RESPONDENT: STATE OF U.P. DATE OF JUDGMENT24/01/1979 KRISHNAIYER, V.R. KRISHNAIYER, V.R. SHINGAL, P.N. KAILASAM, P.S. DESAI, D.A. KOSHAL, A.D. CITATION: 1979 AIR 745 1979 SCR (2)1085 1979 SCC (3) 656 CITATOR INFO : R 1980 SC 470 (10) RF 1980 SC1707 (4) R 1981 SC1218 (1) R 1986 SC 180 (39) RF 1992 SC 891 (23) ACT: Supreme Court Rules, 1966, Order XXI, Rule 15(1)(c), Constitutional India, 1950. Articles 134, 136, 145, Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, s. 384 and Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970, J, 2(a) Procedure of the Supreme Court hearing appeals in criminal matters at the admission stage exparteWhether ultra vires. Words & Phrases'Appeal' and procedureMeaning of. HEADNOTE: Rule 15(1)(c) of Order XXI of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966 envisages that the petition of appeal under subclause (a) or subclause (b) of clause (1) of Art. 134 of the Constitution or under the Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970 or under s. 379 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, on being Registered shall be put up for hearing exparte before the court which may either dismiss it summarily or direct issue of notice to all necessary parties or make such orders, as the circumstances of the case may require. The appellants in the appeal who were acquitted by the Sessions Court had been convicted and sentenced by the High Court and awarded life imprisonment under s. 302 read with s. 149 IPC. When their appeal under the Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970 was listed for preliminary hearing under Rule 15(1)(c) of Order XXI of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966 it was contended (1) that the said provision empowering the court to dismiss the appeal summarily was ultra vires the Enlargement Act, 1970, (2) the power of the Supreme Court to frame rules under Art. 145 of the Constitution can not be extended to annul the rights conferred under an Act of Parliament and (3) that an appeal under the Enlargement Act, 1970 cannot be dismissed summarily without calling for the records, ordering notice to the State and without giving reasons. ^ HELD: (Per Krishna Iyer, Shinghal & Desai, JJ.) 1. Article 134(1)(c) spells a measure of seriousness because the High Court which has heard the case certifies that it involves questions of such moment that the Supreme Court itself must resolve them. To dispose of such a matter by a preliminary healing is to cast a reflection on the High Court's capacity to understand the seriousness of a certification. [1095 DE] 2. Article 136 vests a plenary discretion in the Supreme Court to deign or decline to grant leave to appeal against any conviction or sentence. Before deciding to grant or reject such Leave the court accords an oral hearing after 1086 perusing all the papers produced. Once leave is granted, the appeal is heard, after notice to the state, in full panoply. After leave, the appeal is born. Then it ripens into fullness and is disposed of when both sides are present. No appeal after leave, is dismissed summarily or exparte. If Art. 136 gives a discretionary power to grant leave to appeal or to dismiss in limine, after an exparte hearing (or after issue of notice if the court so chooses), Art. 134 which gives a constitutional right to appeal as it were, must stand on a higher footing lest the Constitution makers be held to have essayed in supererogation. [1095G1096A] 3. There is much more 'hearing' content in an absolute appellate right than in a precarious 'special leave' motion. Jurisprudentially, a right is large than a permission. Art 134 puts the momentous class of cases covered by it beyond the discretionary compass of Art. 136 and within the compulsory area of full hearing such as would follow upon leave being granted under Art. 136(1). A full hearing may not obligate dragging the opposite side to court involving expense and delay. Fullness of hearing of the proponent is not incompatible with nonhearing of the opponent when after appreciating all that could be urged in support of the cause there is no need felt to call upon the other side, as where the proposition is groundless, frivolous or not prima facie statable. [1096BD] 4. Article 134(2) empowers Parliament to expand the jurisdiction o