Special Leave Petition

Posted on by user

Introduction

Special Leave Petition (SLP) is the gateway to the Supreme Court of India under Article 136 of the Constitution. It permits the Supreme Court, in its extraordinary and supervisory jurisdiction, to grant leave to appeal against any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order in any cause or matter passed by any court or tribunal in the territory of India. For litigators and appellate practitioners, mastery of the law and practice of SLPs is essential because the SLP is both a safety‑valve against grave errors of law or manifest injustice and a highly discretionary tool the Court uses to regulate its docket.

Core Legal Framework

  • Constitutional provision: Article 136, Constitution of India — “Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution, 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.”

  • This is the primary legal source. The jurisdiction is extraordinary and discretionary; it is not a matter of right.

  • Procedural law and practice: The Supreme Court Rules, 2013 (and earlier editions of the Rules), and practice directions framed by the Supreme Court govern filing, presentation, listing, and preliminary scrutiny of SLPs. Practitioners must file SLPs in accordance with the Rules (including paper books, certified copies of impugned orders, etc.) and follow current practice directions on e‑filing, indexing and paginating.

  • Condonation of delay: The Supreme Court has ordinarily entertained applications for condonation of delay in filing SLPs, applying flexible principles. The Limitation Act, 1963 (Section 5) often figures in condonation petitions, and the Court treats delay condonation on facts, balancing prejudice and prospects of success.

Practical Application and Nuances

What SLP is used for
– Correcting grave errors of law: SLP is typically used when a High Court/tribunal has erred on a question of law of general importance or there has been a gross miscarriage of justice.
– Supervisory jurisdiction: It is used to ensure uniformity of law and prevent conflicting decisions on important legal points.
– Remedy of last resort: Where a statutory right of appeal exists, the SLP is still available but the Court is more circumspect; where no appeal lies, the SLP often serves as the main appellate remedy to the Supreme Court.

Key practical nuances
– Discretionary, not automatic: The Supreme Court exercises its discretion sparingly. Filing an SLP does not guarantee a hearing on merits. Early-stage dismissal (on papers) is common where the petition does not raise arguable questions of law.
– Interlocutory orders: SLPs can be filed against interlocutory orders, but the Court requires strong justification (irreparable harm, substantial question of law, questions of jurisdiction).
– Material required on filing: certified copy of the impugned order, cause title, succinct statement of facts, list of dates/chronology, grounds in numbered paragraphs, a concise summary of legal questions, and a paper book of relevant lower court and tribunal records.
– Interim orders and applications for stay: Applications for interim relief (stay of execution, status quo) should be focused, supported by urgency affidavits and prima facie case arguments. The Court weighs balance of convenience and prejudice heavily; mere appealability does not secure interim relief.
– Delay and condonation: If there is delay in filing the SLP, a separate condonation application (with full explanation) must be filed. Courts examine reasons, length of delay, oppression/irremediable injury, and merits of the case.
– Alternative remedies and exhaustion: If an efficacious alternative remedy exists (e.g., statutory appeal), the Court may refuse SLP unless exceptional circumstance is made out. Ensure exhaustion of available remedies before insisting on SLP.

Concrete examples of usage in court practice
– Civil litigation where the High Court has applied a legal principle in a manner that creates a conflict with other High Court precedents: an SLP can be used to obtain correction and unify the law.
– Criminal cases where a High Court acquits on insufficient grounds or convicts ignoring settled law: SLP used to draw Supreme Court attention to serious errors and obtain either stay or correction on merits.
– Tribunal decisions: SLP is frequently invoked against orders of specialized tribunals (e.g., NCLT, NCLAT, Income‑tax Appellate Tribunals) when important legal points arise, especially when no direct appeal lies.

Landmark Judgments

  • R.S. Nayak v. A.R. Antulay, (1984) 2 SCC 183 — In this widely cited decision the Supreme Court addressed the standards to be applied in the exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction, including considerations relevant to delay and the importance of justice over technicalities in appropriate cases. The case is often relied upon for the proposition that the Court must balance the equities and look to substantive justice where substantial issues are involved.

  • (Illustrative) State of Punjab v. Iqbal Singh — As an oft‑cited template in practice notes and judgments, this line of authority reaffirms that Article 136 is an extraordinary jurisdiction, and the Court will normally intervene where there is manifest perversity, grave injustice, or a substantial question of law of general importance. (Practitioners should cite the specific reported authority and paragraph when relying on this precedent.)

(Note: When drafting petitions, always cite the precise reporter and paragraph numbers of any authority you rely upon. The Supreme Court gives heavy weight to precise, well‑framed precedents showing how Article 136 has been exercised in comparable circumstances.)

Strategic Considerations for Practitioners

Filing strategy
– Focus on legal questions: Draft the SLP so the core legal questions are immediately apparent. Avoid re‑arguing the facts unless they are critical to the legal issue.
– Crisp synopsis and prayer: The synopsis (1‑2 pages) should identify the error and the precise relief sought. The prayer should be limited and specific (e.g., grant special leave and issue notice; stay execution of the impugned order).
– Prepare a robust paper book: Include the impugned order(s), judgments of lower courts, relevant statutory provisions, a short chronology, and only the most relevant authorities. Over‑burdening the bench with unnecessary material invites early rejection.

Handling delay and interlocutory urgency
– If delay exists, file a separate condonation affidavit with documentary proof; take responsibility for delay and explain promptly.
– For urgent interim relief, apply succinctly by highlighting stakes, irreparable harm, and balance of convenience; avoid voluminous affidavits at the interim stage.

Avoidable pitfalls
– Don’t repeat lower court’s factual narration at length — the Supreme Court expects legal issues to be front and centre.
– Don’t file SLP as a substitute for an available statutory appeal without explaining why the statutory remedy is inadequate.
– Avoid boilerplate “substantial question of law” allegations — these must be particularised and linked to the impugned reasoning.

Tactical uses and leverage
– Use SLP to procure speedy interim relief in matters involving public interest, commercial urgency, or where execution would render final relief nugatory.
– Where the High Court has created a conflict of law across benches, highlight conflicting precedents to invite consideration by a larger bench.
– If early success on an interlocutory matter (stay, injunction) is critical to client interests, consider cross‑applications (e.g., for interim preservation) and urgent board listing.

Costs, sanctions and conduct
– The Supreme Court may award heavy costs or strike out petitions filed for delay, harassment, or abuse of process. Vexatious litigation can attract serious consequences.
– Counsel’s conduct matters: the Court often comments on unmeritorious litigation and may penalise repeated unsuccessful SLP filings.

Practical checklist (pre‑filing)
– Is there a viable, arguable question of law of general importance or a grave miscarriage of justice? If not, reconsider.
– Are alternative remedies exhausted or clearly inadequate? If not, explain why.
– Is the petition within a reasonable time, or is a condonation application necessary? Prepare evidence for condonation.
– Are certified copies and a concise paper book ready? Is the synopsis tightly drafted?
– Are interim reliefs, if required, supported by precise affidavit material showing urgency/irreparability?

Conclusion

The Special Leave Petition under Article 136 is a powerful but carefully circumscribed remedial tool. Practitioners must present focused legal questions, crisp pleadings and a persuasive explanation of why the Supreme Court’s extraordinary jurisdiction ought to be exercised. Success in SLP practice requires (a) clarity about the limited nature of the remedy, (b) meticulous procedural compliance, (c) strong, well‑cited precedents showing manifest error or conflict, and (d) strategic use of interim relief when necessary. When properly deployed, an SLP can correct grave injustices, unify conflicting law and secure decisive remedies for clients; when used indiscriminately, it is likely to be dismissed at the preliminary stage with costs.