Introduction 

• One option for appealing to the Supreme Court of India is to file a Special Leave Petition (SLP). 
• Article 136 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI) gives provisions for SLP. 
• SLPs may be brought against any ruling, order, or decree of any Indian court or tribunal—with the exception of those pertaining to the armed forces.  
• When there is no direct right of appeal, it permits the Supreme Court to consider appeals against rulings.  
• The Supreme Court has complete discretion over whether to grant exceptional leave.  
• SLPs may be submitted in both criminal and civil cases.  

What is an SLP? 

• They are usually filed in response to a perceived injustice or a significant legal issue. 
• The Supreme Court may deny leave without giving a justification.  
• The petition becomes an appeal if leave is granted. 
• After all other legal options have been exhausted, SLPs are the last resort for pursuing justice. 
• The Supreme Court must first exercise its discretion in determining whether to grant or deny the requested Special Leave in any given SLP instance. 
• Additionally, the Supreme Court maintained that the Special Leave Petition remedy under Article 136 is a constitutional right.  
• The threshold can therefore be lowered by using the methods allowed by Articles 32, 131, and 136 of the Constitution. 
• Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Prohibition, Certiorari, and Quo warranto are among the constitutional remedies listed in Article 32 that can be used to obtain protection for one's rights. 
• Article 131 (the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction) deals with disputes between or between states. 
• Center-State or inter-State issues in general are covered by Article 131 (Original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court). 

Genesis of SLP 

• The Government of India Act, 1935 is where the words "special leave to appeal" first appeared in Article 136(1) of the Indian Constitution. 
• The phrase "special leave" appeared five times in the 1935 Act, mostly in Sections 110, 205, 206, and 208. 
• Unless otherwise specified, Section 110(b)(iii) forbade legislative bodies from passing legislation that violated His Majesty's right to grant special leave to appeal. 
• Without requiring special permission from His Majesty-in-Council, parties were permitted to appeal to the Federal Court under Section 205(2) on the grounds of substantive legal issues that were incorrectly decided. 
• Direct appeals to His Majesty-in-Council (the Privy Council's Judicial Committee) were forbidden by the same provision, With or without special permission, direct appeals to His Majesty-in-Council (the Privy Council's judicial committee) were forbidden by the same provision. 
• Subject to the Federal Court granting special leave, Section 206(1)(b) gave the Federal Legislature the authority to permit appeals to the Federal Court in specific civil cases. 
• If rules under 206(1) were implemented, Section 206(2) permitted the elimination of direct appeals to His Majesty-in-Council. 
• Section 208 addressed appeals to His Majesty-in-Council, permitting appeals without the Federal Court's or His Majesty-in-Council's permission in some original jurisdiction matters and with their consent in others. 
• "Special leave" was the term given to the leave by the Privy Council's Judicial Committee. 
• The 1935 Act's historical background served as the foundation for the idea of exceptional leave in the Indian Constitution. 

Scope of SLP 

• The Supreme Court of India has broad discretionary authority under Article 136 of the Indian Constitution to grant special permission to appeal any judgment, decree, conclusion, sentence, or order in any cause or case rendered by any court or tribunal operating within Indian territory.  
• Article 136 of COI a non obstante provision highlights that this authority takes precedence above any restrictions on the Court's appellate jurisdiction. 
• The scope of this Article includes tribunals with quasi-judicial jurisdiction as well as final and interlocutory orders.  
• It is important to remember that Article 136 grants the right to request exceptional leave, which may be withdrawn if granted, rather than the right to appeal.  
• Unless there are extraordinary circumstances, such as perversity, impropriety, a violation of natural justice principles, or errors of law or record, the Supreme Court has, suo motu, restricted the consideration of special leave petitions in criminal cases, especially those with concurrent findings of fact. 
• In extraordinary situations, usually when a legal issue of broad public interest comes up, the Court uses its authority under Article 136. 
• The Supreme Court has often refused to restrict its latitude by establishing strict guidelines or standards for the use of its authority under Article 136. 
• In the 1954 case of Dhaneshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal, the Constitutional Bench ruled that the power's inherent nature and character implicitly limit its use. 
• The Court has underlined that this extraordinary and overriding authority must only be used in rare and unusual circumstances, and that it must be used carefully. 
• The Supreme Court has confirmed that where it determines that a person has been treated unfairly or unjustly by a court or tribunal operating within Indian territory, no technical obstacles can prevent the Court from exercising its authority. 
• The Constitution Bench upheld the expansive reach of Article 136 in Mathai Joby v. George (2016), arguing that the Supreme Court's authority under this Article should not be limited and that it should instead be used sparingly and sensibly. 

 Limitation Period for Filing an SLP 

• SLPs can be filed within 90 days from the date of a High Court judgment, or within 60 days against a High Court order refusing to grant a certificate of fitness for appeal to the Supreme Court.

Filing of an SLP

• Any aggrieved party may file an SLP against a judgment or order refusing to grant a certificate for appeal to the Supreme Court. 
• SLPs can be filed for any civil, criminal, or other matter where a significant legal issue exists, or a serious injustice has occurred. 
• The petitioner must provide a concise summary of the case facts, issues, and timeline, along with legal arguments challenging the verdict. 
• Upon filing, the petitioner will have an opportunity to present their case before the Supreme Court. 
• Based on the merits, the Court may issue notice to the opposing party, who must submit a counter-affidavit. 
• The Supreme Court will then decide whether to grant leave or not. 
• If leave is granted, the case is converted into a civil appeal and will be heard again before the Supreme Court. 
• The SLP mechanism provides a special permit for aggrieved parties to appeal against any court or tribunal order within Indian territory to the Supreme Court.

Grounds of SLP

• While there are no specific grounds mentioned in the Constitution, generally SLPs are filed on grounds such as: 
  • Substantial question of law 
  • Gross miscarriage of justice 
  • Violation of principles of natural justice 
  • Violation of fundamental rights

Procedure of SLP

Legal Provision under COI for SLP 

Article 136: 

• Article 136 of the COI deals with special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court. 
• It states that 
  • (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. 

Essential Characteristics: 

• This Article gives discretion to the Supreme Court to 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 applies to both final and interlocutory orders and also applies to Tribunals invested with a part of the judicial power of the State meaning thereby quasi-judicial authorities. 
• This Article does not confer a right to appeal but only a right to apply for special leave which, if granted, confers a right to appeal so long as the leave is not revoked. 
• The Supreme Court invokes the power under Article 136 in exceptional circumstances as and when a question of law of general public importance arises.

Landmark Cases

• In Laxmi & Co. v. Anand R. Deshpande (1972), the Supreme Court held that when hearing appeals under Article 136 of the Constitution, the Court may consider subsequent developments to expedite proceedings, protect the rights of parties, and advance the interests of justice. 
• The Kerala State v. Kunhayammed (2000), ruling established that the Court's discretion to grant Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) does not invoke its appellate jurisdiction if the Court declines to grant leave based on its findings. 
• Pritam Singh v. The State (1950) established that the Supreme Court should not interfere with High Court decisions except in exceptional circumstances. Upon admission of an appeal, the appellant may challenge any erroneous legal determinations by the High Court. The Court should apply uniform criteria when granting special leave to appeal. 
• N. Suriyakala v. A. Mohandoss & Ors. (2007) affirmed that Article 136 of the Constitution does not establish an ordinary court of appeal. It confers broad discretionary powers on the Supreme Court to intervene for meeting the ends of justice, rather than conferring a right of appeal on litigating parties.

Conclusion

The Special Leave Petition is a vital aspect of the Indian legal system, providing a pathway for individuals to challenge decisions made by lower courts and tribunals. It embodies the principles of justice and fairness, ensuring that the Supreme Court can intervene in cases where the rule of law is at stake. Understanding the procedure and significance of SLPs is essential for legal practitioners and individuals seeking justice in India.