Article 136 in The Constitution Of India 1949

136. Special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court

(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

Special Leave Petitions in India (SLP) holds a prime place in the Judiciary of India, and has been provided as a
"residual power" in the hands of Supreme Court of India to be exercised only in cases when any
substantial question of law is involved, or gross injustice has been done. It provides the aggrieved party a special
permission to be heard in Apex court in appeal against any judgment or order of any Court/tribunal in the territory
of India (except military tribunal and court martial) [1]
The Constitution of India under Article 136 vests the Supreme Court of India, the apex court of the country, with a
special power to grant special leave, to appeal against any judgment or order or decree in any matter or cause,
passed or made by any Court/tribunal in the territory of India. It is to be used in case any substantial constitutional
question of law is involved, or gross injustice has been done.
It is discretionary power vested in the Supreme Court of India and the court may in its discretion refuse to grant
leave to appeal. The aggrieved party cannot claim special leave to appeal under Article 136 as a right, but it is
privilege vested in the Supreme Court of India to grant leave to appeal or not.

Restrictions
SLP can be filed against any judgment or decree or order of any High Court /tribunal in the territory of India; or,
SLP can be filed in case the High court refuses to grant the certificate of fitness for appeal to Supreme Court of
India.
SLP can be filed against any judgment of High Court within 90 days from the date of judgement; or SLP can be
filed within 60 days against the order of the High Court refusing to grant the certificate of fitness for appeal to
Supreme Court.
Any aggrieved party can file SLP against the judgment or order of refusal of grant of certificate.

SLP(c) 004307 of 2008

This petition is required to state all the facts that are necessary to enable the court to determine whether SLP
ought to be granted or not. It is required to be signed by Advocate on record. The petition should also contain
statement that the petitioner has not filed any other petition in the High court. It should be accompanied by a
certified copy of judgement appealed against and an affidavit by the petitioner verifying the same and should also
be accompanied by all the documents that formed part of pleading in Lower court.

The scope of power vested with the Supreme Court of India under Article 136[edit]
The constitution of India vest "discretionary power" in the Supreme Court of India. The Supreme Court of India
may in its discretion be able to grant special leave to appeal from any judgment or decree or order in any matter or
cause made or passed by any Court/tribunal in the territory of India. The Supreme Court of India may also refuse
to grant the leave to appeal by exercising its discretion.
An aggrieved party from the judgment or decree of high court cannot claim special leave to appeal as a right but it
is privilege which the Supreme Court of India is vested with and this leave to appeal can be granted by it only.
 An aggrieved party can approach the Apex Court under Article 136 in case any constitutional or legal issue exists
and which can be clarified by the Supreme Court of India. This can be heard as civil or Criminal appeal as the
case may be.

Judgments of various Courts of India on SLP[edit]

There is catena of judgments mentioning about the scope of power of Supreme Court under Article 136, the
maintainability of special leave petitions. The below mentioned are some of prominent judgments mentioning
about SLP.

 Pritam Singh v. the State [AIR 1950 SC 169][2]

 Kunhayammed vs. State of Kerala (2000) 245 ITR 360 (SC)[3]
 Smt. Tej Kumari vs. CIT (2001) 247 ITR 210[4]
 N. Suriyakala Vs. A. Mohan doss and Others (2007) 9 SCC 196[5]
 Tirupati Balaji Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar AIR 2004 SC 2351,[6]
 Jamshed Hormusji Wadia Vs. Board of Trustees, Port of Mumbai AIR 2004 SC 1815
 Mathai @ Joby v. George ( (2010) 4SCC 358)
 Columbia Sportswear Company v. Directorate of Income Tax (judgment of Supreme Court of India in SLP
no 31543 of 2011)
 Jacob Matthew vs State of Punjab (2005) 6 SCC 1
 VISHAL ASHOK THORAT vs. RAJESH SHRIRAMBAPU FATE (2018

ARTICLE 227

Article 227 of the Constitution confers on every High Court the power of superintendence over all courts and
tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction excepting any court or tribunal
constituted by or under any law relating to the armed forces. Without prejudice to the generality of such power the
High Court has been conferred with certain specific powers by sub-Articles (2) and (3) of Article 227 with which we
are not concerned here at. It is well-settled that the power of superintendence so conferred on the High Court is
administrative as well as judicial, and is capable of being invoked at the instance of any person aggrieved or may
even be exercised suo motu. The paramount consideration behind vesting such wide power of superintendence in
the High Court is paving the path of justice and removing any obstacles therein. The power under Article 227 is
wider than the one conferred on the High Court by Article 226 in the sense that the power of superintendence is
not subject to those technicalities of procedure or traditional fetters which are to be found in certiorari jurisdiction.
Else the parameters invoking the exercise of power are almost similar.

Article.227. Power of superintendence over all courts by the High Court.-

1
(1) Every High Court shall have superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout the territories in relation
to which it exercises jurisdiction.

(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provision, the High Court may-

(a) call for returns from such courts;

(b) make and issue general rules and prescribe forms for regulating the practice and proceedings of such courts;
and

(c) prescribe forms in which books, entries and accounts shall be kept by the officers of any such courts.

(3) The High Court may also settle tables of fees to be allowed to the sheriff and all clerks and officers of such
courts and to attorneys, advocates and pleaders practising therein:
Provided that any rules made, forms prescribed or tables settled under clause (2) or clause (3) shall not be
inconsistent with the provision of any law for the time being in force, and shall require the previous approval of the
Governor.

(4) Nothing in this article shall be deemed to confer on a High Court powers of superintendence over any

Notes :

1. Clause (1) has been successively Substituted by the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976, Section
40 (w.e.f. 1-2-1977) and the Constitution (Forty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1978, Section 31, to read as above (w.e.f.
20-6-1979).

2. Clause (5) Inserted by the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976, Section 40 (w.e.f. 1-2-1977) and
omitted by the Constitution (Forty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1978, Section 31 (w.e.f. 20.6.1979).