Article 136 of the Indian Constitution grants the Supreme Court of India the discretionary power to entertain special leave petitions (SLP) against any judgment, decree, determination, sentence, or order passed by any court or tribunal in the country, except for those judgments passed by military tribunals and courts martial.
Key Features of Article 136:
Discretionary Power:
The Supreme Court is not bound to grant special leave to appeal. It has the absolute discretion to decide whether or not to entertain an appeal under Article 136. This discretion is exercised sparingly and only in cases where substantial questions of law or significant injustice is involved.
Scope and Applicability:
Article 136 is extraordinary in nature and is meant to be invoked in exceptional cases. The term “special leave” signifies that the right to appeal under this Article is not a matter of right but a privilege granted by the Court.
This Article applies to any court or tribunal in the country. However, it excludes judgments passed by courts martial.
Wide Ambit:
The scope of Article 136 is very broad, allowing the Supreme Court to interfere in cases involving substantial legal issues, gross injustice, or miscarriage of justice. The Court can examine the merits of the case and provide relief if it deems fit.
Exceptions:
The Supreme Court can deny the petition if it believes the case does not raise a significant issue or if the justice system has been appropriately served.
Judgments from military courts or tribunals are generally outside the purview of Article 136.
Judicial Precedents:
Over the years, the Supreme Court has clarified the principles governing the exercise of its powers under Article 136. The Court generally avoids interfering in matters of factual determination by lower courts unless there has been a gross miscarriage of justice.
Importance of Article 136:
Guarding Fundamental Rights:
Article 136 plays a crucial role in protecting the fundamental rights of individuals by allowing the Supreme Court to intervene in cases of gross injustice.
Upholding the Rule of Law:
It ensures that the highest court in the country can review decisions that may otherwise result in a miscarriage of justice, thus upholding the rule of law.
Final Arbiter:
Through Article 136, the Supreme Court acts as the final arbiter in legal disputes across the country, providing a uniform and coherent interpretation of the law.
Landmark Judgments under Article 136:
Pritam Singh v. The State of Punjab (1956):
The Supreme Court laid down the principle that Article 136 should be used sparingly and in exceptional cases.
Bengal Chemical & Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Their Employees (1959):
The Court held that Article 136 does not confer a right to appeal but grants the Court discretion to intervene.
Durga Shankar Mehta v. Thakur Raghuraj Singh (1954):
The Court emphasized that the exercise of power under Article 136 should not be a matter of course but should be invoked only when there is a grave injustice.
In conclusion, Article 136 is a unique provision that empowers the Supreme Court to act as the guardian of justice, ensuring that legal principles are upheld and that no one suffers undue injustice due to erroneous or unjust decisions by lower courts or tribunals.
.png)
.png)
.png)
