ABSTRACT

Special leave means special permission to be granted by the Supreme Court to hear an appeal
of any part of the court which includes tribunals, Quasi-judicial Authority and Subordinate
courts. Article 136 of the Indian Constitution empowers the Supreme Court to grant in its
discretion Special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or
order in any cause or matter passed or made by any court, Judicial Authority or even any
Quasi-Judicial Authority in the territory of India under it in suitable cases the Supreme Court
can even disregard the limitations contained in Article 132 to Article 134 on its applicable
jurisdiction and hear appeals which it could not otherwise hear under those provisions.

The article vests very wide powers in Supreme Court. The power given under this article is in
the nature of a special residuary power which is exercisable outside the purview of ordinary
law. Article 132 to 135 deal with ordinary appeals to the Supreme Court in cases where the
needs of justice demand interference by the highest court of this land. This article is worded
in the widest possible terms. It vests in the Supreme Court a plenary jurisdiction in the matter
of entertaining and hearing appeals by granting special leave against any kind of judgment or
order made by any court or tribunal (except a military tribunal) in any proceedings and the
exercise of this power is left entirely to the discretion of the court unfettered by any
restrictions and this power cannot be curtailed by any legislation short of amending the article
itself.

Article 136 confers a special jurisdiction on the Supreme Court. It opens with a non obstante
clause viz ‘Notwithstanding anything in this chapter’ this means that the power of the
supreme court under Art. 136 is unaffected by Art. 132, 133, 134 and 134A.

In Kunhayammed V. State of Orissa1 the Supreme Court Characterized its power under Art.
136 as “an untrammeled reservoir of power incapable of being confined to definitional
bounds; the discretion conferred on the Supreme court being subjected to only one limitation,
that is the wisdom and good sense of justice of the Judges”

1
AIR 2000 SC 2587, 2593 : 2000 6 SCC 359
Special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court.

(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 territory of
India.
(2) Nothing in the 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.

Art 132 – 135 of the constitution deal with appeals of the Supreme Court which a person may
avail of as a matter of right so long as the conditions specified in those articles are satisfied.
Under Art 136, one may appeal to the court only with its permission or leave.

Compared with provisions of the Article 132, 133 and 134, the jurisdiction conferred under
Art 136 has the following distinguishing features:

1. The power to grant special leave is not confined to judgments, decrees or final orders
of the High Courts. It can be granted even against the decisions of the lower courts
such as magistrates2.
2. Appeals shall lie from orders or determinations of all courts or tribunals in the
territory of India, except those mentioned in clause (2).
3. There is no condition that the order of the court should be final order. Hence, appeals
against interlocutory orders are permissible. But normally, an appellant is expected to
exhaust the others remedies provided in law.
4. An appeal shall lie from any order or determination of a court or tribunal. The
determination need not be final.
5. The order or determination of a court may be in any cause or matter, civil criminal or
otherwise.
6. No law making any determination of any court or tribunal final can limit the
jurisdiction of the court in Art 1363

2
See e.g., Rajendrakumar jain v. State.
3
Pritam Singh V. State, AIR 1950 SC 169
“By virtue of this article we can grant Special leave in civil cases, in criminal cases, in
income tax cases, in cases which come up before different kinds of tribunals, and variety of
other cases.”4 The only conditions are: 1) the determination or order sought to be appealed
from must have the character of a judicial adjudication. Purely administrative or executive
direction is not contemplated to be made the subject matter of appeal of the Supreme Court. 5
2) The authority whose act is complained against must be a court or tribunal. Unless both the
conditions are satisfied, Art 136 clause (1) cannot be invoked.6

4
See E.g., Dhakeswari cotton mills Ltd V. CIT AIR 1955 SC 65
5
Jaswant sugar mills Ltd V. Lakshmi Chand, AIR 1963 Supp (1) SCR 242
6
Engg. Mozdoor Sabha V. Hind cycles Ltd., AIR 1963 SC 874
Table of contents

1. Introduction
2. Appeals by Special leave
3. Exercise of discretion
4. Scope of Article 136
5. Ground for SLP
6. Appeal in Constitutional/Civil cases
7. Appeal in Criminal Matters
8. Tribunals
9. Dismissal Of Appeal
10.Conclusion

Introduction:
Special leave means special permission to be granted by the Supreme Court to hear an appeal
of any part of the court which includes tribunals, Quasi-judicial Authority and Subordinate
courts. Article 136 of the Indian Constitution empowers the Supreme Court to grant in its
discretion Special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or
order in any cause or matter passed or made by any court, Judicial Authority or even any
Quasi-Judicial Authority in the territory of India under it in suitable cases the Supreme Court
can even disregard the limitations contained in Article 132 to Article 134 on its applicable
jurisdiction and hear appeals which it could not otherwise hear under those provisions.

The article vests very wide powers in Supreme Court. The power given under this article is in
the nature of a special residuary power which is exercisable outside the purview of ordinary
law. Article 132 to 135 deal with ordinary appeals to the Supreme Court in cases where the
needs of justice demand interference by the highest court of this land. This article is worded
in the widest possible terms. It vests in the Supreme Court a plenary jurisdiction in the matter
of entertaining and hearing appeals by granting special leave against any kind of judgment or
order made by any court or tribunal (except a military tribunal) in any proceedings and the
exercise of this power is left entirely to the discretion of the court unfettered by any
restrictions and this power cannot be curtailed by any legislation short of amending the article
itself.

Article 136 confers a special jurisdiction on the Supreme Court. It opens with a non obstante
clause viz ‘Notwithstanding anything in this chapter’ this means that the power of the
supreme court under Art. 136 is unaffected by Art. 132, 133, 134 and 134A.

In Kunhayammed V. State of Orissa7 the Supreme Court Characterized its power under Art.
136 as “an untrammelled reservoir of power incapable of being confined to definitional
bounds; the discretion conferred on the Supreme court being subjected to only one limitation,
that is the wisdom and good sense of justice of the Judges”

Special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court.

(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
7
AIR 2000 SC 2587, 2593 : 2000 6 SCC 359
 order in any cause or matter passed or made by any court or tribunal in territory of
India.
(2) Nothing in the 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.

Appeals by Special leave:

Art 132 – 135 of the constitution deal with appeals of the Supreme Court which a person may
avail of as a matter of right so long as the conditions specified in those articles are satisfied.
Under Art 136, one may appeal to the court only with its permission or leave. But the power
of the court to hear the appeals in this article is much wider and general. It vests in the
Supreme Court plenary jurisdiction in the matter of entertaining and hearing appeals by
granting special leave against any judgment, decree, determination or order, in any cause or
matter, passed oe made by any court or tribunal.

Compared with provisions of the Article 132, 133 and 134, the jurisdiction conferred under
Art 136 has the following distinguishing features:

1. The power to grant special leave is not confined to judgments, decrees or final orders
of the High Courts. It can be granted even against the decisions of the lower courts
such as magistrates8.
2. Appeals shall lie from orders or determinations of all courts or tribunals in the
territory of India, except those mentioned in clause (2).
3. There is no condition that the order of the court should be final order. Hence, appeals
against interlocutory orders are permissible. But normally, an appellant is expected to
exhaust the others remedies provided in law.
4. An appeal shall lie from any order or determination of a court or tribunal. The
determination need not be final.
5. The order or determination of a court may be in any cause or matter, civil criminal or
otherwise.

8
See e.g., Rajendrakumar jain v. State.
 6. No law making any determination of any court or tribunal final can limit the
jurisdiction of the court in Art 1369

“By virtue of this article we can grant Special leave in civil cases, in criminal cases, in
income tax cases, in cases which come up before different kinds of tribunals, and variety of
other cases.”10 The only conditions are: 1) the determination or order sought to be appealed
from must have the character of a judicial adjudication. Purely administrative or executive
direction is not contemplated to be made the subject matter of appeal of the Supreme Court. 11
2) The authority whose act is complained against must be a court or tribunal. Unless both the
conditions are satisfied, Art 136 clause (1) cannot be invoked.12

Exercise of Discretion.
Art 136, as shown above, is worded in the widest possible terms. It confers a wide discretion
on the Supreme Court to entertain appeals in suitable cases not otherwise provided for in the
constitution. It is in the nature of residuary or reserve power 13 and , therefore, it cannot be
defined exhaustively. Decided cases, however, establish that the Supreme court will grant
special leave to appeal in exceptional cases – cases where grave injustice has been done by
disregard to the forms of the legal process, or violation of the principles of natural justice, or
otherwise. The discretionary nature of the power continues until the disposal of the appeal.14

In express terms, Article 136 does not confer a right of appeal on a party as such, but it
confers a wide discretionary power on the supreme court to grant special leave to appeal in
Suitable cases. Though it is residuary power and extraordinary power in its terms, it shall be
exercised by the Supreme Court in accordance with the well-established judicial principles,
or the well-known norms of procedure which have been recognized for long as precedents.
Thus, while considering a petition under Art 136, it is reasonable to assume that the norms of
fair procedure implied in Art 21 are adequately met and procedure followed in disposing of a
petition under Article 136 is Consistent with the procedure contemplated in Art 21.15

It is true that the strictest vigilance over abuse of the process of the court, especially at the
level of the Supreme Court, should be maintained, ordinarily a private party, other than the
9
Pritam Singh V. State, AIR 1950 SC 169
10
See E.g., Dhakeswari cotton mills Ltd V. CIT AIR 1955 SC 65
11
Jaswant sugar mills Ltd V. Lakshmi Chand, AIR 1963 Supp (1) SCR 242
12
Engg. Mozdoor Sabha V. Hind cycles Ltd., AIR 1963 SC 874
13
Durga Shankar Mehta V.Raghuraj singh, AIR 1954 SC 520
14
Taherakhatoon V. Salambin Mohammed, 1999 2 SCC 635
15
P.S.R Sadhanatham V. Arunachalam, 1980 3 SCC 141
complainant, should not be permitted to file an appeal. 16 In criminal cases, it is all the more so
since an adverse verdict may result in irretrievable injury to life or liberty. But in the absence
of an independent prosecution authority easily accessible to every citizen, a wider
connotation of standing is necessary for Art 136. Thus, the court may entertain special leave
to appeal from private party in such cases only where it is convinced that the public interest
justifies an appeal -against the acquittal, and that the state has refrained from petitioning for
special leave for reasons which do not bear on the public interest, but are prompted by private
influence, want of bona fides and other extraneous considerations. 17 A third party may also
appeal if it is aggrieved by a decision.18 The court may also invoke its jurisdiction in Art 136
suo motu.19 In criminal cases, it can also acquit an accused who has not filed an appeal
against his conviction, if all other accused who were convicted with him are acquitted in
appeal.20

In Pritam Singh V. State, in explaining how the discretion will be exercised generally in
granting special leave to appeal, the Supreme Court observed:

The wide discretionary power with which this court is invested under it is to be exercised
sparingly and in exceptional cases only, and as far as possible a more or less uniform
standard should be adopted in granting special leave in the wide range of matters which can
come up before it under this article. By virtue of this article, we can grant special leave in
civil cases, in criminal cases, in income tax cases, in cases which come up before different
kinds of tribunals and in a variety of other cases. The only uniform standard which in our
opinion can be laid down in the circumstances is that court should grant special leave to
appeal only in those cases where special circumstances are shown to exist.

Again in Dhakeswari cotton mills V. CIT, the SC said:

It is not possible to define…the limitations on the exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction

vested in this court by the constitutional provision made in the Art 136. The limitations,
whatever they be, are implicit in the nature and character of the power itself. It being an
exceptional and overriding power, naturally it has to be exercised sparingly and with caution
and only in special and extraordinary situations. Beyond that it is not possible to fetter the
exercise of this power by any set formula or rule.
16
K.Manjusree V. State of A.P., 2008 3 SCC 512
17
P.S.R Sadhanatham V. Arunachalam, 1980 3 SCC 141
18
Gopabandhu Biswal V. Krishna Chandra Mohanty, 1998 4 SCC 447
19
Pawan kumar V. state of Haryana, 2003 11 SCC 241
20
Gurucharan
Thus, it is a well- settled practice of the supreme court that expect where there has been an
illegality or an irregularity of procedure or a violation of the principles of natural justice,
resulting in the absence of a fair trial or gross miscarriage of justice, the supreme court does
not permit a third review of evidence with regard to questions of fact in cases in which two
courts of fact have appreciated and assessed the evidence with regard to such questions. 21it
can, however, go into the correctness of findings of facts where “ the concurrent decision of
two or more courts or tribunals in manifestly unjust,”22 The supreme court does not allow a
point raised before the courts below to be raised before itself for the first time. 23 Every error,
even of law, does not justify interference under Art 136. But in case of grave injustice, the
court is duty bound to interfere with the findings of fact given if they have been affirmed
thrice.24 The court ordinarily does not go into the sufficiency of evidence. 25Leave cannot be
granted merely against adverse exercise of discretionary power when no illegality has been
committed, nor any unreasonable restriction placed on any fundamental right of the
appellant.26 The court does not interfere with the exercise of discretionary power by the High
court under Art 226 and 227, merely because two views are possible on the facts of the case.
In exceptional cases, the court admits appeal under Article 136 even though the appellant has
not exhausted all other remedies such as under article 226 and 227, if there are exceptionally
sound reasons for such admission.27 It may also admit that an appeal against the judgment of
a single Judge of the High Court against which a division bench of that High Court declined
to interfere. The court may refuse to give relief under Art 136 to a person who does not come
before it with clean hands, for example, if he has suppressed some facts.28

Scope of Article 136:

1) The word ‘order’ in Art 136(1) has not been qualified by the adjective ‘final’ as in the
case in Arts. 132, 133 and 134. The Supreme Court has thus power to hear an appeal
even from an interlocutory or an intern order. In practice, however, the court does not
ordinarily grant leave to appeal from an interlocutory order, but it can do so in an

21
Chikkarange gowda V. state of Mysore, AIR 1956 SC 731
22
Raghunath G. Panhale V. Chaganalal Sundarji & Co. 1999 8 SCC 1
23
R.J Singh Ahuluwalia V. State of Delhi, 1970 3 SCC 451
24
Indra Kaur V. Sheo lal Kapoor, 1988 2 SCC 488, 489
25
Narayan Govind Gavate V. State of Maharashtra, 1977 1 SCC 133
26
Khatri ahmed mushabhai V. Limdi Municipality
27
S.G Chemicals & dyes trading employees union V. S.G Chemicals & dyes trading Ltd. 1986 2 SCC 624
28
Rasiklal Vaghajibhai Patel V. Ahmedabad Municipal Corpn,. 1985 2 SCC 35
 exceptional case. Ordinarily, the parties are directed to approach the High Court for the
recall, stay or modification of the interim order. At times, the Supreme Court has, while
dismissing such petitions requested the high court to dispose of the matter preferably
within a time frame. Use of imperative words such as “ directed “ and fixing a time
frame within the high court “shall” dispose of a matter have, on occasion, led to a
confrontation between the high court and the supreme court.
2) Article 136 (1) does not define the nature of proceedings from which the supreme court
may hear appeals and therefore, it could hear appeals in any kind of proceedings whether
civil, criminal or relating to income tax, revenue or labour disputes, etc
3) Article 136(1) confers on the Supreme Court power to hear appeals from orders and
determination of any tribunal other than a military tribunal. This aspect of Art 136(1) is
very significant and is discussed in detail below.
4) Under Art. 136 (1), the supreme court may hear appeal even though the ordinary law
pertaining to the dispute makes no provision for such an appeal.
5) Being a Jurisdiction conferred by the constitution, it cannot be diluted or circumscribed
by ordinary legislative process: it can be curtailed or modified only by constitutional
process.
6) The Supreme Court may hear an appeal even where the legislature declares the decision
of a court or tribunal as final. Thus in Raigarh 29, the supreme court heard an appeal from
an order of the Railway Rates Tribunal, Madras, in spite of Sec 46A of the Railways Act,
1980, laying down that the decision of the tribunal shall be final.
7) Under Art 136 (1), the supreme court plenary jurisdiction to grant leave and hear appeals
against any order of a court or tribunal. This confers on the Supreme Court power of
judicial superintendence over all courts and tribunals in India including subordinate
courts of magistrate and district judge.30
8) Notwithstanding concurrent findings of trail court and high court the lack of quality or
credibility of evidence may call for interference.31
9) After granting special leave to appeal under Art.136, the court can revoke the leave
granted by it, if the respondent brings to the notice of the court facts which would justify
such revocation. The court will do so in the interest of justice.

29
Mahendra Saree Emporium(II) V. G.V Srinivasa Murthy, 2005 1 SCC 481
30
Delhi Judicial Service Assn. V. State of Gujarat, AIR 1991 SC 2176
31
A.Subair V. State of Kerala, 2009 6 SCC 587
10) Generally speaking, under Art. 136, the Supreme Court hears an appeal from an
adjudicatory order and not from an administrative order. An adjudicatory order is “an
order that adjudicates upon the rival contentions of parties and it must be passed by an
authority constituted by the state by law for the purpose in discharge of the state
“obligation to secure justice to its people.

Grounds for SLP:

(1) SLP can be filed against any judgment or decree or order of any High Court /tribunal
in --the territory of India.
(2) SLP can be filed in both cases of Civil/Constitutional or Criminal matters.
(3) Or, SLP can be filed in case the High court refuses to grant the certificate of fitness
for appeal to Supreme Court of India.
(4) SLP can be filed by the appellant if all other alternative remedies are exhausted.

Time frame within which SLP can be filed:

(1) SLP can be filed against any judgment of High Court within 90 days from the date of
judgment.
Or SLP can be filed within 60 days against the order of the High Court refusing to grant the
certificate of fitness for appeal to Supreme Court.

Appeal in Constitutional/Civil Cases:

Under art 136, the Supreme Court can hear appeal in a case involving substantial question of
constitutional law if the high court refuses to grant the necessary certificate under Art. 132.
Similarly, the Supreme Court may entertain appeal in a civil case where substantial question
of law is involved but which is not covered by art.132 as for example, when the high court
may have refused to grant a fitness certificate.

Ordinarily, the Supreme Court does not entertain an appeal against an exercise of discretion
by the court below if it has been exercised along sound judicial lines. But if the discretion is
exercised arbitrarily or unreasonably, or is based on a misunderstanding of the principles that
govern its exercise, or the order has been passed without jurisdiction, or if there is a patently
erroneous interpretation of law by the high court, the Supreme Court would intervene if there
has been a resultant failure of justice 32. So also if the court below acts without jurisdiction, or
in violation of principles of natural justice 33 or without a proper appreciation of material on
record or the submissions made interference under Art 136 is warranted.

Ordinarily, the Supreme Court does not appreciate evidence, or go behind the findings of fact
arrived at by the court below, much less concurrent findings, unless there is sufficient ground
foe doing so.34The court can, however appreciate evidence on record to avoid miscarriage of
justice.35 If in giving the findings the lower court ignored or misread and misconstrued certain
important pieces of evidence, and the supreme court comes to the conclusion that, on the
evidence taken as a whole, no court could properly, as a matter of legitimate inference, arrive
at the conclusion that the lower court has arrived, or where the two lower courts of appeal
were under a clear misapprehension as to the findings of the fact by the trial court, or where
the lower courts arrived at the findings not on proper consideration of the law on the subject,
or were appreciation of evidence by the courts on the face of it appears to be erroneous
causing miscarriage of justice, the court would examine the evidence itself.36 The position
however is different if it is a mixed question of law and fact.37

Order xvi rule 4 c of the Supreme Court rules which provides the

“SLP’s shall be confined only to the pleadings before the court or tribunal or whose order is
challenged. However, the petitioner may, with due to the respondent, and with the leave court
of the urge additional grounds, at the hearing.”

32
Santosh V. Mul Singh, ntAIR 1958 SC 321
33
National organic chemical industries Ltd V. Miheer H. Mafatal, 2004 12 SCC 356
34
Ghisalal V. Dhapubai, 2011 2 SCC 298
35
Shashi Jain V. Tarsen lal
36
Heramba Brahma V. State of Assam
37
Suresh kumar jain V. Shanthi Swarup Jain. AIR 1997 SC 2291
Thus a new plea put forward for the first time in the form of written submissions after the
hearing was concluded was not entertained.38

Nevertheless the Supreme court is extremely reluctant to entertain and entirely new plea, not
raised earlier if earlier before the lower courts, being raised for the first time in appeal before
it, especially when the new plea is founded on facts 39. For example: The Supreme court did
not permit the plea of mala fides being raised before it for the first time as it is being
esentailly a question of fact needed to be supported by relevant material. Again whether there
is a novation of a contract is a mixed question of law and fact and cannot be raised before the
Supreme court for the first time. A document which is produced by the respondent for the
first time at the stage of arguments can be considered if it forms the basis of the petitioners
claim.40

If however a point of fact plainly raises on the record or a point of law is relevant and
material and can be decided on the basis of material on record without any further evidence
being taken, or the plea was urged before the trial court and was rejected but was not repeated
before the High Court, or if a question of considerable importance likely to arise in similar
suit, or if it goes to the jurisdiction of the lower court, the Supreme court may permit the plea
to be raised. If it is a pure question of law going to the root of the case, the plea maybe
allowed to be raised with the permission of the court.41

In one case, the Supreme Court permitted the question of constitutional validity of the
relevant statute to be raised for the first time before it. Accordingly, the Supreme Court set
aside the High court’s judgment and sent the matter back to it so that it may decide the
question of constitutional validity of the act.42

In a preventive detention case, the court allowed a new plea to be raised, viz., non-
consideration of detenu’s representation by the government, because the plea was important
as it was fatal to detention and it could be determined on the material available to the court.43

38
State of Rajasthan V. H.V Hotels, 2007 2 SCC 468, 475
39
R.J Singh Ahluwalia V. Delhi. AIR 1971 SC 1552
40
Ramashray Singh V. New India Insurance Co Ltd 2003 10 SCC 664
41
Vimal Chandra Grover V. Bank of India, 2000 5 SCC 122, at 134
42
M/s Noorulla Ghazanfarulla V. Municipal board of Aligarh, AIR 1981 SC 2176
43
Harish Pahwa V. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1981 SC 1126
APPEAL IN CRIMINAL MATTERS:

The Scope of Article 134 providing for appeals to the Supreme Court in criminal matters is
limited. The residuary jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under article 136 has more
frequently been invoked in criminal appeals. But the court does not interfere lightly. It has
more than once declared that it will not grant special leave to appeal under article 136(1) of
the constitution, unless it is shown those special and exceptional circumstances exist, the
substantial and grave injustice has been done, and the case in question presents features of
sufficient gravity to warrant a review of the decision appealed against. Further, in the exercise
of its special leave appellate jurisdiction, the Supreme Court will not interfere with the
concurrent findings of the courts below unless, of course, the findings are perverse or vitiated
by error of law or there is gross miscarriage of justice.44

In granting special leave to appeal in criminal cases, the supreme court will take guidance
from the principles which have been laid down by the privy council defining the limits within
the interference with the course of criminal justice taken in the subordinate courts is
warranted.45 A perusal of the Privy Council decisions on the point would indicate that the
council had repeatedly aaffirmed the principle that it was unwilling to act in criminal cases
in the free fashion of a fully constituted court of criminal appeal. The exercise of prerogative
takes place only where it is shown that the injustice of a serious and substantial character has
occurred.46

In Reil v. R47, Lord Halsbury, delivering the opinion of the Privy Council, pointed out that
leave to appeal in criminal cases could only be granted where some clear departure from the

44
Mohd.Husssain Umar Kochra V. K.S Dalipsinghji. 1969 3 SCC 429
45
Pritam Singh V. State. AIR 1950 SC 169
46
Dal Singh V. King Emperor
47
(1885) 10 AC 675
requirement of justice is alleged to have taken place. In Abhram Mallory Dillot re,48 it was
observed that the Privy Council reviews proceedings unless it is shown that by a disregard of
the forms of legal process or some violation of the principles of natural justice or otherwise,
substantial grave injustice has been done. In Ibrahim v Emperor, it was observed that the
ground for his majesty’s interference in criminal matters was the violation of principle of
justice. In Ras Behari Lal v King Emperor 49 Leave to appeal was granted on the disclosure
that a member of the jury did not understand the language in which the trial was conducted.
In M. Ahlikili Dhalamini v. R, the appeal was allowed because there had been failure to hold
in public the whole of the proceedings in a murder case.

The principle stated above, namely, that the Judicial committee will interfere where there had
been an infringement of the essential principles of justice,, has been further elucidated by
Viscount Simon, who after reviewing various cases pointed out the following circumstance
in which the Privy Council could interfere in a criminal appeal:

1. Where the accused has not been given the opportunity of being heard
2. Where the trial took place in the absence of accused
3. Where the accused is not allowed to call relevant witnesses
4. Where the tribunal was shown to have been corrupt or not properly constituted
5. Where the court fails to understand the proceedings because of the language.
6. Where the sentencing court had no jurisdiction to try the case.

The Same is the practice of the Supreme court as is clear from the following observations in
Pritam Singh V. State

Generally speaking, this court will not grant special leave, unless it is shown that exceptional
and special circumstances exist, than substantial and grave injustice has been done and that
the case in question presents features of sufficient gravity to warrant a review of the decision
appealed against.

Tribunal:

48
1887 12 AC 459
49
1932-33 60 IA 354
As shown above, special leave to appeal under Art 136 is not limited to orders or
determinations of a court of law, but includes a “tribunal” also. A tribunal is a body or
authority, though not a court in the strict sense, which is invested with the judicial power to
adjudicate on questions of law or fact, affecting the rights of the citizens in a judicial manner.
Appeals have been entertained under this article, for example, against determinations of
industrial tribunal, central administrative tribunal, election commission, railway rates
tribunal, central administrative tribunal, administrative of evacuee property, authority under
the payment of wages, central government exercising powers of revision. The court’s power
to grant special leave is not taken away, even when it is declared by law that the order or
decision of the tribunal shall be conclusive. This power has been preserved even in respect of
the administrative and other tribunals provided under Arts. 323-A and 323- B.

A body or authority for being characterized as a tribunal for the purposes of Art 136 must
possess the following features:

1) It must be a body or authority invested by law with power to determine questions or

disputes affecting the rights of citizen.
2) Such a body or authority in arriving at the decision must be under a duty to act
judicially. Whether an authority has a duty to act judicially is to be gathered from the
provisions of the act under which is constituted. Generally speaking, if the
investigating is subject to certain procedural attributes contemplating an opportunity
of presenting its case to a party, ascertainment of facts by means of evidence if a
dispute be on questions of fact, and if the dispute be on a question of law on the
presentation of legal arguments, and the decision results in the disposal of the matter
on findings based upon those question the strict sense, should be invested with the
“trapping of a court”, such as authority to determines of law and fact, then such a
body or authority acts judicially.50
3) Such a body must be invested with the judicial power of the state. This means that the
authority required to act judicially, though not a court in the strict sense, should be
invested with the “trapping of a court”, such as authority to determine matters in cases
initiated by parties, sitting in public, power to compel attendance of witnesses and to
examine them on oath, duty to follow fundamental rules of evidence(though not under
the strict rules of the evidence act,1872),provision for imposing sanctions by way of
imprisonment, fine, damages or mandatory or prohibitory orders to enforce obedience
50
Jaswant Sugar mills Ltd V. Lakshmi chand, AIR 1963 SC 677
 to its command. The list is illustrative; some, though not necessarily all, such
trappings will ordinarily make the authority which is under a duty to act judicially, a
tribunal.51 The intentional of the constitution by the use of the word ‘tribunal’ in the
article seem to have been to include within the scope of article 136 tribunals adorned
with similar trappings as court but strictly not coming within that definition52.

Bharat bank Ltd. V. employees53 is an important early decision of the supreme court,
defining the nature of tribunals against whose decisions appeals may be admitted by the
supreme court in the exercise of its jurisdiction under article 136.The issue in that case
was whether the determination by an industrial tribunal set up under the industrial
disputes act, 1947 was open to appeal to the supreme court under article 136 of the
constitution. The majority of the judges answered the question in affirmative. An
industrial tribunal is a “tribunal” for the purposes of article 136, because it is invested
with the following trapping of a court of law:

1. The proceedings before it commence on submission of an application, which is in

the nature of a plaint.
2. It has the same powers as regards discovery, inspection, taking evidence, as are
possessed by a civil court.
3. Witnesses are examined and cross-examined as in a court of law.
4. A party may be represented by a legal practitioner.
5. The tribunal is required to decide on the basis of the evidence adduced and
according to the provisions of the statute.
6. Members of the tribunal are persons qualified to be judges.

In Jaswant Sugar Mills ltd. V. Lakshmi Chand,54 the court held that the conciliation officer,
exercising powers under clause 29 of the order of the Uttar Pradesh governor, issued under
the U.P Industrial disputes Act, 1947 is not a tribunal, because he is not required to sit in
public, no formal pleadings are contemplated to be tendered, he is not empowered to compel
attendance of witnesses, nor is he restricted in making an enquiry about evidence which the
parties may bring before him. The Conciliation officer is again not capable of giving a
determinative judgment or award affecting the rights and obligations of the parties. He is not
51
Jaswant Sugar mills Ltd V. Lakshmi chand, AIR 1963 SC 677
52
Bharat Bank Ltd. V. Employees
53
AIR 1950 SC 188
54
AIR 1963 SC 677
invested with powers similar to those of the civil court under the CPC for enforcing
attendance on any person and examining him on oath, compelling production of documents,
issuing commissions for the examination of witnesses and other matters. Likewise, an
arbitrator appointed under Section 10, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947,is not a tribunal because
he lacks the basic, the essential, and the fundamental requisite in that behalf because he is not
invested with the state’s inherent judicial power. He is appointed by the parties and the power
to decide the dispute between the parties who appoint him is derived by him from the
agreement of the parties and from no other source55. In Dev Singh v.P&H High Court56, it was
held that appeals in disciplinary matters against the decision of the District Judge to the High
court under Rule X of the High court’s rules are of administrative and not of judicial
character and therefore, no appeal against the order of the high court lies under article 136.
Supreme Court has even heard appeals from several bodies. In Harinagr sugar mills V.
Shyam Sundar JhunJhunwala57 it was held that Central government acting under Sec 111(3)
of the companies Act,1956, while deciding a dispute regarding registration of shares between
a company and the person who has purchased these shares

It may however, be stated that the consideration about the presence of all or some of the
trappings of a court is really not decisive. The presence of some of the trappings may assist
the determination of the character of power exercised by the authority. But the main and basic
test is whether the adjudicating power which a particular authority is empowered to exercise
has been conferred on it by a statute can be described as a part of the state’s inherent power
exercised in discharging its judicial function. In Associated Cement Company Ltd. V. P.N
Sharma,58 it was held that the Punjab state government exercising its appellate jurisdiction
under rule 6 of the Punjab Welfare Officers Rules, 1952 was a tribunal within the meaning of
Article 136, as the power which the state government exercises under the rule is a part of the
state’s judicial power and it can be exercised in respect of disputes between the management
and its welfare officers.

Article 136 of the constitution does not confer a right of appeal, but a discretionary power on
the Supreme Court to grant special leave to appeal from the order of any tribunal within the
territory of India. It is implicit in the discretionary power that it cannot be exhaustively

55
Engg. Mazdoor Sabha V. Hind Cycles Ltd., AIR 1963 SC 874
56
1987 7 SCC 161
57
AIR 1961 SC 648
58
AIR 1965 SC 1595
defined. The grounds on which the Supreme Court would normally interfere with decisions of
tribunals can be classified under the following categories, namely

1. Where the tribunal acts in excess of the jurisdiction conferred upon it under the statute
or regulation creating it, or where it ostensibly fails to exercise a patent jurisdiction.
2. Where there ia an apparent error on the face of the decision.
3. Where awards are made in violation of principles of natural justice causing substantial
and grave injustice to parties and
4. Where the tribunal has erroneously applied well accepted principles of jurisprudence.

Dismissal of Appeal:
After the Supreme Court grants leave to appeal, the Court hears the appeal on merits. After
hearing the arguments of the parties, the Court gives its decision. The Court may dismiss the
appeal with or without giving reasons for the same, or the Court may pass on order of
reversal, modification or merely affirmation of the decision of the lower court or the tribunal.
In any such situation, the decision appealed against gets merged with the decision of the
Apex Court. This means that after the Supreme Court, the original decision appealed against
cannot be challenged through a writ petition in High Court under Art. 226 of the constitution.
Nor can the lower or tribunal review its decision against which the Supreme Court has
disposed of an appeal.59

A petition for grant of leave to appeal may be rejected for several reasons, such as;

(1) The petition is time barred.

(2) Defective presentation60
(3) Petitioner lacks locus standi to file the petition
(4) Conduct of the petitioner disentitles him to any indulgence by the court.
(5) The question raised in the petition is not considered fit for consideration by the Court
or does not deserve to be dealt with by the Apex Court.

Delay:

An appeal must be filed without undue delay although Art. 136 prescribes no period of
limitation for the purpose. But the Court does not like the stale claims to be raked up. The
59
Kunhayammed v State of Kerela AIR 2000 SC 2587
60
State of Punjab v Ashok Singh Garcha (2009) 2 SCC 399
Court has power to condone delay in approaching it to enable it to do substantial justice to the
parties concerned.61 The Court shows a liberal attitude in condoning delay when the
Government is the appellant. One reason for such an approach is that bureaucratic delay is
proverbial. Secondly, the Court feels that if the state is denied an opportunity to appeal cause
of delay, it may be loss to society as a whole.62

Restrictions or Limitations:
Article 136 imposes no restriction or limitation on the power of Supreme Court to hear
appeals. The constitutional provision confers a plenary jurisdiction on the court.
Nevertheless, the Court has sought to impose on itself some restrictions in exercising this vast
appellate jurisdiction. This has been done with the view to reduce the flow of appeals to it so
that it is not faced with backlog of cases.

Conclusion:
I found, that this is a beautiful constitutional provision which renders justice to a
common man. Due to the presence of this provision the common man has the right to
seek the justice in highest court of authority without any hindrance. This is a basic
structure of the indiaan constitution that cannot be amended on passing of any law. By
crucial analysis over this article it enables us to understand that subjects of India have
been saved from erroneous miscarriage of justice sometimes even the state government.
61
U.O.I v Cynamide India Ltd AIR 1987 SC 1802
62
State of U.P v Harish Chandra AIR 1996 SC 2173
Bibliography:

1. Indian Constitutional Law 7th edition M P Jain.

2. V.N Shukla’s Constitution of India.
3. Constitution law of India Dr.J.N Pandey
4. www.wikipedia.org/articlesonslp
5. www.lawresources.in
6. www.indiankanoon.in