Article 136 of the Constitution of India confers upon the Supreme Court a discretionary power to grant special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence, or order passed by any court or tribunal in India. Under Indian law, this provision is the constitutional basis for the Special Leave Petition (SLP) — the most frequently invoked route to the Supreme Court, accounting for the vast majority of matters on the Court's docket.
Legal definition
The Constitution provides the full text of Article 136:
Article 136(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."
Article 136(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."
Several features of Article 136 are constitutionally significant. First, the phrase "notwithstanding anything in this Chapter" gives Article 136 an overriding effect — it operates independently of the other provisions in Chapter IV of Part V (dealing with the Union Judiciary) and is not limited by any statutory restriction on appeals. Second, the jurisdiction extends to "any court or tribunal," which includes not only courts established under ordinary law but also tribunals, commissions, and quasi-judicial bodies. Third, the only express exclusion is for courts or tribunals constituted under laws relating to the Armed Forces. Fourth, the power is entirely discretionary — the word "may" makes clear that no litigant has a right to special leave; it is a privilege that the Court may grant or refuse at its discretion.
How courts have interpreted this term
Pritam Singh v. State [AIR 1950 SC 169]
In one of the earliest decisions interpreting Article 136, the Supreme Court laid down the foundational principle that special leave will not be granted as a matter of course. The Court held that it will interfere only where there has been a gross miscarriage of justice or a violation of the principles of natural law, or where the decision raises a question of general public importance, or where the judgment is plainly erroneous in a point of law. This decision established that Article 136 is not a regular appeal provision but a safety valve for extraordinary situations.
Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala [(2000) 6 SCC 359]
A three-judge Bench comprising Justices K.T. Thomas, D.P. Mohapatra, and R.C. Lahoti clarified the two-stage nature of Article 136 proceedings. At the first stage, the Court considers whether special leave should be granted. If leave is refused, no appeal comes into existence and the doctrine of merger does not apply — the lower court's order remains an order of the lower court. Only if leave is granted does the matter convert into a regular appeal, and at that second stage, the impugned order merges with the Supreme Court's appellate order. The Court specifically held that dismissal of an SLP by a non-speaking order (the common "dismissed" notation) does not constitute a declaration of law under Article 141, does not operate as res judicata on the merits, and does not attract the doctrine of merger.
Mathai v. George [(2010) 4 SCC 358]
A two-judge Bench held that Article 136 does not confer a right of appeal but merely a discretionary power. The Court reiterated that the Supreme Court will not ordinarily interfere with concurrent findings of fact by two courts below unless such findings are vitiated by perversity, or are based on no evidence, or are founded on a misreading of evidence. The Court also cautioned that the scope of Article 136 should not be expanded to make the Supreme Court a regular court of appeal on facts.
Why this matters
Article 136 is the workhorse of the Supreme Court's docket. By some estimates, over 70 percent of all matters filed in the Supreme Court are Special Leave Petitions. The provision serves as a constitutional safety net — ensuring that no litigant is left without recourse if a substantial question of law or a grave miscarriage of justice has occurred at any level of the judicial hierarchy, including tribunals and quasi-judicial bodies that may otherwise have no statutory appeal route to the Supreme Court.
For practitioners, understanding the distinction between the leave stage and the appeal stage is critical. At the leave stage, the Court examines the petition summarily to decide whether the case merits the Court's attention. Dismissal at this stage — which occurs by the thousands every week — carries no precedential value and does not bind any court under Article 141. This is the principle established in Kunhayammed. Once leave is granted, however, the matter becomes a full appeal, the doctrine of merger applies, and the Supreme Court's decision constitutes binding law under Article 141.
A common misunderstanding among litigants is that dismissal of an SLP amounts to the Supreme Court "affirming" or "approving" the lower court's order. This is incorrect. As Kunhayammed clarified, a non-speaking dismissal of an SLP merely means the Court declined to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction — it says nothing about the correctness of the lower court's order. This distinction has significant practical consequences for subsequent proceedings, including the availability of review petitions, curative petitions, and fresh proceedings on changed circumstances.
The sheer volume of SLPs has been a subject of institutional concern. Multiple Chief Justices have observed that the unchecked filing of SLPs contributes to the Supreme Court's massive backlog and diverts attention from cases of genuine constitutional significance. Proposals for reform — including the establishment of regional benches or a National Court of Appeal — have been debated but not implemented.
Related terms
Broader concepts:
Related Supreme Court powers:
- Article 141 (Law Declared by SC)
- Article 142 (Plenary Power of SC)
- Article 32 (Right to Constitutional Remedies)
Procedural:
Frequently asked questions
Is filing an SLP under Article 136 a matter of right?
No. Article 136 confers a discretionary power on the Supreme Court, not a right on the litigant. The Court may refuse to grant special leave without assigning reasons. The word "may" in Article 136(1) makes it clear that the granting of leave is entirely within the Court's discretion. However, the right to file an SLP (as distinct from the right to have it granted) is available to any aggrieved party, and there is no limitation period prescribed by the Constitution, though the Supreme Court Rules prescribe a period of 90 days from the date of the impugned order.
Does dismissal of an SLP mean the Supreme Court agreed with the lower court?
No. As clarified by the Supreme Court in Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala (2000), dismissal of an SLP by a non-speaking order merely means the Court chose not to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction. It does not constitute an affirmation of the lower court's reasoning or conclusion, does not operate as res judicata on the merits, and does not amount to "law declared" under Article 141. A subsequent litigant raising the same legal question is not barred by a prior SLP dismissal.
Can an SLP be filed against the order of a tribunal?
Yes. Article 136(1) extends to "any court or tribunal in the territory of India." This includes statutory tribunals (such as the National Green Tribunal, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal), administrative tribunals, and quasi-judicial bodies. The only exception under Article 136(2) is courts or tribunals constituted under laws relating to the Armed Forces, such as courts martial.
What is the difference between an SLP and a regular appeal?
A regular appeal (under Articles 132, 133, or 134) lies as a matter of right when the prescribed conditions are met — such as a certificate from the High Court that a substantial question of law is involved. An SLP under Article 136 is entirely discretionary and does not require any certificate. The scope of Article 136 is also wider — it reaches any court or tribunal, not just High Courts, and covers any type of order (interlocutory or final), unlike regular appeals which are typically limited to final orders.
What happens after special leave is granted?
Once special leave is granted under Article 136, the SLP converts into a civil or criminal appeal (as the case may be) and is heard on merits. At this stage, the doctrine of merger applies — the impugned order merges with the Supreme Court's eventual appellate order. The Court may confirm, modify, or reverse the lower court's order, and its decision constitutes binding law under Article 141.
This entry is part of the Veritect Indian Legal Glossary, a comprehensive reference of Indian legal terminology grounded in statutory text and judicial interpretation.
Last updated: 2026-03-27. Veritect provides this content for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice.