Article 136: Special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court

Leading cases

• Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu (1992)The majority upheld the Tenth Schedule (anti-defection law) except Paragraph 7, which was invalid for want of ratification and severable; Speakers' disqualification decisions are subject to limited judicial review.
• Union Carbide Corporation v. Union of India (1991)On review, the Court upheld the US $470 million Bhopal settlement and its Article 142 power to record it, but revived the quashed criminal proceedings and declared the Union of India liable to meet any shortfall in the fund.
• S.P. Sampath Kumar v. Union of India (1986)The Court upheld the exclusion of High Court jurisdiction in service matters under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, provided the Tribunal is an equally effective substitute for the High Court, and required changes to its composition and appointments.
• Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala (2000)The Court held that dismissal of a special leave petition, whether by a speaking or non-speaking order, does not attract the doctrine of merger, so the High Court's order remained open to review by the High Court.
• Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984)The Court set aside the appellant's conviction and death sentence for poisoning his wife, holding that circumstantial evidence must satisfy the five conditions drawn from Hanumant's case and that a false defence cannot fill gaps in the prosecution chain.
• Vidya Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2020)The State cannot take a citizen's land without following law, cannot claim title by adverse possession against its own citizen, and was directed to pay compensation as a deemed acquisition despite a delay of decades.
• Hanumant v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1952)The Court acquitted an Excise Commissioner and a contractor of forging a tender and an antedated letter, holding that circumstantial evidence must exclude every hypothesis but guilt and that an admission must be used as a whole.

Questions on this article

16 questions in 45 of our papers cite Article 136. Try these from the free papers:

1. 1. Consider the following statements regarding Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu (1992): 1. Paragraph 7 of the Tenth Schedule was held invalid for want of ratification under the proviso to Article 368(2). 2. Because Paragraph 7 was not ratified, the whole of the Constitution (Fifty-second Amendment) Act, 1985 was held invalid. 3. The Speaker or Chairman, while deciding questions of disqualification under the Tenth Schedule, acts as a tribunal whose decisions are amenable to judicial review. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

   A.1 and 3 onlyB.2 and 3 onlyC.1 onlyD.1, 2 and 3
   Show answer

2. 2. Section 112(2) CPC declares that "nothing herein contained" applies to certain matters. Which one of the following is among them?

   A.appeals from orders and decrees of Prize CourtsB.appeals from final orders in civil proceedings of a High CourtC.suits relating to specific performance of commercial contractsD.appeals from decrees passed by a Division Bench of a High Court
   Show answer

3. 3. From the date the Rent Control Tribunal becomes functional, Section 6(5) of the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011, as amended in 2015, excludes the jurisdiction of all courts over matters within the Tribunal's jurisdiction, except that of:

   A.the Supreme Court under Article 136 only, the writ jurisdiction of the High Courts being wholly excludedB.the Supreme Court under Article 136 and the High Courts under Articles 226 and 227C.the High Courts under Article 227 and the District Courts in their appellate jurisdictionD.the Supreme Court under Article 32 and the High Courts under Article 226 alone
   Show answer