Mathai @ Joby v. George and Another
"Article 136 confers a discretionary jurisdiction meant for questions of law of general importance and cases of grave injustice; the 2010 reference recorded the concern that it should not become a routine appellate forum, though the Constitution Bench later declined to confine it by fixed guidelines."
Issues Before the Court
- (i)
Whether a special leave petition against a High Court order refusing to interfere with a trial court's interlocutory order (declining a second expert opinion on a disputed will) called for the exercise of the Supreme Court's discretion under Article 136.
- (ii)
Whether, given the volume of special leave petitions being filed, broad guidelines should be laid down to identify the cases in which special leave ought to be granted.
Law & Rules Applicable
- (i)
Constitution of India, Article 136 (special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court).
- (ii)
Constitution of India, Article 145(3) (questions requiring a Bench of at least five judges).
- (iii)
Discretionary character of Article 136, as explained in Pritam Singh v. The State.
Application to Facts & Circumstances
The petitioner had challenged, before the High Court, a trial court's refusal to send a disputed will for a second expert opinion. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, and the petitioner sought special leave against that interlocutory order.
The two-judge Bench did not examine the merits. It recorded its concern that the Court had become, in practice, an ordinary court of appeal, noting the steep rise in pending cases and the very large number of special leave petitions filed every year, many against interlocutory orders and on purely factual disputes.
The Bench observed that the Supreme Court, as the apex court, was meant to deal with constitutional questions and questions of law of general importance, and with cases of grave injustice, rather than to function as a regular forum of appeal.
Considering the question to be of importance for the functioning of the Court, it directed that the papers be placed before the Chief Justice for constituting a Constitution Bench to consider whether broad guidelines should be laid down for entertaining special leave petitions.
Conclusion & Ruling
- (i)
The matter was referred to a larger Bench; the 2010 order is a reference order and does not itself lay down a test for the grant of special leave.
- (ii)
When the reference was taken up in 2016, a Constitution Bench declined to restrict the scope of Article 136 by guidelines, while emphasising that the power is to be exercised with circumspection.
- (iii)
The order remains a frequently cited statement of the concern that Article 136 should not be treated as a routine second or third appeal.
Authorities Cited
Full texts open on Indian Kanoon in a new tab.
- Pritam Singh v. The State, [1950] SCR 453 : AIR 1950 SC 169Case brief →Full text of Pritam Singh v. The State on Indian Kanoon