Article 136 of Constitution of India

Article 136 of Indian Constitution bestows upon the Supreme Court discretionary powers to grant special leave to appeal against judgements, decrees, determinations, sentences, or orders passed by any court or tribunal in India. This provision serves as an extraordinary remedy to address exceptional cases involving significant legal questions or miscarriages of justice. Article 136 stands as a testament to the judiciary’s role in ensuring justice and maintaining the integrity of the legal system.

Text of Article 136 of the Constitution of India

Clause (1): Notwithstanding anything in this Chapter, the Supreme Court may, in its discretion, grant special leave to appeal from any judgement, decree, determination, sentence, or order in any cause or matter passed or made by any court or tribunal in the territory of India.

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

Key Features of Article 136

• Discretionary Power: Article 136 empowers the Supreme Court to exercise its discretion in granting special leave to appeal. This power is not a matter of right but a privilege, ensuring that only cases of exceptional importance reach the apex court.
• Broad Applicability: It applies to judgements, orders, or decrees passed by courts or tribunals in the Indian territory, including quasi-judicial authorities. Article 136 extends to both final and interlocutory orders, encompassing a wide range of judicial and quasi-judicial decisions.
• Exclusion for Armed Forces: The provision explicitly excludes decisions made by courts or tribunals constituted under laws relating to the Armed Forces. This exception upholds the specialised nature of military justice.
• Exceptional Remedy: The Supreme Court uses this power only in cases of exceptional circumstances, such as questions of law of general public importance or gross miscarriages of justice.

Applicability of Article 136 of the Constitution of India

Civil Cases

The scope of Article 136 is particularly expansive in civil cases. The procedural framework is detailed in Order XXI of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013. Key aspects include:

• Requirements for Filing: A special leave petition (SLP) must include a certified copy of the judgement being appealed, a declaration by the petitioner that no other petition exists, and an affidavit affirming the accuracy of presented facts. Documents not part of the lower court’s records may be introduced with valid reasons for their absence earlier.
• Submission Protocols: Form No. 28 is required for filing SLPs. The petition must include an English translation of referenced statutes or provisions if necessary.

Criminal Cases

In criminal cases, the Supreme Court exercises its power under Article 136 with caution. The principles governing its application were elaborated in cases like Ganga Kumar Srivastava v. State of Bihar (2005) and Dalbir Kaur v. State of Punjab (1976). Key points include:

• Limited Interference:  The Supreme Court refrains from interfering with factual findings unless there are significant legal or procedural errors.
• Proof of Surrender: If the petitioner is under imprisonment, proof of surrender must accompany the SLP.
• Access for Jail Inmates: Jail inmates without representation can file SLPs through the jail officer, ensuring access to justice for the underprivileged.

Role of the Supreme Court

Stages of Exercise

• Granting Special Leave: The Supreme Court initially determines whether the case merits granting special leave to appeal. This involves assessing the presence of exceptional circumstances or legal questions of significance.
• Appellate Jurisdiction: Once special leave is granted, the case transitions into the appellate stage, where the Supreme Court reviews the merits of the case. The apex court may reverse, modify, or affirm the lower court’s decision.

Grounds for Refusal or Acceptance of Special Leave Petition

The court may reject an SLP with a speaking order (providing reasons) or a non-speaking order (without reasons). The decision to grant or refuse an SLP hinges on the importance of the legal question involved and the necessity to prevent injustice.

Revocation of Granted Leave

The Supreme Court can revoke granted leave if the petitioner’s facts are found misleading, as in Rajabhai Abdul Rehman Munshi v. Vasudev Dhanjlbhai Mody (1963).

Landmark Judgements Related With Article 136 of the Constitution of India

Pritam Singh v. The State (1950)

Pritam Singh v. The State case established that the Supreme Court should intervene under Article 136 only in exceptional circumstances. It underscored the necessity of maintaining a uniform standard in granting special leave to appeal, ensuring it is not misused as a routine remedy.

Smt. Tej Kumari v. CIT (2000)

The Supreme Court held in Smt. Tej Kumari v. CIT that the dismissal of a Special Leave Petition (SLP) does not imply the correctness of the lower court’s decision. It further clarified that the doctrine of merger, where a higher court’s decision merges with that of a lower court, does not apply to dismissed SLPs.

N. Suriyakala v. A. Mohandoss (2007)

In N. Suriyakala v. A. Mohandoss, the Supreme Court stated that Article 136 is not a regular appellate forum but an extraordinary provision designed to meet the demands of justice. The judgement highlighted the discretionary nature of this power, emphasising its use only in rare and exceptional cases.

Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar (2022)

Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar judgement outlined principles for intervention in acquittal orders under Article 136. The Supreme Court noted that intervention is warranted when the High Court’s reasoning is perverse or speculative or when acquittals lead to significant miscarriages of justice due to improper evaluation of evidence.

Jamshed Hormusji Wadia v. Board of Trustees, Port of Mumbai (2005)

The court in Jamshed Hormusji Wadia v. Board of Trustees, Port of Mumbai reaffirmed that the discretionary powers under Article 136 are reserved for exceptional cases involving questions of public importance or gross miscarriages of justice. It reiterated that the provision is not intended for routine appeals.

Principles Governing Article 136 of the Constitution of India

• The Supreme Court’s intervention is warranted only in cases of perverse reasoning, significant legal errors, or gross miscarriages of justice.
• The discretionary power is not a right of appeal but an extraordinary privilege.
• The scope of Article 136 is wide, encompassing a variety of judicial and quasi-judicial decisions, but its application is judicious and restrained.

Practical Implementation

• Time Limit for Filing: An SLP must be filed within 90 days of the judgement or 60 days in case of refusal of a fitness certificate by the High Court. Delayed filings may be accepted with valid reasons.
• Essential Requirements:
  • Signed by an Advocate on Record (AoR).
  • Certified copies of judgements and affidavits affirming the facts.
• Tribunal Scope: Tribunals exercising judicial powers are included under Article 136, provided they meet judicial standards like evidence evaluation and witness examination.

Conclusion

Article 136 of the Constitution of India plays a pivotal role in the judicial framework, acting as a safeguard against legal errors and miscarriages of justice. Its discretionary nature ensures that only significant cases reach the Supreme Court, preserving judicial efficiency while maintaining fairness.

The provision’s wide applicability to civil and criminal cases underscores its importance, but the judiciary’s restrained use ensures that it remains an exceptional remedy rather than a routine mechanism. Landmark judgements have shaped its interpretation, emphasising its role in addressing questions of public importance and safeguarding justice. As a cornerstone of the Indian legal system, Article 136 continues to uphold the principles of fairness, accountability, and judicial integrity.