Special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court
Article 136 of the Constitution of India deals with special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court. 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. The Constitution came into force on 26 Jan 1950.
(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.
Article 136, The Constitution of India.
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this article, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this article.
-
Mathai @ Joby v. George
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Art.136 is residual discretionary leave, not a regular appeal; Court need not interfere for every interim/trial error. Refers need for CB guidelines on when SLPs should be entertained (Pritam Singh / Suriyakala / Kunhayammed line). Labelled Judgment of Main Case dated 2010-03-19 (order-1.pdf, reportable).
On this article: Art.136 residual discretionary SLP jurisdiction — not ordinary appeal; sparingly exercised.
-
Harbeer Singh vs Sheeshpal
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In criminal appeals against acquittal under Article 136 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court will not interfere with the judgment of the High Court unless the same is clearly unreasonable, perverse, manifestly illegal or grossly unjust. The mere fact that another view could also have been taken on the evidence is not a ground for reversing an order of acquittal. The burden of proving guilt lies on the prosecution and must be discharged beyond all reasonable doubt, a burden which never shifts. When examining evidence of interested or related witnesses, the court must scrutinize all infirmities very carefully. Eyewitness identification, particularly from distance in darkness, must be carefully evaluated. Material omissions in witness statements recorded during investigation may constitute contradictions under the Explanation to Section 162 CrPC and may create serious doubts about witness credibility. Unjustified delay in recording witness statements when witnesses were available casts doubt on the prosecution case. The testimony of chance witnesses whose presence at the scene remains doubtful should be discarded. When the prosecution relies on interested witnesses without independent corroboration and evidence suffers from multiple infirmities in identification, delays, and omissions, conviction cannot be sustained beyond reasonable doubt.
On this article: Jurisdiction of Supreme Court to grant special leave to appeal - provides Supreme Court power to interfere with findings of fact in criminal cases, though interference will not ordinarily occur unless High Court acts perversely or improperly
-
State of Punjab vs Prem Sagar
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
While the Supreme Court has discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 to interfere with sentencing decisions, such interference is warranted only when the High Court commits a serious error in applying sentencing principles. Sentencing for offences affecting public health must be guided by principles of deterrence and proportionality, with consideration of the statutory framework, nature of the offence, factual matrix, and constitutional objectives. Probation benefits cannot be granted merely on grounds of litigation delay or presumed repentance without proper legal reasoning, Probation Officer reports, and assessment of social background. The High Court's failure to apply any discernible sentencing principle in granting probation constituted serious error warranting interference.
On this article: Applied to establish Supreme Court's discretionary jurisdiction to interfere with High Court decisions in appropriate cases
-
State of Punjab vs Gurnam Kaur
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a conviction is based on multiple procedural violations including violation of mandatory statutory search procedures (Section 50(4) NDPS Act), absence of independent witnesses with no explanation provided, failure to record informant statements in writing, unexplained delays in lodging FIR beyond mandatory timeframes, and absence of evidence establishing conscious possession of contraband, and when two views of the evidence are possible, a superior court should not interfere with a judgment of acquittal passed by the High Court. The exercise of discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 is not warranted in such circumstances.
On this article: Discretionary jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to interfere with judgments of lower courts; the Court held this was not a fit case for exercising such discretion given the multiple infirmities in the prosecution case.
-
State of Punjab vs Balbir Singh
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The Supreme Court, in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, may grant special leave to appeal in criminal matters where the decision of a lower appellate court is found to be unsustainable, particularly when the conviction imposed by the trial court is legally justified. Once the Supreme Court grants leave and determines that the conviction should be upheld, the respondent is directed to surrender to custody forthwith to serve the remainder of the sentence.
On this article: Provides the Supreme Court with discretionary power to grant special leave to appeal in any matter, including criminal cases, if the Court considers it appropriate. This is the foundational jurisdiction under which the Special Leave Petition was filed and considered.
-
Ankush Vipan Kapoor vs National Investigation Agency
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Supreme Court will not exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 to grant special leave to appeal or interim relief in criminal matters involving National Investigation Agency investigations where the petitioner has failed to establish exceptional circumstances or demonstrate that the High Court's order rejecting interim relief was manifestly wrong or violated principles of natural justice. Once a special leave petition is dismissed, any interim relief previously granted in relation to that petition stands automatically vacated, allowing the criminal investigation and prosecution to proceed without restriction.
On this article: Grants Supreme Court discretionary jurisdiction to grant special leave to appeal in criminal matters
-
Kumar V. Jagirdar vs Chethana Ramatheertha
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The Supreme Court of India, exercising its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution, has the authority to grant special leave to appeal from High Court judgments where it finds sufficient grounds for appellate intervention, and upon such grant, may dispose of the appeals on merits in accordance with its reasoned judgment, with parties bearing their own costs absent exceptional circumstances.
On this article: Article 136 grants the Supreme Court discretionary jurisdiction 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, tribunal or other authority in India, forming the jurisdictional basis for this SLP
-
Shaw Wallace & CO vs Govindas Purushothamdas
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A Special Leave Petition will be dismissed where the petitioner fails to demonstrate any substantial error of law or fact in the lower court's judgment that would warrant Supreme Court intervention under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
On this article: The Supreme Court's jurisdiction to grant Special Leave to appeal is discretionary under Article 136 and requires satisfaction that the case merits Supreme Court intervention. The Court implicitly applied this provision by considering whether grounds existed for granting leave.
-
Yashwith Construction P. LTD vs Simplex Concrete Piles India Lt
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A Special Leave Petition under Article 136 of the Constitution will be dismissed where the High Court's decisions do not involve substantial legal principles, questions of constitutional law, or matters of public importance, and where the petitioner fails to demonstrate grounds warranting Supreme Court intervention.
On this article: Constitutional basis for Supreme Court's discretionary jurisdiction to grant Special Leave to Appeal in matters of substantial legal and public importance
-
N. K. Prasada vs Govt. of India
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a party with proper notice of proceedings chooses not to appear and participate in proceedings, including not cross-examining witnesses, they cannot later claim violation of principles of natural justice. The burden lies on the party to demonstrate both absence of proper notice and serious prejudice arising therefrom. Further, the Supreme Court may refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 when the appellant has abused the process of court or engaged in fraud. The PIL mechanism, while intended for public interest, cannot be allowed to serve as a destructive weapon against legitimate government orders or decisions, and courts must exercise self-restraint in recognizing and preventing such abuse.
On this article: Discretionary jurisdiction of Supreme Court to grant special leave to appeal; court may refuse to exercise discretion when appellant has abused process
-
The State of Punjab Home Department Secretary vs Chamkaur Singh
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In appeals against acquittal by the High Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, the Supreme Court will not interfere unless the acquittal is clearly unreasonable, perverse, manifestly illegal, or grossly unjust. The mere possibility that another view could be taken on the evidence is insufficient to reverse an acquittal. The cardinal principles are: (1) guilt must be proved beyond all reasonable doubt; (2) the burden of proof lies on the prosecution and never shifts; and (3) when two views are possible on evidence, the one favourable to the accused should be adopted.
On this article: Article 136 grants the Supreme Court the power to grant special leave to appeal, and this includes the power to interfere with findings of fact in acquittal cases, though such interference will not ordinarily occur unless the High Court acts perversely or improperly.
-
Sarvjeet Herbert vs The State of Uttar Pradesh
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When investigation into criminal charges is completed, chargesheet is filed, and the case is committed to the trial court, continued judicial custody of the accused pending trial—particularly when trial may take a considerable time—is not justified. The accused must be released on bail with appropriate conditions to ensure trial attendance, as extended pre-trial detention without conviction effectively constitutes punishment without trial and violates principles of justice. The Supreme Court will exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 to grant bail in such circumstances.
On this article: Article 136 grants the Supreme Court discretionary power to grant Special Leave to Appeal (SLP) in any matter. The Court exercises this power to interfere with High Court's order denying bail, emphasizing the Court's inherent jurisdiction to protect fundamental rights and ensure justice.
-
Ram Prakash Chaddha vs The State of Uttar Pradesh
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The Supreme Court, exercising its discretionary power under Article 136 of the Constitution, may grant special leave to appeal in criminal matters where the petitioner demonstrates sufficient grounds and the Court finds that substantial questions of law or fact are involved, warranting the Court's interference with the High Court's order. Procedural exemptions may be granted where the interests of justice so require.
On this article: Provides the Supreme Court with discretionary power to grant special leave to appeal in any matter, forming the basis for the SLP jurisdiction
-
Iqbal vs The State Rep by the Inspector of Police
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The Supreme Court will not interfere under Article 136 with a conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court and upheld by the High Court on criminal revision, when the conviction is grounded on proper application of law to established facts and no legal error is apparent on the record. The court's discretionary power under Article 136 is not to be exercised merely because a party is dissatisfied with the judgment, but only when there are exceptional circumstances warranting interference.
On this article: Discretionary power of Supreme Court to grant Special Leave to appeal against any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order - the jurisdictional basis for this petition
-
Thankamma George vs Lilly Thomas
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a principal, during the subsistence of a power of attorney, independently executes a deed concerning the property that is the subject matter of the power of attorney, such independent action by the principal amounts to implied revocation of the power of attorney under Section 207 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. The revocation becomes effective as to third parties when they have knowledge of such independent dealing by the principal, as required by Section 208. A sale deed executed by an agent after such implied revocation is void ab initio and does not bind the principal.
On this article: Grants the Supreme Court discretionary jurisdiction to hear appeals. The Court exercised this jurisdiction to examine the impugned High Court judgment.
-
Supriya Jain vs The State of Haryana
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The Supreme Court's discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution is exercised sparingly and only in cases where there are substantial questions of law or facts of general importance or where the High Court's decision appears to be manifestly erroneous or in violation of fundamental principles of justice. In the present case, the petitioner failed to demonstrate such grounds warranting interference.
On this article: Provides the Supreme Court with discretionary jurisdiction to grant special leave to appeal against 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
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Judgments citing this article
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this article is quoted.
-
… Thus, law is well settled that a decision rendered by this Court, be it at the stage of special leave petition or post grant of leave while exercising jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, cannot be assailed directly or collaterally under Article 32. Remedy of an aggrieved litigant is to file for review. If the grievance persists even thereafter, he may invoke the curative jurisdiction subject to compliance of the requirements of such jurisdiction. But certainly it is …
-
… In simple words, interim bail is not permissible for the purposes of contesting elections, much less for campaigning. - 25. In this view of the matter no case is made out for any indulgence in exercise of discretionary power of this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India and the Special Leave Petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to pursue his regular bail application before the High Court where he may seek an advancement of the date of hearing fixed in the matter concerned, if so advised. - 26. The Special Leave Petition is dismissed …
-
… be remaining in service as most of them have been retired or would be retiring in near <span id="page-12-0"></span><sup>4</sup> Order dated 8th March 1991 in Writ Petition No. 3309 of 1991 future. He therefore submitted that this is a fit case wherein this Court should not exercise its jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. 13. Shri Senthil Jagadeesan, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, relying on the judgment of this Court in the case of Sant Ram Sharma v. State of Rajasthan and Others[5]( page-13-0) , submitted that where the rules are silent, the said gap can be …
Questions about Article 136
What have the courts held on Article 136 of the Constitution of India?
Mathai @ Joby v. George (19 Mar 2010) is the leading judgment on this article among those set out below: Art.136 residual discretionary SLP jurisdiction — not ordinary appeal; sparingly exercised. Another 15 judgments on this article are set out below, all of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2001 to 2024.
How do I find court cases under Article 136 of the Constitution of India?
In judgments and charge sheets this article is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: Article 136, Art. 136, article 136 of the Constitution of India. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 16 reported judgments on this article are set out on this page, beginning with Mathai @ Joby v. George (19 Mar 2010).
When did Article 136 of the Constitution of India come into force?
Article 136 of the Constitution of India, commonly called slp or special leave petition, and cited as Article 136, came into force on 26 Jan 1950, having been enacted on 26 Nov 1949. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.
Other articles of the Constitution
- 371D. Special provisions with respect to [the State of Andhra Pradesh or the State of Telangana1292 words
- 366. Definitions1280 words
- 371A. Special provision with respect to the State of Nagaland1245 words
- 371F. Special provisions with respect to the State of Sikkim1039 words
- 239AA. Special provisions with respect to Delhi1001 words
- 352. Proclamation of Emergency897 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Recovered from The Constitution of India in English 2026, the consolidated text published by India Code (item 544213ec-4072-44b2-a6fc-69fb84df2001). English only: the official translations are not reproduced here. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.