Article on Special Leave Petition

Introduction
In India, Special Leave Petitions (SLP) have a prominent place in the judiciary, and have been
designated as a "residual authority" with in disposal of the Supreme Court of India, to be used only
in situations involving a major question of law or a grievous injustice. It grants the aggrieved party
special authority to be heard in the Top Court during an appeal against any judgement or order of
any court or tribunal in India's territory.

It is a discretionary authority granted to the Supreme Court of India, and the court may decline to
give leave to appeal at its discretion. The aggrieved party neither seek special leave to appeal under
Article 136 like a right; rather, the Supreme Court of India has the power to give or deny leave to
appeal.

The Article 136 of the Indian Constitution grants the Supreme Court of India extraordinary
jurisdiction. The court may order special permission to appeal from any judgement, decree,
resolution, sentence, or order issued or issued by any court or tribunal in the territory of India under
this Article. There really is no restriction, unlike in other Articles, which provide that an appeal can
only be made from a judgement, decree, or final decision. It is possible to appeal even if from
interim orders. Unlike other Articles, which limit appeals towards the Supreme Court from the High
Courts, there can be no such restriction in Article 136, which allows appeals from any court or
tribunal in India's territory.

Contents of SLP
There is a subset of appeals that do not necessarily follow the basic hierarchy of courts and tribunals.
The Supreme Court can issue special leave to appeal against any judgement or order issued through
any court or body in the country under Article 136 of the Indian Constitution. The Supreme Court, as
the This petition must contain all of the information essential for the court to assess whether or not
SP should be granted. It must be verified on record by the Advocate. A declaration that perhaps the
petitioner hasn't really submitted any other petition in the High Court must also be included in the
petition.

This should be supported by such a certified copy of the judgement being appealed against, as well
as an affidavit from the petitioner certifying the same, as well as all papers that were part of the
pleading in the lower court. final custodian of the constitution, has the ability to interpret it in any
way it sees fit.

Time frame
During 90 days after the date of the judgement, an SLP could be filed against any High Court
decision. There's really, however, certain leeway at the SC's discretion. Alternatively, it might be filed
within 60 days following the HC's refusal to issue the certificate of fitness for appeal to the SC.
 What is “special” about SLP?
The following are the features of article 136 that set it apart from the general appeals stated in 132-
135. First, it is not limited to appeals against High Court verdicts, decrees, and final orders; it could
also be given against lower court judgements. The second point to observe is that, in contrast to
articles 132-135, particularly deal for appeals, article 136 is fluid and adaptable. What this means is
that the verdicts, decrees, or orders don't have to become final, and appeals are permitted against
very interlocutory and interim judgements, but they may arise from criminal or civil proceedings or
other concerns. However, in the regular order of events, the appeal is assumed to have exhausted all
other legal options. Furthermore, when that comes to article 136, there is almost no law that limits
the Supreme Court's jurisdiction.

Prerequisites of Article 136

In circumstances of grave injustice or a legal question, Article 136 is used. This should be viewed as a
luxury rather than a right. This would not be a basis for appeal to the Supreme Court if there were
factual errors, misappreciation of evidence, and so on. The Supreme Court is concerned with the
question of law, its implementation, and its interpretation in accordance with established legal
principles. Administrative or executive decisions or rulings can't be appealed; instead, the decree,
judgement, or decision must be described by judicial administration. Furthermore, while filing a
Special Leave Petition, it should be established whether the authority that issued the decision,
judgement, or decision is a court or tribunal.

Scope of Article 136

Article 136 gives the Supreme Court jurisdiction to hear appeals in appropriate circumstances not
covered by the Constitution. The Supreme Court can use its discretion to provide special leave to
appeal any decision or decree, or it can refuse to do so because it is not a matter of right. Article
136 allows an aggrieved party to petition the Supreme Court seeking explanation of any
constitutional or legal question that arises in any civil, criminal, or other sort of action. As a result,
the SC's power is residuary in nature, and also its scope isn't really limited. However, a review of the
SLPs reveals that the SC only grants leave in extraordinary circumstances and does so in accordance
with well-established legal procedures.

In criminal appeals, the residuary jurisdiction has been used more frequently. Extraordinary leave
would not be allowed until special or extraordinary situations exist and/or gross injustice has
occurred, according to the Supreme Court. Pritam Singh v. State (AIR 1950 SC 169:1950 SCR 453)
was a seminal case in the development of the SLP.

Is the High Court having power to review its order if SLP

is rejected by the Supreme Court of India?
The dismissal of an SLP brought in response to a lower court order or judgement is not a
confirmation of that order or judgement. Even if the Supreme Court rejects the SLP, the High Court
could still review its own decision. The Supreme Court has also stated that even if the review
petition was submitted before to the filing of a special leave petition and after the dismissing of a
special leave petition makes absolutely no difference.

Difference between Special Leave Petition and Appeal

As previously stated, the Supreme Court has extraordinary jurisdiction and power under Article 136.
It has been demonstrated in several occasions that such power should be exercised with caution. It
may only be used in unusual and exceptional situations, such as when an issue of law of great public
concern arises.

Article 136 applies to both final and interlocutory orders, which is a fundamental distinction among
Special Leave Petition and Appeal. Another significant distinction between Special Leave Petition and
Appeal is that Articles 132, 133, and 134 explicitly deal with appeals from a High Court from criminal
proceedings, judgments, orders, and so forth (subject to certain circumstances as stated out in the
clauses of the corresponding Articles). Special leave to appeal, on either hand, can be requested for
an order, judgement, or decree against an order of a tribunal or indeed any lower court, not just the
Higher Court.

A Special Leave to Appeal is not same as a first-round appeal. The Supreme Court's Appellate
jurisdiction will not be exercised until and unless the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal. It's also
worth noting that because a High Court refused a certificate of fitness to appeal to the Supreme
Court, a Special Leave Petition could be filed.

The Apex court made a statement about the scope of Article 136 in the case of N. Suriyakala v. A.
Mohandoss & Ors, stating that it will not have a normal type of appeal. To grasp the true distinction
between a Special Leave Petition and an appeal under Article 136, it is necessary to emphasise the
Supreme Court's competence.

The power conferred in the courts may not be used in any regular situation. Instead, appropriate
care shall be exercised to guarantee that such an authority is exercised only in exceptional or
exceptional situations involving a point of law of general public concern. If such a power were to be
used in every case, the distinction between a special leave petition and an appeal filed under Article
136 would be little. The Courts have developed such a view in a number of decisions.

Conclusion
Thus far, it's been shown that any appeal within this Article is improper, and also the Supreme
Court's power is discretionary. By granting such residuary powers to the Supreme Court of India, this
could be certain that the Apex Court will use them to serve justice properly. Even though this
discretion cannot be exercised arbitrarily, i.e., the court might refuse to give permission to appeal,
that power conferred in the Apex Court in the event of a Special Leave petition has a distinguishing
feature from other types of appeal. Furthermore, its discretionary power is what distinguishes it as
distinctive or, as the word implies, "special".

Submitted by – RIK SARKAR