Special Leave Petitions (Article 136) and Supreme Court's Jurisdiction
Indian Polity & Governance
- PYQs8
- Articles1
Background
Understanding Article 136 is fundamental to comprehending the Supreme Court's role, its judicial activism/restraint, and its impact on the judicial system's efficiency and consistency. It's a key constitutional provision.
Article 136 of the Indian Constitution grants the Supreme Court extraordinary discretionary power to grant special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence, or order passed by any court or tribunal in India. It is not a right of appeal but a special power to be exercised sparingly in exceptional circumstances.
Facts & tables
- Nature of power
- Article 136 confers a discretionary power on the Supreme Court, not a right to appeal for litigants.
- Intended use
- Conceived by the Constituent Assembly to be exercised sparingly, primarily for cases of grave injustice or significant legal questions.
- Impact on docket
- A substantial portion of the Supreme Court's docket is now dominated by SLPs, contributing significantly to judicial pendency.
- Scope and consistency
- The Supreme Court has shown reluctance to narrow the scope of Article 136, leading to an unpredictable system and doctrinal inconsistencies.
| Intended Use | Actual Use/Impact |
|---|---|
| Exercised sparingly, for extraordinary cases | Dominates a substantial portion of SC's docket |
| Remedy for grave injustice/significant legal questions | Often used for routine appeals, contributing to pendency |
| Clear guidelines for exercise | Persistent reluctance to formulate clear guidelines |
| Ensure doctrinal consistency | Contributes to unpredictable outcomes and doctrinal inconsistency |
| Type | Reference |
|---|---|
| Conceptual area | Constitutional Law |
| Body | Role |
|---|---|
| Supreme Court of India | Exercises this jurisdiction |
Prelims angle
Prelims angle: Factual recall
Prelims angle: Conceptual understanding
- Art 136: SC's discretionary power.
- Not a right, for exceptional cases.
- Major contributor to SC pendency.
- Lack of clear guidelines.
- Debate on scope and judicial restraint.
Check if created by Constitution or by Parliament.
| Year | Framing tags |
|---|---|
| 2024 | Factual recall, Conceptual understanding |
| 2023 | Statement-based questions, Conceptual understanding |
| 2021 | Conceptual understanding, Multi-statement analysis |
| 2021 | Statement-based questions, Conceptual understanding |
| 2019 | Multi-statement analysis, Factual recall |
| 2019 | Statement-based questions, Conceptual understanding |
| 2014 | Factual recall, Institutional roles and functions |
| 2014 | Factual recall, Conceptual understanding |
Timeline
-
Constitutional Law
Conceptual area
-
Prelims 2014
Factual recall, Institutional roles and functions
-
Prelims 2014
Factual recall, Conceptual understanding
-
Prelims 2019
Multi-statement analysis, Factual recall
-
Prelims 2019
Statement-based questions, Conceptual understanding
-
Prelims 2021
Conceptual understanding, Multi-statement analysis
-
Prelims 2021
Statement-based questions, Conceptual understanding
-
Prelims 2023
Statement-based questions, Conceptual understanding
-
Prelims 2024
Factual recall, Conceptual understanding
-
Will increasing the strength of the SC solve the pendency problem?
Article 136 grants the SC discretionary special leave to appeal, intended for rare, exceptional cases. However, it now dominates the SC's docket, contributing to pendency and doctrinal inconsistency due to a lack of clear guidelines.
See also
Past papers
2014–2024 · 8 questions
In the news
Will increasing the strength of the SC solve the pendency problem?
Article 136 grants the SC discretionary special leave to appeal, intended for rare, exceptional cases. However, it now dominates the SC's docket, contributing to pendency and doctrinal inconsistency due to a lack of clear guidelines.
Try these PYQs
Under which of the following Articles of the Constitution of India, has the Supreme Court of India placed the Right to Privacy?
* The Supreme Court of India, in its landmark judgment in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) vs Union of India (2017), declared that the Right to Privacy is a fundamental right enshrined in the Constitution of India. * The court held that this right is protected under Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the Right to Life and Personal Liberty. * Article 21: States that 'No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law.' The court interpreted 'personal liberty' broadly to include various aspects of privacy. _While the other options are fundamental rights, they are not directly where the Right to Privacy is placed:_ * Article 15: Prohibits discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth. * Article 16: Guarantees equality of opportunity in matters of public employment. * Article 19: Guarantees certain freedoms like speech and expression, assembly, etc.
The power of the Supreme Court of India to decide disputes between the Centre and the States falls under its
Article 131 of the Constitution of India provides for the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to settle the disputes between the different units of the Indian Federation such as between the Centre and one or more states and, between the states.
The power to increase the number of judges in the Supreme Court of India is vested in
According to article 124(1), There shall be a Supreme Court of India consisting of a Chief Justice of India and, until Parliament by law prescribes a larger number, of not more than thirty-three other Judges.
Thus, the Constitution vests the authority to increase the number of Judges in the Parliament.
With reference to Indian Judiciary, consider the following statements:
1. Any retired judge of the Supreme Court of India can be called back to sit and act as a Supreme Court judge by the Chief Justice of India with prior permission of the President of India.
2. A High Court in India has the power to review its own judgement as the Supreme Court does.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
Statement 1 is correct: Under Article 128, the Chief Justice of India may, at any time, with the previous consent of the President, request a retired Judge of the Supreme Court or a retired Judge of a High Court (who is duly qualified) to sit and act as a Judge of the Supreme Court. Statement 2 is not correct: Although there is no explicit Article in the Constitution equivalent to Article 137 (which grants review power to the SC) for High Courts, the High Courts are "Courts of Record" under Article 215. As a Court of Record, a High Court has the inherent power to review its own orders and judgments to correct any patent error or prevent a miscarriage of justice. This has been affirmed by the Supreme Court in various rulings.
Consider the following statements :
1. The motion to impeach a Judge of the Supreme Court of India cannot be rejected by the Speaker of the Lok Sabha as per the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968.
2. The Constitution of India defines and gives details of what constitutes ‘incapacity and proved misbehaviour’ of the Judges of the Supreme Court of India.
3. The details of the process of impeachment of the Judges of the Supreme Court of India are given in the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968.
4. If the motion for the impeachment of a Judge is taken up for voting, the law requires the motion to be backed by each House of the Parliament and supported by a majority of the total membership of that House and by not less than two-thirds of total members of that House present and voting.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
Statement 1 is incorrect: The Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, explicitly gives the Speaker of the Lok Sabha (or the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha) the discretion to either admit or refuse to admit a motion for the removal of a judge. If the motion is not in order or is deemed frivolous, the Speaker can reject it at the initial stage itself. This power was notably exercised by the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha in 2018 when he rejected an impeachment motion against the then Chief Justice of India. Statement 2 is incorrect: The terms "incapacity" and "proven misbehaviour", which are grounds for the removal of a judge under Article 124(4) of the Constitution, are not explicitly defined in the Constitution. Their interpretation has evolved through judicial pronouncements and parliamentary discussions. Statement 3 is correct: The constitutional provisions related to the removal of judges are found in Articles 124(4), 124(5), 217, and 218. Additionally, the process is governed by the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, which outlines the procedural framework for investigating misconduct and incapacity. Statement 4 is correct: As per Article 124(4) of the Constitution, for a motion seeking the removal of a Supreme Court or High Court judge to proceed, it must be passed by:
- A majority of the total membership of the House, and
- A majority of not less than two-thirds of the members present and voting.
Show 3 more PYQs
Consider the following statements:
Statement-I: The Supreme Court of India has held in some judgements that the reservation policies made under Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India would be limited by Article 335 for maintenance of efficiency of the administration.
Statement-II: Article 335 of the Constitution of India defines the term 'efficiency of administration'.
Which one of the following is correct in respect of the above statements?
* Statement I is correct: It has frequently been argued that reservation is contrary to efficiency and merit. Even the Supreme Court of India appeared to have agreed with this argument in some of its judgments, holding that Article 335 mention of the term efficiency of administration will limit the scope of Article 16(4) provision for reservation in services. * Statement II is incorrect: Article 335 of the Constitution of India states that the claims of the members of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes shall be taken into consideration, consistently with the maintenance of efficiency of administration, in the making of appointments to services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or of a State. * Article 335 of the Indian Constitution only mentions the efficiency of administration and does not define the same.
With reference to the Constitution of India, consider the following statements:
1. No High Court shall have the jurisdiction to declare any central law to be constitutionally invalid.
2. An amendment to the Constitution of India cannot be called into question by the Supreme Court of India.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
Statement 1 is incorrect. High Courts have the power to declare central laws unconstitutional. This power is derived from their inherent jurisdiction to uphold the Constitution. Statement 2 is incorrect. While the Supreme Court cannot question the amending power of the Parliament, it can review the constitutional validity of an amendment. The landmark case of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala established the doctrine of the 'basic structure' of the Constitution. Any amendment that violates this basic structure can be declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.
We adopted parliamentary democracy based on the British model, but how does our model differ from that model?
1. As regards legislation, the British Parliament is supreme or sovereign but in India, the power of the Parliament to legislate is limited.
2. In India, matters related to the constitutionality of the Amendment of an Act of the Parliament are referred to the Constitution Bench by the Supreme Court
Select the correct answer using the codes given below.
Statement 1 is Correct: The key difference lies in Parliamentary Supremacy. In the British model, Parliament is considered sovereign. This means its legislative powers are supreme, and its laws cannot be challenged by any other body. In India, the Constitution is supreme. Parliament's power to legislate is limited by the Constitution. The judiciary can review laws passed by Parliament and strike them down if they violate the Constitution. Statement 2 is also Correct: This is a specific example of the limitation on Parliament's power in India. The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court has the authority to review amendments made to existing laws (Acts) and determine if they are constitutional. This power of judicial review ensures the Constitution remains the supreme law.