Legal effect of a rejected, dismissed or disposed off Special Leave Petition (SLP)
Tags: Litigation, Supreme Court, Law, India, Legal

Special leave to appeal (Supreme Court)

Under Article 136 of the Constitution of India,the Supreme Court in exercise of its discretionary powers may grant special leave to appeal (to the petitioner via Special Leave Petition (SLP)) from any* judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order, in any cause or matter passed or made by any court or tribunal in the territory of India. The Article confers an overriding and special appellate jurisdiction on the Supreme Court, unfettered even by competing provisions of the Constitution and answerable only to the wisdom and sense of justice of the Court.

The exercise of jurisdiction under Article 136 is a 2-step process and distinguished from each other —

(i) granting special leave to appeal; and

(ii) hearing of the appeal.

*not under any law relating to the Armed Forces

Relevant doctrines and principles of law potentially applicable

Res judicata

The principle of res judicata requires a finality to judicial decisions. As an anti-abuse measure, by applying to past litigation and future litigation, the principle provides that where a matter involving a question of fact or question of law has been decided between parties in one suit or proceeding and a final decision passed, with no appeal preferred or the same being disposed/dismissed, or no appeal available, none of the parties would be legally allowed in a future suit or proceeding between them to reagitate the matter again.

Doctrine of merger

Under the doctrine of merger there cannot be more than one decree or operative order governing the same subject-matter at a given point of time to avoid judicial conflict and abuse of process.

Legal effect of a rejected, dismissed or disposed off SLP

Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala

The ratio of Kunhayammed[1] (key points summarised below via edit amd emphasis in bold) is central to assessing the legal effect of a Supreme Court order that rejects, dismisses or disposes off a SLP against the petitioner, as the ratio continues to hold the field as binding precedent.

2 stage process

“(ii) The jurisdiction conferred by Article 136 of the Constitution is divisible into two stages. First stage is upto the disposal of prayer for special leave to file an appeal. The second stage commences if and when the leave to appeal is granted and special leave petition is converted into an appeal.”

Application of doctrine of merger

(i) Where an appeal or revision is provided against an order passed by a court, tribunal or any other authority before superior forum and such superior forum modifies, reverses or affirms the decision put in issue before it, the decision by the subordinate forum merges in the decision by the superior forum and it is the latter which subsists, remains operative and is capable of enforcement in the eye of law. *****************

(iii) Doctrine of merger is not a doctrine of universal or unlimited application. It will depend on the nature of jurisdiction exercised by the superior forum and the content or subject-matter of challenge laid or capable of being laid shall be determinative of the applicability of merger. The superior jurisdiction should be capable of reversing, modifying or affirming the order put in issue before it. Under Article 136 of the Constitution the Supreme Court may reverse, modify or affirm the judgment-decree or order appealed against while exercising its appellate jurisdiction and not while exercising the discretionary jurisdiction disposing of petition for special leave to appeal. The doctrine of merger can therefore be applied to the former and not to the latter.”

Order refusing leave

“iv) An order refusing special leave to appeal may be a non- speaking order or a speaking one. In either case it does not attract the doctrine of merger. An order refusing special leave to appeal does not stand substituted in place of the order under challenge. All that it means is that the Court was not inclined to exercise its discretion so as to allow the appeal being filed.”

Effect of speaking order refusing leave

“v) If the order refusing leave to appeal is a speaking order, i.e. gives reasons for refusing the grant of leave, then the order has two implications. Firstly, the statement of law contained in the order is a declaration of law by the Supreme Court within the meaning of Article 141 of the Constitution. Secondly, other than the declaration of law, whatever is stated in the order are the findings recorded by the Supreme Court which would bind the parties thereto and also the court, tribunal or authority in any proceedings subsequent thereto by way of judicial discipline, the Supreme Court being the apex court of the country. But, this does not amount to saying that the order of the court, tribunal or authority below has stood merged in the order of the Supreme Court rejecting special leave petition or that the order of the Supreme Court is the only order binding as res judicata in subsequent proceedings between the parties.”

Leave granted/appeal heard and High Court’s review power lost

“(vi) Once leave to appeal has been granted and appellate jurisdiction of Supreme Court has been invoked the order passed in appeal would attract the doctrine of merger; the order may be of reversal, modification or merely affirmation. (vii) On an appeal having been preferred or a petition seeking leave to appeal having been converted into an appeal before Supreme Court the jurisdiction of High Court to entertain a revew petition is lost thereafter as provided by sub-rule (1) of Rule (1) of Order 47 of the C.P.C.”

High Court review powers after SLP dismissal

In Khoday Distilleries[2], citing and affirming Kunhayammed (supra) as still binding precedent, with respect to the review powers of the High Court where a SLP is dismissed without a speaking order (on merits) the Supreme Court has held —

“27. ……………………

(c) Once we hold that law laid down in Kunhayammed is to be followed, it will not make any difference whether the review petition was filed before the filing of special leave petition or was filed after the dismissal of special leave petition. Such a situation is covered in para 37 of Kunhayammed case. 28. …………………….. In the instant case, since special leave petition was dismissed in limine without giving any reasons, the review petition filed by the appellant in the High Court would be maintainable and should have been decided on merits.”

The importance of the above appellate power of the Supreme Court cannot be underscored enough and may represent the last avenue to get justice for a petitioner in a given cause or matter.

When a SLP is (summarily) rejected, dismissed or disposed off against the petitioner by the Supreme Court, its legal effect on the petitioner and the cause/matter can therefore be profoundly adverse. However, this is not so in every case as held by the Surpreme Court in Kunhayammed (supra). The petitioner’s subsisting rights or legal avenues, legal status of the order etc. appealed against and the availability of sub-ordinate (High Court) court’s (review) powers may not be foreclosed, requiring as analysis of of the contents of relevant Supreme Court order as well as the manner in which the SLP has been dealt with judicially.

References

[1] Kunhayammed & Ors v. State of Kerala (2000) 6 SCC 359

[2] Khoday Distilleries Limited v. Shri Mahadeshwara (2019) 4 SCC 376