A Special Leave Petition under Article 136 invokes a discretionary jurisdiction — the Supreme Court is not bound to grant leave, and most petitions are dismissed at the admission stage. What improves the prospects is not the injustice of the outcome below but the presence of a substantial question of law, a conflict between High Courts, a departure from settled principle, or a gross procedural failure. The drafting of the petition itself carries unusual weight, because admission is often decided in a few minutes of hearing.
Scope and jurisdiction at a glance
- What is being invoked
- Article 136 of the Constitution gives the Supreme Court discretion to grant special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order in any cause or matter passed by any court or tribunal in India. It is a discretionary power, not a right of appeal, and the Court is not obliged to grant leave however wrong the order below may be.
- Who can file
- Any party aggrieved by the order under challenge. Every petition must be filed through an Advocate-on-Record, who remains on the record regardless of who argues the matter.
- Limitation
- Ninety days from the date of the judgment or order in a civil matter, and sixty days in a criminal matter where leave to appeal was refused by the High Court. Where an application for a certificate of fitness was made and refused, time runs from the date of that refusal. Delay can be condoned on an application supported by explanation.
- What improves the prospects
- Admission turns on the question the case raises rather than on the hardship it caused:
- A substantial question of law of general public importance.
- A conflict of view between High Courts on the same question.
- A departure from a settled principle or from a binding precedent of the Supreme Court.
- A gross procedural failure or a violation of natural justice going to the root of the decision.
- A finding recorded without any evidence, or one so perverse that no reasonable court could have reached it.
- What rarely succeeds
- A concurrent finding of fact recorded by the trial court and affirmed on appeal, a re-appreciation of evidence, or a plea that the sentence was harsh without more. The Court does not sit as a further court of appeal on facts.
- Interim relief
- A stay of the operation of the order under challenge is applied for separately alongside the petition, and is frequently the immediate objective — because without it the order below continues to operate while the petition is pending.
- What is excluded
- Article 136(2) provides that the Article does not apply to any judgment, determination or sentence passed by any court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the Armed Forces.
A Special Leave Petition is the most common route to the Supreme Court of India. Under Article 136 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court has discretionary jurisdiction to grant leave to appeal from any judgment, order, or decree of any court or tribunal in India. The word "discretionary" is important — the Supreme Court is not obliged to hear any SLP, and in practice the majority are dismissed at the admission stage without detailed hearing.
That is not a reason not to file when the case is right. It is a reason to be honest, from the outset, about what "right" looks like.
What the Supreme Court is actually looking for at admission
The Supreme Court at the SLP stage is not conducting a re-trial or a full appeal. It is asking, essentially: is there something here that warrants this court's attention? The threshold involves whether there is a substantial question of law of general public importance, whether the High Court has committed a manifest error apparent on the face of the record, whether there is a conflict between High Court judgments on the same point of law, or whether grave injustice has been done that cannot be corrected through any other forum.
Cases that are really factual disputes — where the petitioner disagrees with the High Court's appreciation of evidence — rarely succeed at the SLP stage. The Supreme Court routinely declines to re-examine findings of fact made concurrently by two courts below.
Cases with stronger SLP prospects
Experience suggests that certain categories of cases have structurally stronger prospects at the SLP stage. These include matters where the High Court has decided a question of law differently from another High Court — the resulting conflict is a well-recognised ground for Supreme Court intervention. Matters where the High Court has decided a constitutional question — whether a particular law or executive action is valid — also tend to attract the court's attention.
In family law, transfer petitions and matters where the High Court has passed interim orders with immediate and serious consequences for a party — for instance, interim custody orders or attachment orders in matrimonial proceedings — have sometimes been entertained because the ongoing harm justifies expedited consideration. In criminal matters, SLPs against orders refusing bail in serious cases, or against High Court judgments that have convicted or acquitted, can be viable depending on whether legal error is clearly demonstrable.
The importance of the SLP petition itself
At the admission hearing, the bench usually has the SLP petition, the impugned judgment, and whatever is said in a few minutes of oral argument. The petition must crystallise the ground for interference clearly, frame the question of law precisely if there is one, and direct the court's attention to the specific passage in the High Court judgment where the error lies. A diffuse petition that argues everything tends to succeed on nothing.
The oral presentation at the admission stage also matters. A clear, confident identification of the precise error — without exhaustive narration of facts — is far more effective than a comprehensive tour through the proceedings below.
Interim relief: the stay application
In many SLPs, the most urgently needed relief is a stay of the impugned judgment or order while the petition is heard. Stay applications require the court to be persuaded that there is prima facie merit, that the balance of convenience favours the petitioner, and that irreparable harm will result if no stay is granted. In matrimonial matters where a stay of proceedings in another state is sought, and in cases where execution of a decree is imminent, interim relief can be as significant as the main petition.
In Supreme Court work, Vikram Singh Kushwaha has handled matters where the decisive task was not simply filing an SLP, but identifying the legal error that deserved the Court's attention.
That requires disciplined record selection, careful framing of questions, and a realistic assessment of whether the case belongs in the Supreme Court at all.
Considering an SLP or assessing whether High Court proceedings can be challenged?
Share the High Court judgment and a brief note on the core issue for an honest assessment of whether the matter has genuine Supreme Court prospects.
Consultation & feesAssessing an SLP honestly before filing saves months — a SLP lawyer in Delhi can give a direct read on your order.