Special Leave Petition in India: Meaning, Scope, Procedure, Limitation and Powers of the Supreme Court Under Article 136
A Special Leave Petition, commonly known as an SLP, is one of the most important constitutional remedies available before the Supreme Court of India. It is filed under Article 136 of the Constitution of India seeking special permission from the Supreme Court to appeal against a judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order passed by a court or tribunal in India. Unlike an ordinary statutory appeal, an SLP does not arise as a matter of right. Article 136 gives the Supreme Court a discretionary and extraordinary power to grant special leave to appeal. The Supreme Court itself describes Article 136 as conferring a very wide appellate jurisdiction over courts and tribunals throughout India.
Article 136 is therefore fundamentally different from provisions that create a regular right of appeal. Under an ordinary appeal provision, the legislature determines when an aggrieved party has a right to approach an appellate court. Under Article 136, however, the Supreme Court first decides whether the case deserves special leave. The Supreme Court has explained that the jurisdiction under Article 136 operates in two distinct stages. The first stage concerns the Court’s consideration of the prayer for special leave, while the second stage begins if leave is granted and the matter proceeds as an appeal.
The constitutional text gives the Supreme Court power to grant special leave from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order in any cause or matter passed or made by any court or tribunal within India. There is, however, an express constitutional exclusion for judgments, determinations, sentences or orders passed by courts or tribunals constituted under laws relating to the Armed Forces. Article 136 consequently gives the Supreme Court an exceptionally broad jurisdiction, although the exercise of that jurisdiction remains discretionary.
The expression “special leave” is significant. The petitioner does not approach the Supreme Court by simply filing an appeal as of right. The petitioner first asks the Supreme Court to exercise its discretionary constitutional jurisdiction and permit an appeal to be brought before it. If the Supreme Court grants leave, the proceedings move into the appellate stage. This distinction is important because dismissal of an SLP at the threshold and dismissal of an appeal after grant of leave do not operate in exactly the same procedural manner.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly characterised Article 136 as an exceptional and overriding jurisdiction that must be exercised sparingly and with caution. In its jurisprudence on the scope of Article 136, the Court has referred to the principle that special leave is ordinarily warranted where exceptional circumstances, substantial or grave injustice, or sufficiently serious grounds justify intervention. At the same time, the Court has emphasised that Article 136 cannot be confined by a rigid formula because its discretionary nature is part of the constitutional design.
An SLP can arise from civil as well as criminal proceedings. In civil matters, it may challenge a judgment or order of a High Court, tribunal or other court where the constitutional requirements for invoking Article 136 are satisfied. In criminal matters, an SLP may be used to challenge an adverse judgment, sentence or order, subject to the applicable procedural framework. The Supreme Court Rules contain specific provisions governing SLPs in civil and criminal proceedings. The Supreme Court’s current Rules page also lists the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 along with subsequent amendments.
The filing of an SLP is particularly important where no ordinary appeal lies to the Supreme Court. Article 136 can operate as a constitutional safety valve because the Supreme Court is not confined only to those cases in which Parliament has expressly created a statutory appeal. Nevertheless, the existence of Article 136 does not mean that every unsuccessful litigant automatically receives a second opportunity before the Supreme Court. The discretionary character of the jurisdiction requires the petitioner to demonstrate why the case warrants the Supreme Court’s intervention.
The grounds in an SLP therefore need to be carefully formulated. A petition may contend that the High Court or tribunal committed a substantial error of law, ignored material evidence or relevant legal principles, adopted an approach contrary to binding Supreme Court precedent, exceeded its jurisdiction, violated principles of natural justice, or otherwise caused serious injustice. In criminal matters, grounds may additionally concern erroneous appreciation of the legal ingredients of an offence, procedural illegality, improper exercise of jurisdiction, or serious miscarriage of justice. Whether any particular ground warrants special leave depends on the facts and circumstances of the case.
An SLP is not ordinarily intended to function as a routine re-hearing of every factual or legal issue already considered by the lower court. The Supreme Court’s jurisdiction under Article 136 is broad, but the Court exercises it according to constitutional discretion. The Supreme Court has specifically cautioned against treating the grant of special leave as an automatic consequence of filing a petition. The petitioner must persuade the Court that the case deserves its extraordinary appellate intervention.
The Supreme Court’s Form No. 28 is the prescribed format for a Special Leave Petition, and the Court’s official Forms page presently provides the “Format of Special Leave Petition (SLP) FORM – 28” along with other procedural forms. The petition is ordinarily prepared in accordance with the Supreme Court Rules and applicable filing requirements. It contains the necessary details concerning the petitioner and respondents, the judgment or order challenged, the relevant questions of law or grounds, the facts necessary for determining the controversy and the relief sought from the Supreme Court.
The impugned judgment or order is a particularly important document in an SLP. The Supreme Court Rules prescribe requirements concerning the judgment or order being challenged. In a 2024 order, the Supreme Court specifically noted that, for special leave petitions in criminal proceedings, Order XXII Rule 3 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 requires the petition to be accompanied by a certified copy of the judgment or order appealed from. The Court noted a corresponding requirement under Order XXI Rule 4 for civil special leave petitions.
The SLP may also require appropriate applications where procedural requirements cannot immediately be fulfilled. For example, the Supreme Court’s official material identifies applications relating to exemption from filing certified copies, condonation of delay and other interlocutory matters that can arise during Supreme Court proceedings. The precise documents and applications required depend upon the circumstances of the particular case and the current Supreme Court Rules and Registry requirements.
Limitation is another crucial aspect of an SLP. A petition must ordinarily be filed within the applicable limitation period prescribed under the Supreme Court Rules and relevant law. If there is delay, the petitioner generally needs to file an application seeking condonation of delay explaining the reasons for the delay. The Supreme Court’s filing checklist specifically refers to an application for condonation of delay where a petition is time-barred, together with the required affidavit and court fee.
The filing of an SLP does not automatically stay the operation of the judgment or order challenged before the Supreme Court. This is an important practical distinction. A party seeking protection against execution, coercive action, arrest, recovery, sentence or other consequences arising from the impugned order may need to seek appropriate interim relief from the Supreme Court. The mere institution of an SLP should not be treated as equivalent to an order staying the impugned judgment.
In criminal matters, an SLP may arise in a wide variety of situations. For example, an accused may approach the Supreme Court against a High Court judgment relating to conviction, sentence, bail, quashing proceedings or another criminal order, subject to the applicable legal framework. The prosecution or complainant may also approach the Supreme Court against an order adverse to the prosecution where Article 136 is otherwise available. The Supreme Court Rules specifically contain provisions concerning special leave petitions in criminal proceedings.
The relationship between an SLP and a criminal petition for quashing is particularly relevant in contemporary practice. Where a High Court refuses to quash an FIR or criminal proceeding under its inherent jurisdiction, an aggrieved accused may, depending on the circumstances and applicable procedural requirements, approach the Supreme Court under Article 136. The SLP in such a situation challenges the High Court’s decision rather than constituting a fresh petition directly seeking the same relief without reference to the impugned order.
Similarly, if the High Court quashes an FIR or criminal proceeding and another party seeks to challenge that decision, an SLP may potentially be filed before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court then decides whether the matter warrants the exercise of its special-leave jurisdiction. The existence of an SLP remedy does not mean that the Supreme Court will automatically reconsider the entire criminal case; the petitioner must establish grounds justifying intervention under Article 136.
The Supreme Court may, at the threshold stage, refuse to grant special leave. In such a situation, the petition does not proceed into the appellate stage in the same manner as an appeal in which leave has been granted. The Court’s orders frequently use language indicating that it is not inclined to entertain an SLP under Article 136 and consequently dismiss the petition. Such orders illustrate the discretionary nature of the jurisdiction.
If special leave is granted, the matter proceeds as an appeal before the Supreme Court. This is the second stage of Article 136 jurisdiction identified by the Supreme Court. The Court has explained that the jurisdiction is divisible into the stage up to disposal of the prayer for special leave and the subsequent appellate stage after leave has been granted. This distinction has practical importance when analysing the legal effect of Supreme Court orders passed in SLP proceedings.
An SLP should therefore be drafted differently from an ordinary memorandum of appeal. The petition must identify why the Supreme Court’s extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction should be exercised. The grounds should be legally precise and connected to the impugned judgment. A petition that merely reproduces the pleadings filed before the High Court without identifying the material errors or circumstances warranting Supreme Court intervention may not effectively present the constitutional question involved.
The “Questions of Law” and “Grounds” in an SLP are particularly significant. Questions of law should identify the legal issues that arise from the impugned decision, while the grounds should explain the errors alleged against that decision. Depending on the case, these may include incorrect interpretation of statutory provisions, failure to apply binding precedent, jurisdictional errors, violation of natural justice, manifest procedural irregularity or serious injustice. The drafting must remain consistent with the actual record because the Supreme Court considers the impugned judgment and the material placed before it in determining whether to exercise its jurisdiction.
The relief clause is also important because the petitioner must clearly state what is being requested from the Supreme Court. Depending on the case, the petitioner may seek special leave to appeal, setting aside or modification of the impugned judgment or order, restoration of an earlier order, remand for reconsideration, or another appropriate relief. Interim relief may also be sought where immediate protection is necessary, but such relief requires a separate judicial consideration and is not automatically available merely because an SLP has been filed.
An SLP may also involve substantial documentary requirements. The relevant pleadings, orders, judgments, applications and documents relied upon in the case must be compiled in accordance with the Supreme Court’s procedural requirements. The official Supreme Court checklist also addresses matters such as certified copies, applications for exemption, disclosure of identical matters pending or disposed of before the Supreme Court and other filing requirements.
The role of the Advocate-on-Record is also important in Supreme Court practice. The Supreme Court’s procedural system operates through Advocates-on-Record for filing and conducting matters in accordance with the applicable rules. Consequently, preparation of an SLP involves not only substantive legal drafting but also compliance with the Supreme Court’s filing, formatting, documentation and procedural requirements.
The Supreme Court’s power under Article 136 is not confined to questions of law alone. The constitutional language extends to judgments, decrees, determinations, sentences and orders, and the Court possesses wide discretionary authority. However, the Court’s jurisprudence makes clear that the extraordinary nature of the jurisdiction means that intervention is not ordinarily undertaken merely because another view of the evidence or facts is possible. The Court’s intervention depends upon the circumstances and seriousness of the error or injustice alleged.
An important practical point is that an SLP should not be confused with a review petition. A review is ordinarily directed against the judgment or order of the same court that delivered it and is governed by the applicable review jurisdiction. An SLP under Article 136, by contrast, seeks the Supreme Court’s special leave to challenge the judgment or order of another court or tribunal. The Supreme Court itself separately recognises review and curative jurisdictions under its Rules.
An SLP is also different from a writ petition under Article 32. Article 32 is principally concerned with enforcement of fundamental rights, whereas Article 136 is an extraordinary appellate jurisdiction. The remedies may sometimes arise in the same broad factual context, but their constitutional foundations, procedural requirements and legal purposes are distinct.
A Special Leave Petition under Article 136 is an extraordinary constitutional mechanism through which the Supreme Court can exercise discretionary appellate jurisdiction over judgments, decrees, determinations, sentences and orders of courts and tribunals in India, subject to the constitutional exclusion relating to Armed Forces courts and tribunals. The remedy is deliberately broad but discretionary. The Supreme Court has repeatedly stressed that Article 136 is to be exercised with caution and in appropriate cases warranting its intervention.
For legal practitioners, an effective SLP therefore requires more than identifying an adverse judgment. The petition must demonstrate, from the record and applicable law, why the case presents circumstances that justify the Supreme Court’s extraordinary intervention. Current Supreme Court Rules, prescribed forms and Registry requirements should always be checked at the time of filing because the Court periodically amends its procedural rules. The Supreme Court’s official website currently publishes the Rules and prescribed SLP Form No. 28 for practitioners and litigants.
