LEGAL REMEDIES IN THE FORM OF SLP UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF CONSTITUTION

ADV. MOHD HAMZA January 3, 2026

Article 136: Remedies in th form of Special Leave Petition (SLP) u/r 136 of constitution.

The "Plenary Power" of the Supreme Court

Article 136: Remedies in th form of Special Leave Petition (SLP) u/r 136 of constitution.

Article 136 is not a regular appellate provision. It is a "Residuary Power" vested in the Supreme Court to grant special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, or order passed by any Court or Tribunal in India, ensuring justice prevails over technicalities.

Nature & Scope of Power

This power is Discretionary, not a Right. The Article begins with a Non-Obstante Clause ("Notwithstanding anything in this Chapter...").

📌 Wide Amplitude: It covers Civil, Criminal, Income Tax, Labour, and Election matters.
📌 Any Court/Tribunal: Appeals can lie directly from a High Court, District Court, or Tribunals (NCLT, NGT, etc.) if the Supreme Court grants leave.
🚫 Exception: It does NOT apply to judgments passed by any Court constituted under laws relating to the Armed Forces (Article 136(2)).

What Cases are Entertained?

Since the docket is huge, the Court exercises self-imposed restrictions. SLP is usually granted only if:

Substantial Question of Law

The case involves a question of general public importance (e.g., interpretation of the Constitution) that requires a final settlement by the Apex Court.

Gross Miscarriage of Justice

Where the High Court has acted perversely, ignored vital evidence, or the conscience of the Court is shocked by the injustice.

Difference: Art 136 vs. Statutory Appeal (BNSS)

The distinction between a Constitutional Privilege and a Statutory Right.

Feature	Article 136 (Constitution)	Statutory Appeal (BNSS/CPC)
Right vs. Discretion	Discretionary: Petitioner cannot claim it as a right. Court can dismiss it in limine.	Matter of Right: If law provides an appeal (e.g., Sec 413 BNSS), the Court must hear it.
Scope	Can bypass hierarchy (e.g., SLP against Tribunal order).	Strict hierarchy (Magistrate -> Sessions -> High Court).
Grounds	Only "Special Circumstances" or "Grave Injustice".	Errors of Fact or Law (depending on the section).

Landmark Precedents

1. Pritam Singh vs. The State (1950):
The Constitution Bench held that the power under Art 136 is to be exercised "sparingly and only in exceptional cases" where grave injustice has occurred.

2. Kunhayammed vs. State of Kerala (2000):
Clarified the "Doctrine of Merger". If an SLP is dismissed in limine (at the threshold), the High Court order does not merge with the SC order. But if "Leave" is granted and then decided, it merges.

3. Jamshed Hormusji Wadia vs. Board of Trustees (2004):
Held that Article 136 is an "entitlement to invoke jurisdiction", not a "right to appeal". The Court acts as a court of equity to correct manifest injustice.

Drafted by Advocate Hamza

Supreme Court Practice | Constitutional Law
Visit: www.advocatehamza.in