Constitution of India
Article 136: Special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court
Part V — The Union, Chapter IV — The Union Judiciary
Clause (1)
WHAT IT SAYS: Notwithstanding anything in Chapter IV, 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. WHAT IT MEANS: The Supreme Court has overriding discretionary power to hear an appeal from ANY judicial or quasi-judicial body in India — this is not a right of the litigant but a privilege granted by the Court. KEY DOCTRINE: Doctrine of Special Leave — the SC acts as a residual, corrective, and supervisory appellate authority; it is a 'constitutional safety valve' (not a regular appeal).
Clause (2)
WHAT IT SAYS: 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. WHAT IT MEANS: Military courts, court-martials, and Armed Forces Tribunals are expressly excluded from the Supreme Court's special leave jurisdiction — military justice remains a separate domain. KEY DOCTRINE: Military Justice Exclusion — preserves the specialised and distinct nature of military discipline and justice, borrowed from UK constitutional practice.
Constitutional Inspiration
SOURCE(S): 1. Government of India Act, 1935 — Section 205 (appellate jurisdiction of Federal Court) and Section 110 (prerogative of His Majesty to grant special leave) Original provision: The British Crown retained the prerogative to grant 'special leave to appeal' from any court in British India to the Privy Council. What India kept: The expression 'special leave to appeal' and the concept of discretionary extraordinary appellate power were directly adopted. 2. UK Constitutional Practice — Privy Council jurisdiction Original provision: The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council exercised discretionary appellate jurisdiction over colonial courts, including in criminal matters involving miscarriage of justice. What India kept: The exclusion of Armed Forces tribunals from SLP jurisdiction (Clause 2) was modelled on the UK practice of excluding court-martial decisions from civilian appellate review. INDIA'S SPECIFIC ADAPTATIONS: 1. Power vested in Supreme Court, not the Crown — India democratised the erstwhile royal prerogative by transferring it to the apex court of a republic. 2. Widest amplitude — Unlike the Privy Council's limited interventions, Article 136 covers ANY court or tribunal, civil or criminal, final or interlocutory orders. 3. No certificate needed — Unlike Articles 132-134, SLP under Article 136 can be filed even when the High Court refuses to grant a certificate of fitness for appeal.
Constituent Assembly Debate
DEBATED ON: 6th June 1949 and 16th October 1949 (CAD Volumes VIII and X) DRAFT ARTICLE: 112 KEY SPEAKERS: 1. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar (Chairman, Drafting Committee) — Moved the article; proposed the revised consolidated text on 16 Oct 1949 replacing the initially adopted version. 2. Shri Ram Sahai (Madhya Bharat) — Proposed deleting restrictive language that excluded princely states (Part III States) from SC's special leave jurisdiction. 3. Shrimati G. Durgabai (Madras) — Supported Ambedkar's amendment; favoured expanding SC's appellate reach to all territories. 4. Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava (East Punjab) — Sceptical; called the article 'exceptionally wide' and a 'remnant of the divine right of kings' that would make the SC 'above law'. 5. Shri H.V. Pataskar — Rebutted Bhargava; argued there must be 'some independent body which must be the guardian of administration of justice'. 6. Shri Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar (Madras, Drafting Committee) — Strongly supported the article; noted that unlike the Privy Council, the SC would exercise this power as a domestic court, retaining Privy Council's jurisdiction over miscarriage of justice in criminal matters. MAJOR DISAGREEMENTS: 1. Exclusion of Princely States — Ram Sahai argued there was no justification for excluding Part III States from the SC's SLP jurisdiction; amendment accepted. 2. Armed Forces Exclusion (Clause 2) — Added at Defence Ministry's insistence citing UK practice; strongly opposed by members who argued persons sentenced to death by military tribunals should have the right of appeal. 3. Scope of Criminal Appeals — Some members wanted explicit mention of 'civil, criminal, or revenue' matters; Drafting Committee clarified the SC was free to develop its own rules and could intervene even in criminal cases. FINAL OUTCOME: On 16 Oct 1949, the Drafting Committee proposed a wholly revised text removing all restrictive language about princely states and simplifying the article to its present form — the Assembly accepted it. KEY QUOTE: H.V. Pataskar stated that the SC was not likely to 'grant special leave in any matter whosoever' unless there was a serious breach going 'to the root of the matter'.
Landmark Judgments
LANDMARK JUDGMENTS: 1. Pritam Singh v. The State (1950) — First case interpreting Article 136; held that special leave should be granted sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances where substantial and grave injustice is demonstrated. 2. K.K. Verma v. Union of India (1954) — Clarified that Article 136 can be invoked even when the High Court has not issued a certificate of appeal. 3. Bengal Chemical & Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Their Employees (1959) — Established that Article 136 grants a discretionary power, not a right to appeal. 4. Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala (2000) — Landmark ruling on doctrine of merger; held that dismissal of SLP does not invoke merger — merger applies only when leave is granted and appeal is decided. 5. Narpat Singh v. Jaipur Development Authority (2002) — Held Article 136 confers 'discretionary power of widest amplitude' to be exercised sparingly for 'satisfying the demands of justice'. 6. L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997) — Reaffirmed SC's supervisory authority over all tribunals; held that tribunal decisions must first be challenged in the High Court, and only then can SLP be filed under Article 136. 7. Mathai @ Joby v. George (2016) — Constitution Bench held that powers under Article 136 should not be restricted; should be used 'with circumspection rather than to limit the power forever'. NOTABLE DISSENTS: 1. Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava (in CAD, not a judicial dissent) — Argued the provision was 'exceptionally wide' and would make the Supreme Court 'above law'. SCHOLARS & JURISTS: 1. H.M. Seervai — Analysed Article 136 extensively in 'Constitutional Law of India'; viewed it as a plenary power but cautioned against its overuse. 2. Arvind Datar (Senior Advocate) — Argued in scholarly writing that the Kunhayammed ruling on merger needs reconsideration due to conflicting three-judge bench decisions.