Special Leave Petition (SLP) in Supreme Court of India: Article 136, Limitation, AOR Filing, Interim Stay, Condonation & Procedure 2026

Supreme Court of India • Article 136 • Special Leave Petition • Civil SLP • Criminal SLP • Advocate-on-Record • Pan-India Litigation

A Special Leave Petition, commonly called an SLP, is the principal constitutional route by which a person may request the Supreme Court of India to examine a judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order passed by a court or tribunal anywhere in India. The jurisdiction arises under Article 136 of the Constitution of India and is extraordinary and discretionary. It is not a routine appeal as of right.

Because the Supreme Court exercises jurisdiction over decisions from High Courts and tribunals across the country, an SLP is inherently a pan-India remedy. A matter may arise from the Delhi High Court, Bombay High Court, Calcutta High Court, Madras High Court, Karnataka High Court, Kerala High Court, Punjab and Haryana High Court, Rajasthan High Court, Allahabad High Court, Madhya Pradesh High Court, Gujarat High Court, Patna High Court, Jharkhand High Court, Gauhati High Court, Orissa High Court, Telangana High Court, Andhra Pradesh High Court, Chhattisgarh High Court, Uttarakhand High Court, Himachal Pradesh High Court, Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court, or another High Court or qualifying tribunal. The filing forum remains the Supreme Court of India.

Quick legal position

An SLP is filed under Article 136 of the Constitution.
Special leave is discretionary; the Supreme Court is not required to grant leave merely because another view of the facts or law is possible.
A civil SLP is ordinarily filed within 90 days from the judgment or order sought to be challenged.
Where a High Court has refused a certificate of fitness to appeal, the ordinary SLP limitation under Order XXI is 60 days from the refusal, subject to the Rules and Limitation Act.
A criminal SLP is ordinarily filed within 90 days from the impugned judgment or order where the case does not involve a death sentence.
In a criminal case involving a death sentence, the SLP period under Order XXII is 60 days.
Where leave to appeal has been refused by the High Court in a criminal case, the Rule provides a 60-day period from the refusal, subject to the stated conditions.
A delayed SLP requires a properly supported application for condonation of delay.
Under the Supreme Court Rules, delay in filing an SLP is not to be condoned without notice to the respondent.
Only an Advocate-on-Record (AOR) is entitled to file an appearance or act for a party in the Supreme Court, subject to party-in-person procedure.
The impugned judgment/order and lower-court record must be carefully assembled; documents not forming part of the record below ordinarily require a separate application for permission to produce them.
Interim relief may include stay of operation of the impugned order, protection against coercive action, stay of arrest or sentence where legally maintainable, status quo, or other case-specific protection.
Grant of special leave converts the matter into an appeal; dismissal of an SLP at the leave stage does not always have the same legal effect as dismissal of an appeal after leave is granted.

What is Article 136 of the Constitution?

Article 136(1) empowers the Supreme Court, in its discretion, to grant special leave to appeal from a judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order in any cause or matter passed or made by a court or tribunal in India. The provision begins with a non-obstante formulation and gives the Supreme Court a wide residuary appellate power.

However, the width of the power does not mean that every adverse judgment is a suitable SLP. The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasised that Article 136 is an extraordinary corrective jurisdiction, not an automatic additional tier of appeal.

The constitutional text should be read together with the Supreme Court Rules and current amendments published by the Supreme Court of India.

SLP is not an appeal as of right

The most important conceptual point is the distinction between an SLP and an appeal.

At the SLP stage, the petitioner first asks the Supreme Court to grant special leave to appeal. Until leave is granted, the Court is deciding whether the matter merits entry into its appellate jurisdiction. If leave is granted, the SLP is thereafter treated as an appeal in accordance with the Supreme Court Rules.

This two-stage structure was explained in the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence including Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala. It also explains why a short non-speaking dismissal of an SLP can have a different legal effect from a reasoned appellate judgment delivered after grant of leave.

What kinds of orders can be challenged by SLP?

Article 136 is drafted broadly. Depending on the governing statute and facts, an SLP may arise from:

civil judgments and decrees;
criminal judgments, bail orders and convictions;
matrimonial and family-law judgments;
service-law decisions;
commercial and arbitration matters;
company and insolvency matters;
tax and regulatory matters;
consumer disputes;
land and property disputes;
constitutional and writ proceedings;
orders of statutory tribunals where Article 136 is available; and
interlocutory orders in exceptional cases where immediate Supreme Court intervention is justified.

That does not mean an SLP should be filed against every interlocutory or discretionary order. The likelihood of intervention generally depends on the seriousness of the legal error, injustice, jurisdictional defect, constitutional issue, conflict of precedent or other exceptional feature.

Article 136 and Armed Forces matters: an important exception

Article 136(2) provides that Article 136(1) does not apply to judgments, determinations, sentences or orders passed or made by a court or tribunal constituted by or under a law relating to the Armed Forces.

This does not mean that every Armed Forces Tribunal matter is incapable of reaching the Supreme Court. The Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 contains its own statutory appeal mechanism, including Section 31. The Supreme Court Rules themselves contain a provision applying the civil SLP procedural framework, with necessary modifications, to an application for leave to appeal under Section 31(2), second part, of the AFT Act.

Limitation for a Civil SLP

Order XXI Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules provides the principal limitation framework for civil SLPs.

Situation	Ordinary limitation
SLP against a civil judgment/order	90 days from the judgment/order sought to be appealed from
Certificate of fitness to appeal refused by High Court	60 days from the order of refusal, subject to the Rule

The Rule expressly makes the calculation subject to relevant provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963, including Sections 4, 5, 12 and 14. Time legitimately required for obtaining copies and other exclusion principles may therefore become relevant depending on the case.

The official Supreme Court Rules presently published by the Court state the 60/90-day framework in Order XXI. Filing teams should nevertheless check the latest amendments, Registry practice and the precise nature of the impugned order before calculating the final filing date.

Limitation for a Criminal SLP

Order XXII Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules governs limitation for SLPs in criminal proceedings.

Criminal SLP situation	Ordinary limitation
Criminal judgment/order not involving death sentence	90 days from the judgment/order sought to be appealed from
Case involving sentence of death	60 days from the judgment/order sought to be appealed from
High Court refusal of leave/certificate in the situation covered by the Rule	60 days from the order of refusal

Criminal limitation should be calculated immediately after the High Court order. Where the petitioner is in custody or sentence has become executable, delay can create consequences far beyond Registry objections.

Do not confuse limitation for filing with delay in re-filing

Supreme Court practice distinguishes between:

delay in initial filing of the SLP beyond limitation; and
delay in re-filing after the Registry has notified defects.

They are legally and procedurally different. A petition may have been lodged within the substantive limitation period yet later accumulate re-filing delay because defects were not cured promptly. Conversely, a perfectly prepared petition filed after expiry of limitation still requires condonation of the initial delay.

Condonation of delay in an SLP

Where an SLP is filed after expiry of limitation, the petitioner ordinarily files an interlocutory application seeking condonation of delay supported by an affidavit and a date-based explanation.

A strong delay application should explain:

the date of the impugned judgment/order;
the date on which the petitioner received knowledge or copy, where relevant;
the date certified copy was applied for and received;
each material period of delay;
steps taken to obtain legal advice and instructions;
institutional approvals where a company or public body is involved;
medical, custody, geographic or other genuine impediments, if any;
whether any review or other legally relevant proceeding was pursued; and
why the delay was bona fide rather than negligent.

The Supreme Court Rules specifically provide that where an SLP is beyond limitation and accompanied by a condonation application, delay shall not be condoned without notice to the respondent.

There is no automatic right to condonation

Section 5 of the Limitation Act permits condonation for sufficient cause, but the expression does not create a licence for unexplained inactivity. The longer the delay, the more disciplined the chronology should be.

Generic phrases such as “administrative delay”, “file was under process”, “counsel was being changed” or “petitioner was pursuing remedies” are weak unless supported by dates and records. Government and corporate litigants should maintain an internal litigation timeline from the date of the High Court order.

Should a review petition be filed before an SLP?

There is no universal rule that every litigant must first file a review petition before approaching the Supreme Court under Article 136. Whether review is appropriate depends on the nature of the error and the governing law.

A review may be relevant where there is an apparent error, overlooked binding precedent, clerical or patent mistake, or another recognised review ground. But filing a review merely as a tactic to obtain additional time for SLP can create limitation complexity.

The filing strategy must therefore distinguish between:

a genuine review case;
an SLP against the original judgment;
an SLP against an order dismissing review; and
the effect of prior Supreme Court proceedings on maintainability and merger.

Advocate-on-Record: who can file an SLP?

The Supreme Court has a distinct Advocate-on-Record system. Under Order IV of the Supreme Court Rules, no advocate other than an Advocate-on-Record is entitled to file an appearance or act for a party in the Court, subject to the rules governing parties appearing in person.

An AOR who files a memorandum of appearance with a duly executed vakalatnama is entitled to act and plead for the party and conduct the proceedings. Other advocates, including arguing counsel and Senior Advocates, may appear in accordance with Supreme Court practice, but the AOR bears the filing and procedural responsibility.

What documents are ordinarily required for an SLP?

The exact paper-book requirements depend on whether the SLP is civil or criminal, the case category and Registry directions. A typical SLP file may include:

impugned judgment/order;
certified copy or application for exemption where permissible;
judgments/orders of courts below where relevant;
synopsis and list of dates;
SLP in prescribed form;
questions of law;
grounds for special leave;
interim prayer;
main prayer seeking special leave;
affidavit;
annexures forming part of the record below;
vakalatnama and appearance documents;
applications for exemption, delay, additional documents or other relief where required;
proof concerning service/caveat where applicable; and
translation of vernacular material where required.

The Supreme Court publishes an official Form 28 and SLP-related forms/checklists which should be checked against current Registry practice.

Certified copy of the impugned judgment

The Supreme Court Rules ordinarily contemplate the certified copy of the judgment or order appealed from with the SLP. The Rules also recognise applications seeking exemption from filing a certified copy, but such an application accompanying an SLP is placed before the Court.

A 2024 Supreme Court order drew attention to misuse of certified-copy exemptions and emphasised that litigants should not casually avoid applying for certified copies. As a matter of practice, parties should apply for the certified copy promptly and preserve the receipt and dates.

Synopsis and list of dates

A Supreme Court SLP is not helped by reproducing hundreds of pages of lower-court pleadings without a disciplined narrative. The synopsis and chronology should allow the Bench to understand the dispute quickly.

A useful list of dates should identify:

origin of the dispute;
material statutory events;
institution of proceedings;
significant interim orders;
trial-court or tribunal decision;
High Court proceedings;
date of impugned judgment;
review or certificate proceedings, if relevant; and
events justifying urgent interim relief.

Questions of law in an SLP

Questions of law should not be drafted as disguised factual arguments. They should identify the legal issue that makes Supreme Court consideration necessary.

Examples of stronger formulations include questions concerning:

interpretation of a statutory provision;
conflict between High Court decisions;
departure from binding Supreme Court precedent;
jurisdiction of a court or tribunal;
constitutional rights;
natural justice;
incorrect legal test applied to undisputed facts;
perversity in findings causing grave injustice; or
a recurring question of general public importance.

Grounds for Special Leave

Grounds should explain why Article 136 discretion should be exercised. Merely stating that the High Court was “wrong” is rarely enough.

Depending on the matter, grounds may include:

binding precedent ignored or misapplied;
statutory provision incorrectly interpreted;
jurisdiction exercised where none existed;
jurisdiction illegally declined;
material evidence ignored while irrelevant material was relied upon;
finding that is perverse or unsupported by the record;
violation of natural justice;
constitutional or fundamental-right violation;
inconsistent treatment of similarly situated parties;
manifestly disproportionate relief or punishment;
serious procedural irregularity affecting the result; or
grave miscarriage of justice.

SLP is generally confined to the record below

Order XXI provides that an SLP should be confined to the pleadings before the court or tribunal whose order is challenged. Additional grounds may be urged with due notice and leave of the Supreme Court.

If a petitioner wishes to rely upon a document that did not form part of the record in the court below, the Rules contemplate a separate application explaining why it was not produced earlier and why production in the Supreme Court is necessary.

This is important for litigation strategy. A weak evidentiary record cannot always be repaired for the first time at the SLP stage.

Interim relief in an SLP

Filing an SLP does not automatically stay the impugned judgment or order. Interim protection must be specifically sought and granted.

Depending on the case, relief may include:

stay of operation of the impugned judgment;
stay of recovery or coercive action;
status quo concerning property or employment;
protection against arrest;
suspension/stay of sentence in an appropriate criminal matter;
stay of contempt or consequential proceedings;
restraint against creation of third-party rights;
stay of tribunal or regulatory directions; or
an urgent listing direction.

The interim prayer should be tied to demonstrable urgency and irreparable consequences. A vague prayer to “stay everything” without identifying the operative part of the order is less effective than precise relief.

Interim relief in civil SLP Form 28

Order XXI states that a civil SLP under Article 136 is to be in Form 28 and that no separate application for interim relief need be filed; the interim prayer, if any, should be incorporated in Form 28. Other interlocutory applications may still be required for distinct procedural relief such as condonation, exemption or additional documents.

What happens after filing?

A simplified Supreme Court filing sequence is:

finalise the SLP and applications;
file through the AOR/e-filing system or permitted Registry process;
Registry scrutiny;
defects, if any, are notified;
defects are cured and matter re-filed;
matter receives final registration after compliance;
SLP is listed before the Supreme Court;
the Court may dismiss at threshold, issue notice, grant interim relief, or pass another appropriate direction;
if special leave is granted, the matter becomes an appeal; and
the appeal thereafter proceeds under the applicable appellate procedure.

Registry defects: why they matter

Supreme Court filing is document-sensitive. Common defects may concern:

incorrect cause title;
missing parties;
incomplete lower-court particulars;
defective affidavit;
wrong pagination;
illegible annexures;
missing certified copy or exemption application;
translation defects;
incorrect court fee;
missing disclosure of earlier SLP;
delay calculation;
defective vakalatnama;
non-compliant index;
missing proof that documents formed part of the record below; or
failure to cure earlier notified defects.

The Supreme Court Rules give the Registry and Registrar defined powers concerning scrutiny and curing defects. A party should therefore treat the Diary Number stage as the beginning of filing compliance, not as confirmation that the matter is fully registered.

Can a second SLP be filed against the same judgment?

The Supreme Court Rules require disclosure of whether an earlier SLP against the impugned judgment/order was filed and what happened to it. Non-disclosure can have serious consequences.

Successive proceedings must be approached with caution. A second SLP cannot be used simply to obtain another hearing after an earlier SLP has been dismissed. The legal effect depends on the nature of the prior order, review proceedings, recall jurisdiction and other exceptional doctrines.

Caveat in the Supreme Court

A respondent anticipating an SLP may consider lodging a caveat where legally permissible and procedurally appropriate. Where a caveat has been lodged, the Supreme Court Rules provide for notice of hearing to the caveator.

A caveat can be particularly important where the prospective petitioner is expected to seek urgent ex parte interim relief that could immediately affect possession, employment, recovery, corporate control, custody or another sensitive interest.

When does the Supreme Court issue notice?

At the initial stage the Court may:

dismiss the SLP without issuing notice;
issue notice limited to a particular question;
issue notice on the SLP generally;
issue notice on interim relief;
grant interim protection while issuing notice;
decline interim protection but seek a response; or
in an appropriate case, grant leave and proceed further.

The order depends on the case and there is no automatic entitlement to notice merely because an SLP has been registered.

What happens when special leave is granted?

Order XXI provides that once special leave is granted, the SLP is treated as the petition of appeal, subject to additional court fee if applicable, and is registered and numbered as an appeal. At that point the Court is exercising appellate jurisdiction rather than merely deciding whether to grant leave.

Dismissal of SLP and doctrine of merger

The effect of dismissal of an SLP depends on the nature of the order. The Supreme Court’s decision in Kunhayammed remains central to this subject.

A non-speaking dismissal at the SLP stage ordinarily means the Supreme Court declined to exercise Article 136 discretion; it does not automatically amount to approval of every reason in the judgment below or attract merger in the same way as an appellate decision after leave.

The Supreme Court again restated this principle in Hindustan Construction Company Ltd. v. Bihar Rajya Pul Nirman Nigam Ltd., 2025 INSC 1365, observing that a non-speaking SLP dismissal signifies a discretionary refusal to interfere and does not amount to approval of the subordinate forum’s reasoning.

Can the Supreme Court reappreciate facts?

Article 136 is wide enough to correct grave factual injustice, but the Supreme Court does not ordinarily function as a routine court of first factual reappreciation. Concurrent findings receive considerable weight unless the petitioner shows perversity, absence of evidence, material evidence ignored, legally impermissible inference, or another serious defect.

A 2023 Supreme Court judgment reiterated that even after leave has been granted, interference with concurrent findings ordinarily requires exceptional circumstances or a showing that grave injustice would result without intervention.

Criminal SLPs: additional practical considerations

Criminal SLP preparation may involve additional questions such as:

whether the petitioner is in custody;
whether surrender is required under the applicable Rules and practice;
whether exemption from surrender is necessary;
whether sentence has been suspended;
whether bail continues after the High Court judgment;
whether urgent protection is necessary;
whether certified copies and custody documents are available; and
whether the impugned order concerns bail, quashing, conviction, acquittal or sentence.

For connected criminal-law reading, see Bail Conditions Under BNSS: Supreme Court Limits and Section 223 BNSS: Supreme Court on Mandatory Pre-Cognizance Hearing.

Civil SLPs: what usually strengthens the case?

In civil and commercial matters, stronger Article 136 grounds commonly involve:

High Court interpretation directly contrary to binding Supreme Court precedent;
jurisdictional overreach;
serious procedural unfairness;
patently arbitrary exercise of discretion;
conflicting High Court views on a recurring statutory question;
large-scale public or industry consequence;
incorrect application of a settled legal test; or
grave injustice not adequately remediable by ordinary process.

Matrimonial and family-law SLPs

Family-law SLPs may arise from divorce, custody, maintenance, transfer, guardianship, matrimonial jurisdiction and recognition of foreign decrees. Because many family-law orders are discretionary and fact-sensitive, the petition should identify the precise legal error rather than merely rearguing the entire marriage dispute.

For an example of a cross-border matrimonial issue that may ultimately raise Supreme Court questions, see Foreign Divorce Decree Validity in India: Section 13 CPC & Delhi High Court 2026.

SLP against an interim order

Article 136 is broad enough to be invoked against interlocutory orders, but the Supreme Court is ordinarily cautious where proceedings remain pending below and an effective remedy is still available.

An interim-order SLP becomes stronger where the order:

finally determines an important right despite being labelled interim;
causes irreversible prejudice;
suffers from clear jurisdictional error;
violates binding precedent;
produces consequences incapable of meaningful correction later; or
raises a significant legal issue requiring immediate resolution.

SLP versus statutory appeal

Before invoking Article 136, counsel should identify whether Parliament has created a specific statutory appeal to the Supreme Court. Depending on the statute, a direct statutory appeal may be the proper route.

Examples arise in taxation, arbitration-related legislation, election law, contempt, tribunals and specialised enactments. The correct case type, limitation and filing format may differ from an Article 136 SLP.

SLP versus writ petition under Article 32

An SLP under Article 136 challenges a judgment/order of a court or tribunal. A writ petition under Article 32 invokes the Supreme Court’s original constitutional jurisdiction for enforcement of fundamental rights.

The remedies are not interchangeable. Merely characterising an adverse judgment as a fundamental-right violation does not automatically convert an appellate grievance into an Article 32 case.

SLP versus review petition in Supreme Court

Once the Supreme Court itself has passed a final judgment or order, the ordinary mechanism for asking the same Court to reconsider it is not another SLP. Review jurisdiction is governed by Article 137, the Supreme Court Rules and settled review principles. A curative petition is still more exceptional and follows after the recognised review route in the narrow class of cases permitted by Supreme Court jurisprudence.

Pan-India document checklist before approaching the Supreme Court

Whether the case originates in Mumbai, Bengaluru, Chennai, Kolkata, Hyderabad, Chandigarh, Lucknow, Jaipur, Ahmedabad, Patna, Ranchi, Guwahati, Kochi, Bhopal, Raipur, Srinagar or any other jurisdiction, the pre-filing review should begin with the same core checklist:

obtain the complete impugned judgment/order;
apply for certified copy immediately;
calculate limitation independently;
identify whether the matter is civil, criminal or statutory appeal;
check whether any special statute changes the appellate route;
collect pleadings filed before the court/tribunal below;
collect material annexures forming part of the lower-court record;
identify the precise questions of law;
identify binding Supreme Court precedents supporting the proposed challenge;
identify any adverse precedent and distinguish it candidly;
prepare a complete chronology;
identify immediate interim consequences;
check whether any caveat is expected;
record any period requiring delay explanation;
identify additional documents that were not part of the lower record;
check translation requirements;
resolve party descriptions and addresses;
confirm whether all necessary parties are impleaded;
finalise AOR filing documents and vakalatnama; and
review the latest Supreme Court Rules, forms and Registry checklist before filing.

Common reasons SLPs become weak before filing

petition simply repeats High Court arguments;
no substantial legal issue is identified;
questions of law are drafted as factual complaints;
binding precedent is ignored;
delay is poorly explained;
urgent interim relief is sought without explaining the consequence of refusal;
new documents are inserted without seeking permission;
facts are stated inconsistently with the record below;
the petition conceals an earlier SLP or related proceeding;
necessary parties are omitted;
the wrong appellate route is selected;
a statutory appeal is available but Article 136 is invoked without analysis;
certified-copy chronology is missing;
concurrent factual findings are attacked without demonstrating perversity; or
the petition treats Article 136 as an automatic third or fourth appeal.

How should an SLP be structured?

A disciplined SLP generally answers five questions quickly:

What order is being challenged?
Why is Article 136 intervention justified?
What precise questions of law arise?
What immediate interim protection is necessary?
What final relief should the Supreme Court grant if leave is given?

The objective is not to reproduce every paragraph of every pleading. It is to demonstrate why this particular case warrants exercise of the Supreme Court’s exceptional discretionary jurisdiction.

Frequently asked questions

What is an SLP in the Supreme Court?

An SLP is a petition under Article 136 asking the Supreme Court to grant special leave to appeal against a judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order of a court or tribunal.

Can an SLP be filed from any State in India?

Yes. Subject to Article 136, the governing statute and maintainability rules, SLPs can arise from High Courts and qualifying tribunals across India. The Supreme Court is a national forum.

What is the limitation for a civil SLP?

Ordinarily 90 days from the judgment/order, or 60 days from a qualifying refusal of certificate of fitness by the High Court, subject to the Supreme Court Rules and Limitation Act.

What is the limitation for a criminal SLP?

Ordinarily 90 days for a criminal judgment/order not involving a death sentence; 60 days where the case involves a death sentence. A 60-day rule also applies in the specified High Court refusal situation under Order XXII.

Can delay in filing an SLP be condoned?

Yes, the Supreme Court can condone delay for sufficient cause. The petitioner should file a detailed condonation application supported by affidavit and chronology. Condonation is discretionary.

Does filing an SLP automatically stay the High Court judgment?

No. Stay or other interim protection must be specifically sought and granted by the Supreme Court.

Who can file an SLP in the Supreme Court?

Supreme Court filing and acting for a party is ordinarily through an Advocate-on-Record under the Supreme Court Rules, apart from recognised party-in-person procedure.

Can a Senior Advocate file an SLP directly?

A Senior Advocate may argue in accordance with Supreme Court practice, but filing and acting for the party are functions governed by the Advocate-on-Record system.

Can new evidence be filed with an SLP?

Not as a matter of course. Where a document was not part of the record below, the Rules contemplate a separate application explaining why it was not produced earlier and why its production is necessary.

Can the Supreme Court dismiss an SLP without notice?

Yes. An SLP may be dismissed at the threshold. Registration does not guarantee issuance of notice.

What happens when leave is granted?

The SLP is treated as an appeal and proceeds in the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction under the applicable Rules.

Does dismissal of an SLP mean the Supreme Court approved the High Court reasoning?

Not necessarily. A non-speaking dismissal at the special-leave stage ordinarily signifies refusal to exercise Article 136 discretion and does not automatically amount to approval of every reason in the judgment below.

Can an SLP be filed against a bail order?

Yes, Article 136 can be invoked in appropriate bail matters, but the Supreme Court applies settled principles governing interference with grant or refusal of bail.

Can an SLP be filed directly against a trial-court order?

Article 136 is textually broad, but the Supreme Court ordinarily expects litigants to use available appellate/revisional remedies unless exceptional circumstances justify direct intervention.

Is an SLP possible against an Armed Forces Tribunal order?

Article 136(2) creates an Armed Forces exception. Appeals from the AFT are governed by the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, including Section 31, and the corresponding Supreme Court procedural provisions.

Key Supreme Court authorities

Pritam Singh v. State, AIR 1950 SC 169: foundational authority emphasising disciplined and exceptional exercise of special-leave jurisdiction.
Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala, (2000) 6 SCC 359: explains the two stages of Article 136 jurisdiction and doctrine of merger.
Mathai @ Joby v. George: discusses the need for restraint in use of Article 136 jurisdiction and the burden created by routine SLPs.
2024 INSC 846: restates the breadth and discretionary character of Article 136 and discusses Kunhayammed.
Hindustan Construction Company Ltd. v. Bihar Rajya Pul Nirman Nigam Ltd., 2025 INSC 1365: reiterates that non-speaking dismissal of an SLP does not amount to approval of the subordinate forum’s reasoning and does not attract merger in the ordinary sense.

Official Supreme Court resources

Key takeaways

Article 136 creates extraordinary discretionary appellate jurisdiction, not an appeal as of right.
The Supreme Court is a pan-India forum: the originating High Court or tribunal may be located anywhere in India.
Civil and most criminal SLPs ordinarily carry a 90-day limitation, subject to the specific 60-day situations in the Rules.
Death-sentence criminal SLPs carry a 60-day period under Order XXII.
Delay and re-filing delay are different procedural issues.
Only an Advocate-on-Record can ordinarily file an appearance or act for a party in the Supreme Court.
Filing does not automatically stay the impugned order.
The SLP should ordinarily remain anchored to the record and pleadings before the court below.
Grant of leave converts the matter into an appeal.
Non-speaking dismissal of an SLP ordinarily does not mean that the Supreme Court has endorsed the reasoning below.
The strongest SLPs identify a precise legal error, serious injustice or issue justifying Article 136 intervention.

This article is intended for general legal education and Supreme Court procedure research across India. It does not constitute solicitation, advertisement or case-specific legal advice. Supreme Court limitation, case classification, filing requirements, court fees, Registry practice and applicable Rules should be checked against the latest official notifications and the facts of the individual matter before filing.

Contact Information

Adv Govind Bali
Managing Partner, Fastrack Legal Solutions LLP
Phone: 7697671219
Email: advgovind@fastracklegalsolutions.com
Website: www.fastracklegalsolutions.com

Contact details are provided for identification and professional correspondence. This article is for general legal information and does not constitute solicitation or advertisement.

Fastrack Legal Solutions