Special leave petition

A Special Leave Petition (SLP) is a legal mechanism that allows an aggrieved party to appeal to the Supreme Court of India against any judgment, decree, determination, or order made by any court or tribunal in the country. It is one of the most significant constitutional provisions under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, empowering the Supreme Court to grant special permission (“leave”) to appeal in cases where substantial justice requires intervention.
This extraordinary remedy is not a matter of right but a discretionary power of the Supreme Court, exercised only in cases involving serious questions of law, gross injustice, or abuse of judicial process.

Constitutional Basis

The legal foundation for a Special Leave Petition is found in Article 136(1) of the Constitution, which states:

“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.”

This article confers extraordinary appellate jurisdiction upon the Supreme Court, making it the final arbiter in the Indian judicial system. It allows the Court to correct legal or procedural errors even in cases where no statutory right of appeal exists.

Nature and Scope

The power under Article 136 is extraordinary, residual, and discretionary. Unlike regular appeals, an SLP does not automatically lie against every decision; it is invoked only in exceptional circumstances.
Key characteristics include:

• It is not a right of appeal but a privilege granted by the Supreme Court at its discretion.
• It can be filed against decisions of any court or tribunal, except those related to military courts or tribunals.
• It is applicable in both civil and criminal matters.
• It can be entertained even if the statute governing the case does not expressly provide for an appeal to the Supreme Court.

The Court generally admits SLPs only when there is a grave miscarriage of justice, a substantial question of constitutional or legal importance, or when lower courts have exceeded their jurisdiction.

Procedure for Filing a Special Leave Petition

The process of filing an SLP is governed by the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, and associated procedural guidelines. The major steps include:

1. Filing of the Petition
   • The aggrieved party (the petitioner) files an SLP before the Supreme Court, along with certified copies of the judgment or order being challenged.
2. Time Limit
   • For judgments from a High Court, the SLP must be filed within 90 days from the date of the judgment.
   • If a review petition was filed and dismissed by the High Court, the SLP must be filed within 60 days from the date of dismissal.
3. Contents of the Petition
   • The petition must clearly state the questions of law, grounds of appeal, and reasons why the case deserves special leave.
   • It should be accompanied by relevant affidavits, annexures, and court orders.
4. Preliminary Hearing (Admission Stage)
   • The petition first undergoes a preliminary hearing before a division bench of the Supreme Court.
   • If the Court is satisfied that the case warrants further examination, it grants leave to appeal and converts the SLP into a regular civil or criminal appeal.
   • If not, the petition is dismissed in limine (at the threshold) without detailed hearing.
5. Final Hearing
   • Once leave is granted, the appeal proceeds like any other Supreme Court case, involving written submissions, oral arguments, and eventual judgment.

Grounds for Granting Special Leave

While there are no rigidly defined criteria, the Supreme Court generally grants special leave in cases involving:

• Substantial questions of law or constitutional interpretation.
• Gross miscarriage of justice or violation of natural justice.
• Errors of law or jurisdiction by lower courts or tribunals.
• Contradictory judgments by different High Courts requiring authoritative resolution.
• Matters of public importance or significant social or economic impact.

The Court, however, avoids entertaining SLPs where only minor factual disputes or routine grievances are involved.

Limitations and Judicial Restraint

Although Article 136 gives the Supreme Court vast powers, the Court exercises them sparingly to avoid becoming an all-purpose appellate body. Judicial pronouncements have repeatedly emphasised the self-imposed limitations on the Court’s discretionary jurisdiction:

• In Pritam Singh v. The State (1950), the Supreme Court held that special leave should be granted only in exceptional and special circumstances.
• In Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala (2000), the Court clarified that the dismissal of an SLP without a reasoned order does not amount to affirmation of the lower court’s reasoning.
• The Court also discourages the use of SLPs as a routine appeal mechanism, maintaining that only questions of grave legal or constitutional significance merit such consideration.

Difference between Special Leave Petition and Appeal

Thus, the SLP serves as an extraordinary gateway to the Supreme Court when no appeal lies otherwise.

Significance of Special Leave Petition

The SLP system plays a vital role in India’s judicial framework by ensuring:

• Access to justice even when no statutory appeal is available.
• Uniform interpretation of law across various High Courts and tribunals.
• Correction of gross errors or miscarriages of justice by lower courts.
• Judicial oversight over the functioning of all subordinate judicial bodies.

It reflects the Supreme Court’s position as the guardian of justice and constitutional order, capable of intervening in exceptional circumstances to prevent injustice.

Criticism and Challenges

Despite its importance, the SLP system has faced criticism on several grounds:

• Excessive filings: Thousands of SLPs are filed each year, leading to judicial congestion.
• Overuse for minor disputes: Many petitions involve ordinary factual matters rather than questions of law.
• Discretionary nature: The lack of clear criteria for granting leave can lead to perceived inconsistency.
• Time and cost: The process can be expensive and time-consuming for litigants.