Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
The Supreme Court of India stands as the apex court, entrusted with safeguarding constitutional principles and ensuring uniform application of law. A crucial facet of its power is appellate jurisdiction, enabling review of decisions made by High Courts across the nation. This jurisdiction extends to criminal matters as well, providing a vital mechanism for correcting errors and upholding justice. Article 136 of the Constitution grants special leave to appeal to the Supreme Court from any judgment or order passed by a High Court in civil, criminal, or other proceedings. The scope and limitations of this appellate power are subject to judicial interpretation and evolving legal landscape.
Scope of Appellate Jurisdiction under Article 136
Article 136 empowers the Supreme Court to grant special leave to appeal from any judgment or order passed by a High Court. This is distinct from the regular appeals which are governed by specific statutes like the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). The scope isn't unlimited; it’s discretionary and exercised sparingly.
Key Provisions & Limitations
- Discretionary Power: Granting special leave is entirely at the Supreme Court's discretion.
- No Statutory Right: A party doesn't have a legal right to appeal simply because they are dissatisfied with a High Court’s decision.
- Grounds for Intervention: The Court usually intervenes when there are substantial questions of law involved, errors apparent on the face of the record, or cases involving public importance.
- Time Limit: Appeals must be filed within 30 days from the date of the High Court's judgment (Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 applies by analogy).
Procedural Aspects
The process involves filing a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court. The petition must clearly state the grounds for seeking leave and demonstrate why the High Court’s decision warrants review.
- 'Face of Record': The error needs to be evident from the judgment itself; it is not intended for re-hearing evidence.
- Limitation on Scope: The Supreme Court generally doesn’t entertain SLPs challenging findings of fact made by the High Courts unless there are compelling reasons.
- Public Interest Litigation (PIL): PILs can be filed under Article 32 of the Constitution which, in turn, may lead to a review of High Court decisions.
Landmark Judgments
Several landmark judgments have shaped the understanding and exercise of this jurisdiction:
- K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra (1961): This case highlighted the Supreme Court's power to grant special leave even when a regular appeal was not available.
- Motiram v. Union of India (1978): Established that SLP is not a matter of right and emphasized the need for judicial restraint.
- Common Cause Public Trust v. Union of India (2006): This case dealt with public interest litigation and its relevance to appellate jurisdiction, expanding access to justice.
Table: Comparison - Regular Appeal vs. Special Leave Appeal
| Feature | Regular Appeal (CrPC) | Special Leave Appeal (Article 136) |
|---|---|---|
| Right to Appeal | Statutory Right, subject to conditions. | Discretionary Power of SC. No statutory right. |
| Scope | Limited by specific legal provisions. | Broader scope, can address substantial questions of law. |
| Grounds | Specific grounds for appeal as defined in CrPC. | Errors apparent on the face of record, public importance, substantial questions of law. |
| Time Limit | As per CrPC (usually 30 days). | 30 Days from HC Judgment. |
Challenges and Potential Reforms
The Supreme Court faces challenges in managing the large number of SLPs filed annually. There’s ongoing debate about streamlining the process, perhaps through stricter criteria for granting leave or exploring alternative dispute resolution mechanisms.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the appellate jurisdiction conferred by Article 136 plays a crucial role in India's judicial system, ensuring justice and consistency across High Court decisions. While it provides a vital avenue for redressal, its discretionary nature demands careful exercise to avoid overburdening the Supreme Court and to ensure that only matters of significant legal importance are considered. Continued refinement of procedures and adherence to principles of judicial restraint remain essential.
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.