itself into a third appellate forum or interfere in trivial matters merely because another view is possible. This doctrine of judicial self-restraint ensures the selective and judicious exercise of Article 136 powers.

VI. Procedural Architecture of an SLP

The Supreme Court Rules, 2013, prescribe a distinct procedure for filing SLPs:

Filing: The petition must be filed within 90 days from the date of the impugned judgment, accompanied by certified copies and an affidavit.
Preliminary Scrutiny: The Registry examines formal compliance and lists the matter before the Court for admission.
Hearing on Admission: The Court may dismiss the petition in limine or issue notice to the respondent if satisfied that the matter merits consideration.
Grant of Leave: Once leave is granted, the petition is registered as a civil or criminal appeal.

This two-stage process — first for leave, then for appeal — embodies procedural safeguards against indiscriminate use of Article 136.

VII. Doctrinal Development and Landmark Judgments

The evolution of Article 136 jurisprudence has been marked by several landmark decisions that have defined its boundaries:

Pritam Singh v. State (1950) — First authoritative interpretation; discretion to be used only in exceptional cases.
Durga Shankar Mehta v. Raghuraj Singh (1954) — Article 136 as a “residual power to prevent injustice.”
Bharat Bank Ltd. v. Employees (1950) — Tribunal decisions fall within Article 136.
Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala (2000) — Dismissal of SLP without reasons does not constitute affirmation of the High Court’s decision.
Subal Paul v. Malina Paul (2003) — Special leave cannot be invoked when an alternative statutory appeal exists and has not been exhausted.
State of Maharashtra v. Jagmohan Singh Kuldip Singh Anand (2004) — Clarified the difference between “dismissal of SLP” and “dismissal after leave granted.”

Through these cases, the Court has built a nuanced doctrine that respects the separation of powers while ensuring justice is never denied for lack of a procedural route.

VIII. Comparative Perspectives

1. United States — Certiorari Jurisdiction

Article 136 bears resemblance to the U.S. Supreme Court’s certiorari jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1254. The U.S. Court exercises similar discretion to select cases of national importance. However, unlike the Indian SLP, U.S. certiorari is subject to strict procedural filters, and the percentage of petitions granted is less than 1%.

2. United Kingdom — Leave to Appeal

In the U.K., appeals to the Supreme Court require “leave” either from the Court of Appeal or from the Supreme Court itself. The test focuses on “points of law of general public importance,” akin to India’s Article 133 standard. India’s Article 136 goes beyond this by allowing access from any court or tribunal rather than limiting it to specific hierarchies.

3. Indian Distinctiveness

India’s SLP system is thus unique in its constitutional status, breadth, and frequency of use. It merges features of both certiorari and appeal, granting the Supreme Court a hybrid jurisdiction — supervisory, corrective, and at times, policy-shaping.

IX. Criticisms and Challenges

The expansive use of Article 136 has generated debate over judicial efficiency and overreach. Key criticisms include:

Judicial Overload: Over 60% of the Supreme Court’s docket comprises SLPs, causing delays in constitutional matters.
Inconsistent Admission Standards: The absence of codified criteria leads to unpredictability.
Access Inequality: Wealthier litigants can better afford SLP filings, while marginalized parties face cost barriers.
Blurring of Hierarchical Boundaries: Frequent interference in factual disputes undermines High Court authority.

The Law Commission of India’s 229th Report (2009) recommended creating a National Court of Appeal to handle routine SLPs, reserving the Supreme Court exclusively for constitutional and national questions. The idea remains under consideration, reflecting the ongoing tension between accessibility and finality.

X. Modern Reforms and Doctrinal Innovations

Recent procedural reforms have sought to streamline SLP practice:

Introduction of e-filing and ICMIS tracking for SLPs;
Creation of filter benches for preliminary screening;
Imposition of costs for frivolous SLPs to deter misuse;
Adoption of summary disposal orders with clear reasoning to aid precedent clarity.

These reforms aim to balance the constitutional purpose of Article 136 — to secure justice — with the pragmatic need for judicial economy.

XI. Conclusion to Part III

Article 136 stands as both the strength and the strain of India’s judicial system. It is the Supreme Court’s constitutional “safety valve,” ensuring that no injustice remains unaddressed merely because of procedural rigidity. Yet, its very openness threatens to overburden the Court and dilute its constitutional mission. The delicate balance between judicial activism and institutional discipline will determine whether Article 136 continues to serve as a tool of justice or becomes a source of systemic congestion.

IV. Challenges, Reforms, and Future Trajectory of Appellate Jurisdiction

The Supreme Court of India’s appellate jurisdiction — spanning Articles 132 to 136 — stands as a monumental pillar of the nation’s constitutional edifice. Yet, over seven decades of judicial evolution have revealed both its strengths and its structural vulnerabilities. The Court’s wide appellate access has simultaneously served as a safeguard of justice and a source of procedural congestion. In this final part, we critically examine the institutional challenges confronting the appellate system, evaluate ongoing and proposed reforms, and envision the future trajectory of appellate jurisprudence in India.

I. Systemic Challenges and Institutional Strain

1. Docket Congestion and Case Backlog

As of 2025, the Supreme Court’s docket exceeds 80,000 pending cases, with nearly 65% originating from Special Leave Petitions (SLPs). The constitutional function of the Court — to settle fundamental and national questions of law — has been overshadowed by its role as a final appellate forum for routine disputes. Empirical studies, including the Law Commission’s 229th Report (2009) and 245th Report (2014), warn that this “SLP overload” undermines the Court’s institutional focus on constitutional adjudication.

2. Fragmentation of Precedent and Inconsistency

The proliferation of two-judge benches deciding hundreds of SLPs daily leads to inconsistent legal interpretations. The absence of centralized doctrinal synthesis dilutes the authority of precedent, contrary to the constitutional mandate of Article 141. This phenomenon, termed “precedential fragmentation”, creates uncertainty across High Courts and subordinate judiciary, requiring frequent clarificatory interventions by larger benches.

3. Accessibility, Cost, and Equity

The appellate system’s procedural sophistication, while ensuring quality, often marginalizes indigent litigants. High travel, documentation, and legal costs associated with approaching the Supreme Court centralize justice geographically in New Delhi, distancing it from citizens in remote regions. The Law Commission’s 229th Report recognized this as a structural inequity, proposing regional benches or an intermediate appellate tier to decentralize access.

4. Procedural Delays and Inefficiency

Procedural bottlenecks — from certification under Article 134A to listing delays in SLP admissions — elongate litigation timelines. Average SLP disposal time exceeds 3 years. While e-filing and virtual hearings have mitigated some delay, systemic efficiency remains a challenge, especially in criminal appeals where convicts may remain incarcerated during pendency.

5. Judicial Overreach and Role Dilution

Frequent exercise of discretionary powers under Article 136 risks converting the Supreme Court into a “third appellate forum,” contrary to the framers’ intention. Judicial overreach into fact-finding and routine service or tenancy disputes has drawn criticism for diverting judicial energy from constitutional interpretation and policy adjudication. The Court itself has acknowledged this problem in Mathai @ Joby v. George (2010), urging self-restraint.

II. Major Reform Proposals and Institutional Innovations

1. National Court of Appeal (NCA)

The most significant reform proposal has been the establishment of a National Court of Appeal (NCA) as an intermediate appellate tier between the Supreme Court and the High Courts. The idea, first mooted in the Law Commission’s 125th Report (1988) and later revived in 2009, envisages:

Regional benches (North, South, East, West) to handle civil and criminal appeals of limited national importance;
Retention of the Supreme Court at New Delhi as a purely constitutional court under Article 131 and Articles 132–134;
Statutory filtering of SLPs to prevent routine matters from crowding the apex docket.

Although the Supreme Court in B. Venkata Reddy v. Union of India (2016) expressed reservations about the constitutional viability of such a body without amendment, the idea remains under policy discussion. Proponents argue that an NCA would reconcile accessibility with constitutional specialization.

2. Filtration Mechanisms and Pre-Screening

To manage the overwhelming volume of SLPs, several procedural innovations have been suggested and partially implemented:

Preliminary Benches or “filter benches” to screen frivolous petitions;
Statutory certification for limited categories of SLPs (similar to Articles 132–133);
Costs and penalties for vexatious litigations;
Mandatory declaration of substantial question of law in SLPs to reduce indiscriminate filings.

In K.K. Modi v. K.N. Modi (1998), the Court underscored that litigation should not become “a weapon of harassment,” advocating for deterrent costs against misuse of appellate access.

3. Technological Modernization and E-Courts

The Integrated Case Management Information System (ICMIS) and National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG) have revolutionized appellate record management. Virtual hearings, initiated during the COVID-19 pandemic, have become semi-permanent, improving accessibility for remote counsel. However, the digital divide between well-equipped urban firms and rural litigants necessitates further institutional support — including subsidized e-filing centers and vernacular digital translation facilities.

4. Rationalizing Constitution Benches

Constitution Benches, mandated under Article 145(3), are essential for doctrinal clarity but often underutilized due to bench unavailability. Reform suggestions include:

Pre-scheduling Constitution Bench sessions biannually;
Dedicated constitutional calendar to avoid delays in key rulings;
Digital publication of pending references and bench assignments to enhance transparency.

5. Encouraging ADR and Settlement at Appellate Stage

To reduce caseloads, the Court increasingly refers cases to mediation and conciliation even at the appellate level. The Supreme Court Mediation Centre (SCMC) handles select civil and family disputes. Institutionalizing ADR in appellate procedures — through pre-admission mediation windows — could substantially ease burden without compromising justice delivery.

III. Comparative Lessons from Other Jurisdictions

1. The United States Supreme Court Model

The U.S. Supreme Court exercises near-total control over its docket through the writ of certiorari. Of roughly 7,000 petitions annually, fewer than 100 are admitted. Strict procedural rules, focus on federal questions, and non-obligatory reasons for denial ensure the Court’s attention remains on systemic constitutional issues. India could adopt a similar filtration ethos — preserving Article 136 but narrowing its operational bandwidth.

2. United Kingdom’s Leave-to-Appeal Regime

The U.K. Supreme Court limits access via the “leave to appeal” requirement, confined to questions of public importance. Adopting a legislative framework mirroring this — perhaps through an amendment clarifying “public importance” under Article 136 — could reinforce judicial discipline while preserving access for exceptional cases.

3. The Australian High Court Experience

The Australian High Court’s special leave process offers a balanced model. The Court’s discretion is guided by published criteria (importance, conflict of authority, public interest). Transparent publication of admission reasons could be emulated by the Indian Supreme Court to enhance consistency and accountability in SLP decisions.

IV. Emerging Trends in Appellate Jurisprudence

1. Public Interest and Social Justice Appeals

A notable trend is the Court’s willingness to entertain SLPs in matters of social justice, environmental protection, and human rights, even where procedural barriers exist. Cases such as Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India (1984) and Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997) showcase the transformative potential of Article 136 in expanding access to justice for marginalized groups.

2. Quest for Doctrinal Consistency

The Supreme Court increasingly seeks to harmonize divergent precedents through reference benches and curative petitions. The Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra (2002) judgment introduced the curative petition mechanism to address residual errors even after review petitions, reinforcing the appellate system’s corrective ethos.

3. Judicial Restraint Reaffirmed

Recent jurisprudence reflects renewed restraint. In State of Rajasthan v. Shiv Charan (2022), the Court reiterated that Article 136 should not be treated as a “universal appellate remedy.” This signals a conscious doctrinal correction aligning the Court’s practice with its constitutional purpose.

4. Transparency and Data Accountability

The Supreme Court’s public data dashboards, open-access cause lists, and live-streaming of constitutional bench hearings mark a paradigm shift toward judicial transparency. These reforms enhance citizen engagement and trust in appellate adjudication.

V. Future Trajectory and Recommendations

The next phase of reform should aim at recalibrating the Supreme Court’s appellate mission. Key recommendations include:

Constitutional amendment to create a two-tier Supreme Court — one Constitutional Division and one Appellate Division.
Institution of National Appellate Benches to decentralize access regionally.
Codification of Article 136 criteria to standardize SLP admission practices.
Expansion of digital infrastructure to include AI-assisted cause listing and e-record synthesis.
Introduction of time-bound certification and appeal timelines under Articles 132–134A.
Annual publication of an Appellate Jurisprudence Review Report by the Supreme Court Registry for transparency.

VI. Overall Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction reflects the genius of India’s constitutional design — an open, flexible, and equitable mechanism that guarantees access to the highest judicial forum. Yet, its effectiveness depends on balance: accessibility must coexist with efficiency; discretion with discipline; and constitutional guardianship with institutional humility.

From the precise procedural architecture of Articles 132–134A to the majestic discretionary power of Article 136, the appellate system embodies India’s faith in law as a living instrument of justice. Future reforms — whether through structural redesign, procedural refinement, or technological modernization — must preserve this equilibrium.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court’s appellate power is not merely a jurisdictional feature; it is the constitutional conscience of the Republic — ensuring that justice, though delayed, is never denied.

VII. References and Suggested Readings

Constitution of India — Articles 132–136.
Basu, D.D. — Shorter Constitution of India (LexisNexis, 2023).
M.P. Jain — Indian Constitutional Law (7th Ed., 2021).
Law Commission of India Reports — Nos. 125, 229, 245, and 272.
Supreme Court Rules, 2013.
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) 4 SCC 225.
Pritam Singh v. State (1950) SCR 453.
Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala (2000) 6 SCC 359.
L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997) 3 SCC 261.
Union Carbide Corp. v. Union of India (1989) 1 SCC 674.
Mathai @ Joby v. George (2010) 4 SCC 358.

Landmark Judgments on the Appellate Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of India (Articles 132–134A & 136)

The following case summaries cover the evolution of the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction under the Constitution of India — Articles 132 to 136. Each judgment contributed to defining the limits, scope, and doctrinal philosophy of appellate powers in India’s constitutional scheme.

I. Article 132 — Appeals in Constitutional Matters

1. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) 4 SCC 225

Bench: 13 Judges (C.J. S.M. Sikri & others)
Facts: Challenge to constitutional amendments curtailing property rights and testing Parliament’s amending power.
Issue: Whether Parliament can alter the basic structure of the Constitution under Article 368.
Held: Amending power is wide but cannot destroy the basic structure.
Significance: Appeal under Article 132 raised substantial constitutional questions; affirmed Supreme Court’s supremacy in interpretation.

2. L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997) 3 SCC 261

Bench: 7 Judges (C.J. A.M. Ahmadi & others)
Facts: Validity of provisions excluding High Court jurisdiction over tribunal decisions.
Issue: Can tribunals replace High Courts for judicial review?
Held: No. Judicial review under Articles 226/227 and 32 is part of the Constitution’s basic structure.
Significance: Reaffirmed the Supreme Court’s appellate supremacy under Articles 132 & 136.

3. State of Bihar v. Madan Mohan Singh (1954) SCR 541

Bench: 5 Judges (C.J. M. Patanjali Sastri & others)
Facts: High Court reversed an acquittal and imposed death penalty.
Held: Appeal lies as of right under Article 134(1)(a); right to appeal strictly construed.
Significance: Distinguished between appeals as of right and discretionary appeals.

II. Article 133 — Appeals in Civil Matters

4. Sir Chunilal Mehta & Sons Ltd. v. Century Spinning & Mfg. Co. Ltd. (1962) Supp 3 SCR 549

Bench: 5 Judges (Justice S.K. Das & others)
Issue: What is a “substantial question of law of general importance” under Article 133?
Held: One that directly affects rights or has public importance requiring SC determination.
Significance: Defined the benchmark for certification under Articles 132 & 133.

5. Union of India v. Raghubir Singh (1989) 2 SCC 754

Bench: 5 Judges (Justice R.S. Pathak C.J. & others)
Held: Doctrine of stare decisis ensures consistency; only larger benches can overrule prior precedent.
Significance: Reinforced doctrinal continuity in appellate jurisprudence.

6. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ram Naresh Lal (1970) 1 SCC 173

Held: Certificate of fitness alone insufficient; must specify substantial question of law.
Significance: Strengthened procedural integrity of Article 134A certification process.

III. Article 134 — Appeals in Criminal Matters

7. State of Bombay v. Atma Ram Shridhar Vaidya (1951) SCR 167

Held: Appeal as of right in death sentence cases under Article 134(1)(a).
Significance: Affirmed humanitarian oversight in capital cases.

8. State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar (1952) SCR 284

Issue: Whether Special Courts Act violated Article 14.
Held: Unconstitutional for violating equality before law.
Significance: Article 132 appeal that reinforced equality and procedural fairness.

9. K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra (1962) SCR Supl. (1) 567

Bench: 5 Judges (C.J. B.P. Sinha & others)
Facts: Naval officer convicted of murder; public interest case.
Held: Upheld conviction; clarified appellate scope in criminal matters.
Significance: Balanced executive clemency with judicial finality.

IV. Article 134A — Certification Procedure

10. Union of India v. Mohindra Supply Co. (1962) Supp 3 SCR 497

Held: High Courts must immediately determine certification after judgment; delay violates Article 134A.
Significance: Ensured timely access to Supreme Court through prompt certification.

V. Article 136 — Special Leave to Appeal (SLP)

11. Pritam Singh v. State (1950) SCR 453

Held: Discretion under Article 136 must be exercised sparingly and only for grave injustice.
Significance: First authoritative interpretation of Article 136.

12. Durga Shankar Mehta v. Raghuraj Singh (1954) SCR 267

Held: Election Tribunals qualify as “tribunals” under Article 136.
Significance: Expanded SLP to quasi-judicial bodies.

13. Bharat Bank Ltd. v. Employees (1950) SCR 459

Held: Industrial Tribunals are “tribunals” within Article 136.
Significance: Extended appellate control to labour adjudication.

14. Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala (2000) 6 SCC 359

Held: Dismissal of SLP without reason does not affirm lower court’s decision.
Significance: Clarified doctrine of merger and res judicata for SLPs.

15. Subal Paul v. Malina Paul (2003) 10 SCC 361

Held: SLP cannot substitute statutory appellate remedies.
Significance: Introduced exhaustion of remedies principle.

16. State of Maharashtra v. Jagmohan Singh Kuldip Singh Anand (2004) 7 SCC 659

Held: Dismissal after leave granted has binding precedent; dismissal in limine does not.
Significance: Clarified precedential hierarchy in SLP orders.

17. Mathai @ Joby v. George (2010) 4 SCC 358

Held: Article 136 not meant for trivial matters; used only for substantial injustice.
Significance: Reaffirmed judicial restraint in SLPs.

18. Union Carbide Corp. v. Union of India (1989) 1 SCC 674 — Bhopal Gas Case

Held: Court invoked Article 136 & 142 to ensure full justice and compensation for victims.
Significance: Showcased social justice role of appellate jurisdiction.

19. Bhopal Gas Peedith Mahila Udyog Sangathan v. Union of India (2012) 8 SCC 326

Held: Supreme Court retains continuing jurisdiction to supervise compliance with settlements.
Significance: Extended appellate oversight for post-judgment justice.

VI. Summary Table of Key Doctrines

Article	Key Legal Principle	Leading Cases
Article 132	Appeals in constitutional matters — substantial question of constitutional law.	Kesavananda Bharati, L. Chandra Kumar
Article 133	Substantial question of law of general importance required for civil appeals.	Sir Chunilal Mehta, Raghubir Singh
Article 134	Right of appeal in death sentence and fit cases certified by High Court.	Atma Ram Vaidya, Madan Mohan Singh, Nanavati
Article 134A	High Court must immediately decide certification after judgment.	Mohindra Supply Co.
Article 136	Discretionary appellate power — exercised to prevent miscarriage of justice.	Pritam Singh, Kunhayammed, Subal Paul, Union Carbide

Conclusion

The appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of India serves as a vital pillar of the nation’s justice system. Through Articles 132 to 134A, the Court ensures a structured appellate framework for constitutional, civil, and criminal matters. Meanwhile, Article 136 empowers the Court with extraordinary discretion to intervene where injustice or legal error would otherwise persist. Together, these provisions reinforce the Supreme Court’s role as the final interpreter of law, the protector of constitutional rights, and the ultimate guarantor of justice in India’s democratic framework. SAMPLE DRAFT

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

(CIVIL / CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (SLP) UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

[Civil SLP No. _____ / 2025]

IN THE MATTER OF:
ABC Pvt. Ltd. …Petitioner
Versus
XYZ Corporation & Ors. …Respondents

TO, THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA AND HIS COMPANION JUSTICES OF THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

The humble petition of the Petitioner above named:

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

Jurisdiction: The Petitioner humbly invokes the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India against the impugned judgment and order dated [DD/MM/YYYY] passed by the Hon’ble High Court of [State] in [Case No.].
Facts of the Case:
- The Petitioner filed a [Civil Suit / Writ Petition / Criminal Appeal] before the Hon’ble High Court seeking [relief].
- By the impugned judgment, the Hon’ble High Court erroneously [dismissed the appeal / reversed the findings / denied relief], resulting in grave miscarriage of justice.
Questions of Law: The following substantial questions of law arise for consideration by this Hon’ble Court:
1. Whether the Hon’ble High Court erred in law in interpreting Section ___ of the [Act] contrary to settled precedent?
2. Whether failure to consider material evidence constitutes violation of principles of natural justice?
3. Whether the impugned order results in grave injustice warranting interference under Article 136?
Grounds: The Petitioner submits the following, among other, grounds for the consideration of this Hon’ble Court:
1. Because the Hon’ble High Court failed to appreciate that the findings recorded are perverse, unsupported by evidence, and contrary to record.
2. Because the impugned judgment disregards binding precedents of this Hon’ble Court, resulting in miscarriage of justice.
3. Because the interpretation adopted defeats the object and purpose of the statute.
4. Because grave and substantial injustice has been caused to the Petitioner, warranting intervention by this Hon’ble Court.
Interim Relief: Pending hearing and disposal of this petition, the Petitioner prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:
- Stay the operation of the impugned judgment and order dated [DD/MM/YYYY] passed by the Hon’ble High Court in [Case No.]; and/or
- Grant any other interim relief deemed fit in the interest of justice.
Prayer: The Petitioner, therefore, most respectfully prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:
1. Grant special leave to appeal against the impugned judgment and order dated [DD/MM/YYYY] passed by the Hon’ble High Court of [State] in [Case No.];
2. Pass such other order(s) as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE PETITIONER AS IN DUTY BOUND SHALL EVER PRAY.

DRAWN & FILED BY:
Adv. Tarun Choudhury
Advocate-on-Record / Supreme Court of India
Email: [your email] | Contact: +91 96504 99965

Place: New Delhi
Date: [DD/MM/YYYY]

Comprehensive FAQ — Appellate Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of India

This extended FAQ expands on the main FAQ and provides practical checklists, sample grounds, procedural tips, and deeper doctrinal answers related to Articles 132–134A and 136.

Core Doctrinal Questions

Q1. What is the legal difference between an “appeal as of right” and an “appeal by special leave”?

Answer: Appeals as of right (Articles 132–134) arise where the Constitution (or statute) prescribes a route and the High Court has issued a certificate (where required). An SLP (Article 136) is discretionary — the Supreme Court decides whether to grant leave; it is not a matter of right.

Q2. Can Article 136 be used to challenge interlocutory orders?

Answer: Yes — Article 136 extends to interlocutory and interim orders of any court or tribunal, but the Court will grant leave for interlocutory matters only if they cause irreparable injury, raise substantial questions of law, or the interim order is patently illegal.

Q3. Does dismissal of an SLP create precedent?

Answer: No — a dismissal of an SLP in limine (without grant of leave) does not amount to an affirmation of the lower court’s reasoning and does not operate as binding precedent. However, a dismissal after leave granted (i.e., on merits) does have precedential effect and may merge the lower court order.

Q4. Are tribunal orders excluded from Article 136?

Answer: No — tribunals are explicitly included. Article 136 applies to judgments, decrees and orders of any “court or tribunal” in India, except specified military tribunals.

Procedure, Filing, and Practicalities

Q5. Exact documents required when filing an SLP (practical checklist)?

Checklist:

Petition (SLP) drafted under Order XXI rules (Supreme Court Rules, 2013).
Certified copy of impugned judgment/order (and connected High Court record).
Affidavit verifying facts and service on respondents.
Vakalatnama or power of attorney.
Index and paper-book (chronological bundle).
List of dates, list of authorities (case law), and succinct grounds for leave.
Proof of payment of court fee and any additional annexures (medical records, FIR, etc.).

Q6. How to draft effective grounds in an SLP?

Tips: State (briefly) the nature of the error — (a) grave miscarriage of justice, (b) perverse finding of fact, (c) violation of natural justice, (d) question of law of public importance, (e) conflict of High Court decisions. Use numbered, concise grounds and attach a one-page “case at a glance”. Avoid long narrative; courts prefer crisp legal points at the admission stage.

Q7. What is the sample timeline from filing SLP → admission → final hearing?

Typical stages: Filing → Registry scrutiny (days–weeks) → Listing for admission hearing (weeks–months depending on cause list) → Admission decision (summary dismissal or grant of leave) → After leave: preparation of appeal (paper-books), fixation for final hearing (months–years depending on bench). Timelines are variable; urgent matters may be expedited on an appropriate application.

Q8. Can delay in filing be condoned in SLPs?

Answer: Yes — the Court may condone delay if sufficient cause is shown. Provide documentary reasons (health, flood, non-receipt of certified copy). However, delay condonation is discretionary and requires persuasive proof.

Q9. Costs and security: are there cost orders for frivolous SLPs?

Answer: Yes. The Supreme Court often imposes costs for frivolous or vexatious petitions. In repeated abuse cases, higher costs or security for costs may be imposed. Costs act as a deterrent but are modest relative to litigation expenses.

Advanced Doctrinal and Nuance Questions

Q10. Can Art. 136 be used when an exclusive statutory appeal exists?

Answer: Generally no — the Court expects exhaustion of statutory remedies first (see Subal Paul). Exceptional cases involving grave illegality or constitutional questions may justify bypassing, but the bar is high.

Q11. How does appellate interference on findings of fact work?

Answer: The Supreme Court normally will not disturb concurrent findings of fact unless they are perverse (no evidence), based on an illegal approach, or the record shows manifest errors. The test is strict: “perversity” or “no evidence” standard.

Q12. What is the interplay between Article 136 and Article 141 (binding precedent)?

Answer: Article 141 makes Supreme Court decisions binding on all courts. SLPs contribute to Article 141 jurisprudence: where SC decides on a point (after leave), that decision becomes binding. Dismissals without reasons do not create binding precedent, but repeated dismissals on similar grounds can signal practical guidance.

Q13. Can High Courts’ denial of a certificate under Art. 134A be challenged?

Answer: Not by ordinary appeal — but an SLP under Article 136 is permissible. The denial is not per se a bar to SC jurisdiction if the case falls within Article 136’s ambit.

Q14. What is the “perverse finding” standard — how to show it?

Answer: Demonstrate (with record citations) that no reasonable tribunal could have reached the finding — evidence contradicts judgment, material was ignored, or reasoning is incoherent. Highlight inconsistencies, lack of primary evidence, or breach of evidentiary rules.

Remedies, Reliefs and Post-judgment Issues

Q15. What remedies can SC grant on appeal (after leave granted)?

Answer: Quash/modify judgment, remit matter to lower court for fresh trial, grant injunctions, award compensation (using Article 142 for complete justice), issue declaratory reliefs, or frame consequential directions to public authorities.

Q16. Does the Supreme Court have power to supervise enforcement of its orders?

Answer: Yes — via continuing jurisdiction under Article 142 and through contempt jurisdiction. The Court can monitor compliance and pass supervisory directions in public interest cases (e.g., Bhopal cases).

Q17. Can interim relief be obtained in SLPs?

Answer: Yes. Applicants may move for interim stay, injunction, or bail depending on the subject-matter. Courts assess balance of convenience, prima facie case, and irreparable harm.

Q18. What happens if the Supreme Court remits a case?

Answer: The lower court proceeds as directed (fresh trial or further fact finding). The appellate order may specify scope and timeline; the Supreme Court may retain supervisory jurisdiction to ensure compliance.

SLP vs Review vs Curative Petitions

Q19. When should one file a review petition vs a curative petition?

Answer: Review petitions are for correcting errors apparent on the face of the record following a Supreme Court judgment. Curative petitions are extraordinary — allowed when review is inadequate, and there is genuine miscarriage of justice (very limited grounds and high threshold). Curative petitions require showing abuse of process or violation of principles of natural justice.

Q20. Can curative petitions be filed after dismissal of an SLP?

Answer: Curative petitions apply after dismissal of review petitions post final judgment. Where SLP was dismissed in limine, the curative route is extremely narrow and rarely applicable; focus instead on fresh SLPs if a new cause of action arises.

Tribunals, Ouster Clauses & Specialized Appeals

Q21. How do ouster clauses in statutes affect Article 136?

Answer: Ouster clauses cannot oust the Supreme Court’s constitutional jurisdiction entirely. The Court has held that statutory attempts to remove judicial review or appellate access are subject to constitutional review. However, where an exclusive statutory appellate route exists and is adequate, the Court expects exhaustion of such remedies first.

Q22. Are arbitration awards appealable to the Supreme Court?

Answer: Final arbitral awards typically have statutory challenge mechanisms (under the Arbitration & Conciliation Act). Article 136 may be invoked in exceptional cases — e.g., manifest illegality or fundamental procedural unfairness — but SLP cannot be used to routinely re-open commercial fact-finding.

Q23. Can administrative orders (e.g., tax assessments) be SLP-ed?

Answer: Yes. However, if a statutory appellate hierarchy exists (e.g., Income Tax Appellate Tribunal → High Court → SC), the Court expects first use of statutory appeals, unless extraordinary injustice or constitutional issues are present.

Common Pitfalls and How to Avoid Them

Q24. What are the common drafting mistakes in SLPs?

Answer: (a) Long, diffuse narratives instead of crisp legal grounds; (b) failing to highlight errors in lower courts; (c) lack of proper indexing/paper-book; (d) missing certified copies or proper vakalatnama; (e) failing to show why statutory remedies are inadequate.

Q25. How to avoid summary dismissal at admission stage?

Answer: Submit a focused petition (max 10–12 pages at admission), concise grounds, key record citations, a one-page statement of the question of law and why it is of general/public importance, and any urgent reliefs required. Make the “case for leave” obvious on the face of the petition.

Q26. Is oral hearing required at admission stage?

Answer: Not always. Many SLPs are disposed of on the papers after a preliminary review. If the case raises clear substantial legal questions, the Court will list it for oral admission hearing.

Strategy, Case Management & Litigation Tips

Q27. When is it strategically sensible to file an SLP rather than pursue statutory routes?

Answer: Only when statutory routes are ineffective, unduly delayed, or cannot provide adequate remedy (e.g., when constitutional issues arise). If the issue is purely factual, statutory appeal is preferable.

Q28. How to present conflict of High Courts as a ground?

Answer: Cite conflicting decisions, give short excerpts of each case, demonstrate inconsistency, and explain why the conflict matters for national uniformity. Point to resulting uncertainty or injustice.

Q29. Role of Amicus Curiae at admission stage — how to request one?

Answer: The Registry or Court can appoint an amicus where larger public or constitutional questions are present. Request in the petition or file an application; demonstrate complexity or public interest to encourage the Court to appoint an expert amicus.

Templates, Sample Grounds & Model Language

Q30. Sample admission-stage grounds (brief model)

1. That the impugned judgment (dated ___) suffers from a manifest error of law resulting in grave miscarriage of justice because it misconstrued statutory section ___ by reading into it an interpretation for which there is no foundation in the text or earlier precedent.
2. That the lower court’s finding on fact is perverse and unsupported by evidence — (see record pages __–__).
3. That there exists a conflict of decisions between High Court A (____) and High Court B (____) on the same question of law, causing nationwide uncertainty.
4. That the matter involves a substantial question of law of general/public importance which merits authoritative pronouncement by the Supreme Court.

Q31. Sample checklist before filing SLP (one-page)

Confirm exhaustion of statutory remedies (if any).
Obtain certified copy of the impugned order.
Assemble paper-book and index (chronological).
Draft concise grounds (max 10–12 pages for admission).
Attach affidavit, vakalatnama, and fee receipt.
File on e-platform or registry and note diary number.
Prepare urgent application for interim relief if needed.

Comparative & Policy Questions

Q32. Why has Article 136 been more heavily used in India than comparable powers elsewhere?

Answer: Several reasons: (a) broad constitutional wording; (b) historically limited access to intermediate appellate institutions; (c) socio-legal expectations for the apex court to correct injustice; (d) lack of a national intermediate appellate tier. The consequence is docket pressure and calls for reform.

Q33. Would creating a National Court of Appeal remove the need for Article 136?

Answer: Not entirely. Article 136 is constitutional and provides a final safety valve; a National Court of Appeal could reduce routine SLPs but cannot eliminate exceptional need for Supreme Court oversight in constitutional crises or matters of national importance.

Enforcement, Execution & Post-Decision Issues

Q34. Can a party get execution stayed automatically on filing SLP?

Answer: No. Stay of execution is discretionary. Apply for stay with supporting reasons (irreparable harm, balance of convenience). In some statutory schemes, specific deposit or security may be required to seek stay.

Q35. How are costs assessed in SLPs and subsequent appeals?

Answer: Costs are in the Court’s discretion — for frivolous petitions the Court may award substantial costs; for successful appellants, costs may be modest or nil. Consider the costs-risk when deciding to file SLPs.

Data, Research & Empirical Questions

Q36. Where can one find statistics on SLP filings and disposals?

Answer: Supreme Court Registry annual reports, National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG), Law Commission reports, and academic empirical studies. (Note: for latest figures, refer to official SC dashboards or Registry publications.)

Q37. Are there recommended empirical metrics for reform evaluation?

Answer: Yes. Examples: SLP filing rate per year, admission rate (% of SLPs granted leave), average time to admission, average time from admission to final hearing, disposal rates by bench-size, percentage of SLPs disposed without reasons, backlog reduction year-on-year.

⚖️ Need Expert Assistance in the Supreme Court of India?

Get professional drafting, filing, and representation from a seasoned Supreme Court practitioner with over two decades of experience in constitutional and appellate matters.

About the Author

Adv. Tarun Choudhury, a seasoned Supreme Court of India practitioner with over 25 years of experience, specializes in Special Leave Petitions (SLP) and constitutional litigation. He has successfully represented numerous clients in matters involving Article 131 original jurisdiction disputes, writ petitions under Article 32, and appeals under Article 136. His advocacy is grounded in deep constitutional insight, meticulous drafting, and strategic presentation—delivering effective, result-oriented outcomes.

🧾 Complete Representation

End-to-end legal support before the Supreme Court — drafting, filing, appearance, and arguments in SLP, writs, and original suits.

✍️ Drafting Assistance

Professionally drafted petitions, counter-affidavits, rejoinders, and written submissions for individuals wishing to argue in person before the Supreme Court.

📁 Filing Support for Outstation Advocates

Seamless Filing, Diary Number generation, and scrutiny compliance for advocates across India planning to appear personally before the Supreme Court.

Why Choose Adv. Tarun Choudhury?

25+ years of Supreme Court litigation and appellate experience.
In-depth expertise in Articles 131, 132–136 matters and SLP jurisprudence.
Transparent fee structure and professional ethics.
Quick turnaround — filings usually completed within statutory timelines.
Assistance available both online and in-person during working hours.

📞 Need Expert Supreme Court Assistance?

Whether you require professional drafting, filing, or full representation before the Supreme Court, Adv. Tarun Choudhury offers reliable, transparent, and result-driven solutions. 💬 Connect Instantly on WhatsApp

Available for consultations and case discussions during working hours.

Client Endorsements:

“Adv. Tarun Choudhury’s drafting precision and strategic clarity ensured our SLP was admitted on first listing. His professionalism is unmatched.” — Senior Advocate, Calcutta High Court

“As an outstation lawyer, his filing support service was invaluable. Seamless coordination with the Registry and prompt updates throughout.” — Adv. A. Sharma, Mumbai

📲 Schedule a Consultation Now

Direct WhatsApp: +91 96504 99965

Disclaimer: This page is intended for informational and professional engagement purposes. It does not constitute legal advertising under the Advocates Act, 1961 or BCI Rules. Consultations are subject to professional availability.

What's Hot

Appellate Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of India — Constitutional, Procedural, and Doctrinal Dimensions