Case Laws

[Petitioner]
SLP
1. Pritam Singh v. the State [AIR 1950 SC 169]:
The Constitutional Bench observed that the Supreme Court is vested
“wide discretionary power” under this article and this power is required
“to be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases”. The Court also
observed that a more or less uniform standard should be adopted in
granting Special Leave in wide range of matters which can come up
under this Article. The court further observed that “this Court” should not
grant special leave, unless it is shown that “exceptional and special
circumstance exist”, that “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. The power conferred upon the
Supreme Court of India is of “residual nature” and is a “discretionary
power”. Article 136 does not confer upon a litigant a right to appeal
against any order or judgement but vest the Supreme Court of India with
a discretionary power to interfere with the orders of the lower Courts only
in case of exceptional character where gross injustice has been carried
out.

2. Jamshed Hormusji Wadia Vs. Board of Trustees, Port of

Mumbai AIR 2004 SC 1815
This Court observed that the discretionary power of the Supreme Court is
plenary in nature in the sense that there are no words in Article 136 itself
qualifying that power. The court further said the very conferment of the
discretionary power defies any attempt at exhaustive definition of such
power. The power is permitted to be invoked not in a routine fashion but
in very exceptional circumstances as when a question of law of general
public importance arises or a decision sought to be impugned before the
Supreme Court shocks the conscience. This overriding and exceptional
power has been vested in the Supreme Court to be exercised sparingly
and only in furtherance of the cause of justice in the Supreme Court in
exceptional cases only when special circumstances are shown to exist.

3. Keshub Mahindra vs. State of M.P., 1996 (6) SCC 129

 The Supreme Court in case Keshub Mahindra vs. State of M.P., 1996 (6)
SCC 129 wasn't directly about the Bhopal Gas Tragedy itself, but rather
about the legal concept of Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) in India. Here's
the gist:
 Keshub Mahindra filed an SLP challenging a lower court's decision
related to the Bhopal Gas Tragedy.
 The Supreme Court's judgment focused on whether SLPs were
maintainable in such cases, particularly those of national and public
importance.
 The Court ultimately allowed the SLP to proceed, highlighting the
significance of SLPs in matters with wider public interest.

This case emphasized the role of SLPs in the Indian legal system for
bringing crucial national issues before the highest court.

4. Pradeep Kumar Roy v. Union of India, AIR 1987 SC

1804

The case of Pradeep Kumar Roy v. Union of India (1987) is relevant to the
maintainability of Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) in the context of fundamental
rights enshrined in the Indian Constitution. Here's a breakdown of the judgment
regarding SLPs:
 Issue: The core question revolved around whether the SLP filed by
Pradeep Kumar Roy challenging a decision related to Article 14 (Right to
Equality) was maintainable.
 Court's decision: The Supreme Court upheld the maintainability of the
SLP.
 Reasoning: The Court recognized the significance of the matter. Since
the petition raised a substantial question of law concerning the
interpretation of Article 14, the Court deemed it fit to hear the case
through the SLP route.
This judgment highlights that SLPs serve a crucial purpose in bringing matters
of national importance and those concerning fundamental rights before the
Supreme Court. When an SLP raises a substantial question of law, particularly
related to fundamental rights, the Court is more likely to entertain it.
 [Petitioner]
WRIT PETITION

1. Fertilizer Corporation Kamgar Union ... vs Union Of

India And Others on 13 November, 1980
 This judgment is a landmark Judgement on the maintainability of a writ petition under
Article 32. The court in this case has widened the scope of the “aggrieved” person and
allowed the petition to move forward to hear the contention of both sides.
 The scope of access to justice is changing every day. Even with all the provisions
available for access to justice, a few gray areas remain, which then become the point of
contention. In the case of fertilizer Corporation Kamgar v Union Of India And Others, the
Judges have tried to broaden the scope of “locus standi” in respect to Article 32 of the
Constitution of India. The scope has now been increased from an “aggrieved” person to
“any” person fighting for a proper cause. In this Judgement, Justice Krishna Iyer has cited
the works of several scholars to show how the Rule of Law must prevail even while
ensuring the proper access to justice to the people. In this article, I shall be discussing
the relevant portions of the judgment and analyzing it in light of the relevant case laws.
1.