Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
The Supreme Court of India, as the apex court, possesses the power of Special Leave Jurisdiction (SLJ) under Article 136 of the Constitution. This jurisdiction allows it to entertain appeals arising from judgments of High Courts and other tribunals, irrespective of the limitations prescribed in the statute books. Initially conceived as a mechanism to correct errors and ensure uniformity of law, the scope of SLJ has been significantly shaped by judicial pronouncements over time, moving from a virtually unlimited power to a more circumscribed and principle-based exercise. The landmark *Faizur Rehman Khan* case (1959) and subsequent judgments like *P. Ramachandra Rao* (1962) and *Hindustan Airlines* (1995) have been pivotal in defining its contours.
Historical Context and Evolution
Article 136, inserted during the framing of the Constitution, granted the Supreme Court wide discretionary powers. The initial interpretation, as seen in *R.C. Cooper* (1960), effectively meant SLJ was almost unlimited. However, the Supreme Court, recognizing the potential for abuse and the need to respect the High Courts' authority, began to curtail its exercise. The *Faizur Rehman Khan* case marked a significant shift, introducing the concept of SLJ being exercised only in cases involving "substantial questions of law."
Scope as Defined by Landmark Judgments
*Faizur Rehman Khan v. State of Maharashtra* (1959)
This case established that SLJ should be exercised sparingly and only when the High Court judgment involves a "substantial question of law" of general public importance. It emphasized the importance of judicial discipline and avoiding unnecessary interference with High Court decisions.
*P. Ramachandra Rao v. P. Shankar Rao* (1962)
This judgment further refined the *Faizur Rehman Khan* principle by stating that SLJ should not be invoked if the High Court judgment is based on a clear misinterpretation of law or if the case involves purely factual disputes. The focus shifted towards cases with broader legal implications.
*Hindustan Airlines Corporation v. UOI* (1995)
The Supreme Court introduced the "forum doctrine," which prioritized the High Courts as the primary adjudicatory bodies. SLJ was to be exercised only when the High Court had failed to consider a vital point of law or had decided the case in a manner contrary to settled legal principles. This significantly narrowed the scope of SLJ.
Recent Trends and Restrictions (Post-2012)
The Supreme Court has continued to restrict the exercise of SLJ, emphasizing the need for judicial restraint and promoting efficiency. It has increasingly discouraged entertaining SLPs where the High Court’s decision is based on a clear misapprehension of facts or where the issue is purely of a technical nature. The Court has also prioritized cases involving public interest and constitutional matters.
Principles Guiding the Exercise of SLJ
- Substantial Question of Law: The case must involve a question of law that is significant and has implications beyond the immediate parties involved.
- Public Importance: The case should involve a matter of public importance affecting a large number of people or having significant societal impact.
- Forum Doctrine: High Courts should be the primary forums for adjudication, and SLJ should be an exception.
- Judicial Restraint: The Supreme Court should exercise SLJ sparingly and avoid unnecessary interference with High Court decisions.
Current Status and Debates
Despite the restrictions, SLJ remains an important mechanism for ensuring uniformity and correcting errors. However, it faces criticism due to the large number of SLPs filed, leading to delays in the judicial process. Discussions on potential reforms, including limiting SLJ further or establishing a mechanism for preliminary assessment of SLPs, are ongoing.
| Case Name | Year | Key Principle Established |
|---|---|---|
| Faizur Rehman Khan v. State of Maharashtra | 1959 | SLJ exercised only for "substantial questions of law" |
| P. Ramachandra Rao v. P. Shankar Rao | 1962 | SLJ not to be invoked for factual disputes or misinterpretation of law |
| Hindustan Airlines Corporation v. UOI | 1995 | Introduction of the "forum doctrine" - prioritizing High Courts |
Conclusion
The scope of the Supreme Court’s Special Leave Jurisdiction has undergone a significant transformation, evolving from an almost unlimited power to a more carefully circumscribed exercise guided by principles of judicial restraint and the forum doctrine. Landmark judgments have consistently narrowed its application, prioritizing the role of High Courts and emphasizing the importance of addressing only cases involving substantial questions of law of public importance. While SLJ remains crucial for ensuring uniformity and correcting errors, ongoing debates regarding its scope and potential reforms highlight the need for continued judicial scrutiny and efficiency improvements.
Answer Length
This is a comprehensive model answer for learning purposes and may exceed the word limit. In the exam, always adhere to the prescribed word count.