Special Leave Petitions In Criminal Cases
What is a Special Leave Petition (SLP)?
Under Article 136 of the Indian Constitution, the Supreme Court has the discretionary power to grant Special Leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, or order in any cause or matter passed by any court or tribunal in India. This includes criminal cases.
Key features of SLP in criminal cases:
It is not a matter of right but a special discretionary remedy.
It can be filed against any order or judgment passed by any High Court or lower court.
The Supreme Court may entertain or refuse the petition depending on the nature and facts of the case.
The scope is wider than ordinary appeals but not unlimited.
Detailed Explanation with Landmark Case Law
1. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597
Though primarily a landmark case about personal liberty and procedural fairness, it has implications for SLPs in criminal cases.
The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of due process and fairness.
The Court held that fundamental rights cannot be taken away without following the principles of natural justice.
Implication for SLP: If a criminal case involves a breach of fundamental rights or procedural fairness, the Supreme Court can entertain the SLP to correct such miscarriage of justice.
2. State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604
This case laid down guidelines for the court on when to interfere in criminal cases through SLP.
The Court held that SLPs will be entertained when:
There is manifest injustice or abuse of process.
There is gross failure of justice.
There is violation of fundamental rights.
Orders or judgments are perverse or illegal.
This case emphasizes that the Supreme Court will not act as a court of appeal but will correct serious errors or miscarriage of justice.
3. Collector of Customs, Bombay v. Natwarlal Damodar Das, AIR 1981 SC 61
This case establishes the principle that the Supreme Court under Article 136 can grant SLP even if the High Court has declined to interfere in a criminal case.
The Court emphasized that the power to grant SLP should be exercised sparingly and with caution.
It held that interference is justified where there is a substantial question of law or where there is an error of law that has caused injustice.
4. C. Ravichandran Iyer v. Justice A.M. Bhattacharjee, AIR 1995 SC 1349
The Supreme Court clarified the nature of interference in criminal appeals and SLPs.
It held that the Supreme Court should not interfere merely because there is a difference of opinion on facts.
Interference is warranted only when there is a grave miscarriage of justice or patent illegality.
The Court also emphasized that criminal SLPs are not meant for re-appreciation of evidence but for correction of errors of law.
5. Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1994 SC 1857
This case involved the examination of the scope of interference by the Supreme Court in criminal matters through SLP.
The Court held that when there is conflicting evidence, and the trial court’s finding is based on proper appreciation of evidence, the Supreme Court should not interfere.
However, if the conviction is based on no evidence or perverse evidence, SLP can be entertained to prevent miscarriage of justice.
This reinforces the limited but critical role of the Supreme Court in criminal appeals through SLP.
6. Dinesh Dalmia v. Union of India, AIR 1968 SC 497
This case underlined that the Supreme Court will intervene in criminal cases if there is manifest failure of justice.
The Court may grant SLP to protect the rights of the accused from unlawful or unjust prosecution.
It also recognized that the Court’s interference can be necessary in cases of gross abuse of process.
Summary of Principles Governing SLP in Criminal Cases:
| Principle | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Discretionary Remedy | Supreme Court may or may not entertain SLP. |
| Not a Court of Appeal | No reappreciation of evidence. |
| Manifest Injustice or Abuse | Interference if there is miscarriage of justice. |
| Violation of Fundamental Rights | Grounds for interference. |
| Patent Illegality or Perverse Findings | Justification for granting leave. |
| No Interference on Conflicting Evidence | Unless findings are perverse or unsupported. |
Concluding Notes:
SLPs in criminal cases serve as a vital check against judicial errors and protect fundamental rights. However, the Supreme Court maintains a balanced approach by intervening only in exceptional cases to avoid overburdening the apex court with routine appeals.
RELATED Blog
0 comments