Maintainability of Special Leave Petitions

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

The bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Prashant Kumar Mishra in Kangra Central Cooperative Bank Limited v. The Kangra Central Cooperative Bank Pensioners Welfare Association (Regd.) & Ors. (2025) dismissed a Special Leave Petition as not maintainable, emphasizing that parties cannot repeatedly challenge the same order after withdrawing earlier proceedings without specific liberty from the Court.

What was the Background of Kangra Central Cooperative Bank Limited v. The Kangra Central Cooperative Bank Pensioners Welfare Association (Regd.) & Ors. (2025) Case? 

• On 15.05.2012, the Single Judge of Himachal Pradesh High Court decided CWP No.1679/2010 regarding pension-related issues, issuing directions that aggrieved both the Bank and the pensioners' association. 
• On 03.09.2014, the Division Bench allowed Letters Patent Appeals from both parties and dismissed the original writ petition as not maintainable. 
• On 12.08.2022, the Supreme Court restored only LPA No.316/2012 (filed by pensioners) to the Division Bench for consideration on merits. 
• On 26.02.2024, the High Court's Division Bench allowed LPA No.316/2012, setting aside the portion of the 2012 order that was impugned by the pensioners. 
• On 23.09.2024, the Supreme Court dismissed the Bank's challenge to the 26.02.2024 order, keeping the question of law open but dismissing the SLP. 
• The Bank then filed a Miscellaneous Application seeking recall of the 23.09.2024 order. 
• On 20.12.2024, the Supreme Court dismissed the MA but granted liberty to approach the High Court in a Review Petition, without granting further liberty to approach the Supreme Court again. 
• On 11.04.2025, the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed Review Petition No.18/2025. 
• The Bank then filed the present SLP challenging both the review order and the underlying judgment.

What were the Court's Observations? 

On Review Jurisdiction After SLP Dismissal: 

• A party does not require any liberty to move in review before the High Court after dismissal simpliciter of an SLP by a non-speaking order, citing Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala (2000) and Khoday Distilleries Limited (2019). 
• However, if the High Court refuses to exercise review jurisdiction, it would not be just and proper to permit the same party to approach the Supreme Court again in the absence of specific liberty having been granted. 

On Successive SLPs and Public Policy: 

• The Court relied on Upadhyay and Co. v. State of U.P. (1999), which established that a party cannot challenge the same order again after withdrawing an SLP without obtaining permission to file fresh proceedings. 
• This principle is based on public policy, similar to Order 23 Rule 1 of CPC regarding withdrawal of suits and discourages bench-hunting tactics while ensuring finality in litigation. 
• The Court applied the principle from Satheesh V K v. Federal Bank Limited (2025), which held that a second SLP is not maintainable when the earlier SLP was withdrawn without permission to approach the Court again should the review fail. 

On Order XLVII Rule 7 CPC: 

• No appeal lies from an order rejecting a review petition as per Order XLVII Rule 7 CPC. 
• When review is rejected, the original decree/order remains intact without any merger, and the party aggrieved must challenge the original decree/order, not the review rejection order. 

Distinguished Manisha Nimesh Mehta Case: 

• The Court distinguished Manisha Nimesh Mehta v. Board of Directors of ICICI Bank (2024), where the Bombay High Court had dismissed review petitions on maintainability grounds alone without considering merits. 
• In the present case, the High Court had recorded that it found no infirmity or illegality warranting review, which was deemed sufficient to sustain the judgment in the limited and circumscribed review jurisdiction. 

Finality Principle: 

• The Court emphasized that entertaining such a petition would be contrary to public policy and tantamount to sitting in appeal over the previous order of the Supreme Court which had attained finality. 
• The maxim interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium (it is for the public good that there be an end to litigation) applies squarely to prevent re-litigation after withdrawal and failed review. 
• Another chance cannot be accorded to the petitioner to agitate its case before the Supreme Court when the initial SLP was dismissed, the MA seeking recall was withdrawn with liberty only to file review before the High Court, and the review has failed. 

Decision on Maintainability: 

• The Court accepted the preliminary objection raised by the respondents and dismissed the Special Leave Petition as not maintainable in limine. 
• The original judgment dated 26.02.2024 attained finality inter-partes, albeit keeping open the question(s) of law as directed in the order dated 23.09.2024.

What is a Special Leave Petition (SLP)? 

About: 

• Definition: SLP is an appeal mechanism to the Supreme Court of India provided under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, 1950. 
• Scope: Can be filed against any judgment, order, decree, or determination of any court or tribunal in India, except matters related to armed forces. 
• Nature: Permits Supreme Court to hear appeals even when no direct right of appeal exists. 
• Discretionary Power: Supreme Court has complete discretion to grant or deny special leave. 
• Application: Available in both civil and criminal cases. 

Historical Background: 

• Origin: Concept derived from the Government of India Act, 1935. 
• Evolution: Term "special leave" appeared in Sections 110, 205, 206, and 208 of the 1935 Act. 
• Privy Council Connection: Originally, special leave was granted by the Privy Council's Judicial Committee under His Majesty-in-Council. 
• Constitutional Adoption: The Indian Constitution incorporated this concept with modifications under Article 136. 

Key Features of SLP: 

• Last Resort: Filed after all other legal remedies are exhausted. 
• Perceived Injustice: Usually filed when there is perceived injustice or significant legal issue. 
• Conversion to Appeal: If leave is granted, the petition becomes an appeal; if denied, no reasons need be given. 
• Constitutional Right: Supreme Court recognized SLP remedy under Article 136 as a constitutional right. 
• Non Obstante Provision: Article 136 is a non obstante clause, meaning it overrides restrictions on appellate jurisdiction. 

Scope and Applicability: 

• Broad Coverage: Includes final and interlocutory orders from courts and quasi-judicial tribunals. 
• Exceptional Circumstances: Supreme Court exercises this power in exceptional cases, particularly when legal issues of general public importance arise. 
• Self-Imposed Restrictions: In criminal cases with concurrent findings of fact, Court exercises restraint unless there's perversity, impropriety, violation of natural justice, or errors of law. 
• No Strict Guidelines: Supreme Court has refused to establish rigid standards for exercising Article 136 powers, preferring case-by-case discretion. 

Limitation Period: 

• 90-Day Rule: SLPs must be filed within 90 days from the date of High Court judgment. 
• 60-Day Rule: Within 60 days against High Court orders refusing certificate of fitness for appeal to Supreme Court. 

Filing Procedure: 

• Who Can File: Any aggrieved party can file an SLP. 
• Requirements: Must provide concise summary of case facts, issues, timeline, and legal arguments. 
• Court Process: After filing, petitioner presents case; Court may issue notice to opposing party who submits counter-affidavit. 
• Decision: Supreme Court decides whether to grant leave based on merits. 
• Post-Grant: If granted, case converts to civil appeal and is heard by Supreme Court. 

Common Grounds for Filing: 

• Substantial question of law 
• Gross miscarriage of justice 
• Violation of principles of natural justice 
• Violation of fundamental rights 

Article 136 Provisions: 

• Clause (1): Supreme Court may grant special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence, or order of any court/tribunal in India. 
• Clause (2): Excludes judgments/orders from courts/tribunals under laws relating to Armed Forces. 

Landmark Cases: 

• Laxmi & Co. v. Anand R. Deshpande (1972): Court may consider subsequent developments to advance justice. 
• Kerala State v. Kunhayammed (2000): Declining to grant leave doesn't invoke appellate jurisdiction. 
• Pritam Singh v. The State (1950): Supreme Court should intervene only in exceptional circumstances. 
• N. Suriyakala v. A. Mohandoss (2007): Article 136 doesn't establish ordinary appeal court but grants discretionary powers for justice. 
• Mathai Joby v. George (2016): Supreme Court's authority should not be limited but used sparingly and sensibly.