Article 136

Article 136 of the Constitution of India grants the Supreme Court special discretionary power to allow appeals against any judgment, decree, determination, sentence, or order passed by any court or tribunal in India. This Article functions as an extraordinary constitutional provision that strengthens the supervisory and corrective role of the Supreme Court, enabling it to intervene in cases where grave injustice has occurred or where the established judicial process has been violated.

Background and Constitutional Purpose

The framers of the Constitution introduced Article 136 as a safety valve in India’s judicial structure to ensure that the Supreme Court could act as the final protector of justice. Recognising that no legal system is infallible, this Article empowers the Court to rectify substantial miscarriages of justice even when no appeal is otherwise provided by law.
Article 136 does not confer a right to appeal upon any litigant; instead, it vests in the Supreme Court the discretionary authority to grant “special leave” to appeal, meaning that the Court decides on a case-by-case basis whether intervention is justified.

Text and Structure of Article 136

Article 136 reads as follows:

(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.

This structure establishes two distinct elements:

1. Discretionary Power of the Supreme Court:The Supreme Court can grant special leave to appeal against decisions from any court or tribunal, regardless of the subject matter—civil, criminal, constitutional, or administrative.
2. Exclusion for Armed Forces Tribunals:The provision does not extend to decisions made by courts or tribunals constituted under laws governing the Armed Forces. This ensures that military justice remains distinct from the civilian judicial system.

Scope and Applicability

The scope of Article 136 is broad and flexible, covering:

• Appeals against judgments or orders from any court or tribunal, including High Courts, except those related to Armed Forces law.
• Cases involving civil rights, criminal convictions, constitutional issues, or questions of administrative justice.
• Situations where there is manifest injustice, procedural irregularity, or violation of fundamental rights.

Importantly, Article 136 is not confined to questions of law; it may also be invoked where the Supreme Court believes that substantial injustice has occurred, even if the lower court’s decision is legally valid.

Nature of the Power under Article 136

The power conferred by Article 136 is extraordinary and discretionary. It is not a regular appellate jurisdiction but a residual, corrective, and supervisory power. The Supreme Court has consistently held that:

• No one can claim special leave to appeal as a matter of right.
• The Court exercises this jurisdiction sparingly, generally in cases involving grave injustice, substantial legal questions, or errors of law.
• The Article acts as a constitutional safety net, ensuring that justice prevails over technicalities.

Judicial Interpretation and Development

Over time, the Supreme Court has defined and refined the contours of Article 136 through several landmark rulings:

• K.K. Verma v. Union of India (1954): The Court clarified that Article 136 can be invoked even when the High Court has not issued a certificate of appeal, thus broadening the accessibility of justice.
• Pritam Singh v. The State (1950): The Court observed that the power under Article 136 is to be exercised only in exceptional circumstances, where serious injustice or violation of law has occurred.
• State of Uttar Pradesh v. Raj Narain (1975): Emphasised that Article 136 enables the Supreme Court to maintain the rule of law and ensure that justice is not sacrificed to procedural rigidity.
• S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981): The Court highlighted the use of Article 136 in cases of public interest, expanding its role in matters of constitutional importance.
• L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997): The Supreme Court reaffirmed its supervisory authority over all tribunals through Article 136, ensuring that constitutional safeguards extend to quasi-judicial bodies as well.
• A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak (1988): The Court reiterated that Article 136 confers a plenary power of appeal that transcends procedural limitations to secure justice.

Through these judgments, Article 136 has evolved into one of the most powerful tools for ensuring fairness, legality, and constitutional compliance in the Indian judicial system.

Procedural Aspects

The process of invoking Article 136 involves two stages:

1. Special Leave Petition (SLP):The aggrieved party files a petition seeking “special leave to appeal” before the Supreme Court. The Court first determines whether the petition merits admission based on its discretionary assessment.
2. Grant of Leave and Appeal Hearing:If the Court grants leave, the matter proceeds as a regular appeal. The Court then examines the case in detail, reviewing questions of law, evidence, or constitutional interpretation as necessary.

The Supreme Court typically entertains SLPs only when there is:

• A substantial question of law of public importance;
• Gross miscarriage of justice; or
• Violation of fundamental principles of natural justice.

Relationship with Other Constitutional Provisions

Article 136 operates in close conjunction with other Articles that define the Supreme Court’s appellate and review jurisdiction:

• Article 132: Appeals in cases involving constitutional interpretation.
• Article 133: Appeals in civil cases.
• Article 134: Appeals in criminal cases.
• Article 137: Provides the Supreme Court power to review its own judgments.
• Article 138: Allows Parliament to expand the Court’s appellate jurisdiction.

While Articles 132–134 grant specific appellate powers, Article 136 provides a residual and overarching appellate authority, ensuring that the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction covers all judicial acts in India.

Limitations and Judicial Self-Restraint

Although Article 136 confers wide powers, the Supreme Court has exercised judicial restraint to prevent misuse. Key limitations include:

• The jurisdiction is discretionary, not a matter of right.
• The Court does not ordinarily interfere in findings of fact unless there is clear evidence of error or injustice.
• It is not intended to serve as a regular appellate remedy but as an extraordinary corrective mechanism.
• The Supreme Court refrains from interfering in trivial or routine matters, focusing instead on issues of substantial importance.

These self-imposed restrictions maintain the balance between accessibility and judicial efficiency while preserving the sanctity of lower courts.

Significance of Article 136

Article 136 occupies a unique position in India’s judicial framework. Its constitutional and practical significance lies in the following aspects:

• Safeguard against Miscarriage of Justice: Acts as a constitutional safety valve to correct gross judicial errors or procedural irregularities.
• Upholding Fundamental Rights: Enables the Supreme Court to intervene in cases where fundamental rights have been violated.
• Uniformity in Judicial Interpretation: Ensures consistency and coherence in the application of law across different courts and tribunals.
• Public Interest and Social Justice: Facilitates intervention in cases involving significant questions of law, governance, or public welfare.
• Flexibility of Jurisdiction: Provides the Supreme Court the freedom to expand or restrict its intervention based on the demands of justice.

Constitutional and Democratic Importance

Article 136 reinforces the Supreme Court’s status as the final guardian of justice and constitutional morality. By empowering it to intervene in exceptional circumstances, the Article embodies the principle that justice must prevail over technicality.