Contention Against Maintainability of SLP

In Jamshed Hormusji Wadia Vs. Board of Trustees, Port of Mumbai AIR 2004 SC 1815 (para 33)When no law confers a statutory right to appeal on a party, Article 136 cannot 136 cannot be called in aid to spell out such a right. The Supreme Court would not under Article 136 constitute 136 constitute itself into a tribunal or court just settling disputes and reduce itself to a mere court of error. The The powe powerr unde underr Art Articl iclee 136 is an extr extrao aord rdin inar ary y powe powerr to be exer exerci cise sed d in rare rare and and exceptional cases and on well- known principles.

The Supreme Supreme Court Court in Pritam Singh Singh vs The State State 1950 AIR 169 held held that the SC will not grant grant special special leave to appeal appeal under under Article Article 136 of the Constit Constitution ution unles unlesss it is shown shown that exception exceptional al and special special circumstan circumstances ces exist, exist, that substant substantial ial done done and and the the case case in que quest stio ion n pres presen ents ts feat featur ures es of suf suffi fici cien entt

and grave injustice has been grav gravit ity y

to warr warran antt a

review of the decision appealed against. In Narpat Singh Vs. Jaipur Development Authority (2002) 4 SCC 666, this Court observed as under :"The exercise of jurisdiction conferred by Art.136 Art.136 of  of the Constitution on the Supreme Court is discretionary. It does not confer a right to appeal on a party to litigation; it only confers a discretionary power of widest amplitude on the Supreme Court to be exercised for satisfying the demands of justice. On one hand, it is an exceptional power to be exercised sparingly, with caution and care and to remedy extraordinary situations or situations occasioning gross failure of justice.”

Article 136 provides for a mode which allows furtherance of justice or correction of grave injustice. Justice as such could be classified as a non-rivalrous resource. What it suffers from is the ‘tragedy of commons’. Filing of rivalrous SLP’s is comparable to the over-exploitation of the resource (of justice) resulting in lower efficiency.

The Supreme Court in case of Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills vs. CIT AIR 1955 SC 65 held   that the Court has on several occasions remarked that it was the high court that was intended to be the final court of appeal and Article 136 was just a provision to ensure that  substantial justice is done.

In P.S.R. Sadhanatam vs. Arunachalam AIR 1980 SC 856 Justice Krishna Iyer substantiated the reasoning for limiting the scope of SLP’s. He said, “the wider the discretionary power, the more sparing its exercise. A number of times this Court as stressed that though parties promiscuously ‘provoke’ this jurisdiction, the Court parsimoniously invokes the power. It is true that the strictest vigilance over abuse of the process of the Court, especially at the expensively exalted level of the Supreme Court, should be maintained and ordinarily meddlesome bystanders should not be granted a ‘visa’.

There is no material whatsoever to show that the prosecution has deliberately roped in the accused persons. There is no malafide or malice like the fact situation which are projected in the case of Hardeep Singh (supra). Thus, the view expressed by the learned trial Judge is absolutely indefensible and the affirmance thereof by the High Court is wholly unsustainable.