Article 136 and Administrative Law

Article 136 of the Constitution of India gives the Supreme Court a broad discretionary power to grant Special Leave to Appeal (SLP) against judgments, decrees, determinations, sentences or orders passed by courts and tribunals in India.

In Administrative Law, Article 136 is important because it provides a mechanism through which the Supreme Court can examine decisions of administrative tribunals, specialised adjudicatory bodies and other authorities exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions.

Unlike an ordinary statutory appeal, Article 136 does not create a general right of appeal. It gives the Supreme Court a discretionary jurisdiction to intervene where the circumstances justify its exercise.

Meaning of Article 136

Article 136(1) provides that the Supreme Court may, in its discretion, grant special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order passed by any court or tribunal in the territory of India.

Article 136(2) excludes courts or tribunals constituted under laws relating to the Armed Forces from this jurisdiction.

The provision therefore creates an exceptional appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.

The important expression is “special leave to appeal.”

This means that a person does not have an automatic right to appeal under Article 136. The Supreme Court first decides whether special leave should be granted.

Nature of Article 136 Jurisdiction

Article 136 has several important characteristics.

Discretionary

The Supreme Court has discretion to grant or refuse special leave.

Exceptional

It is not intended to operate as an ordinary appellate remedy in every case.

Wide

The provision uses broad language covering judgments, decrees, determinations, sentences and orders of courts and tribunals.

Corrective

It allows the Supreme Court to correct serious legal or procedural errors where intervention is considered appropriate.

Constitutional

The power originates directly from the Constitution rather than from an ordinary statute.

Article 136 and Administrative Law

Administrative law increasingly involves specialised adjudicatory bodies and tribunals.

Examples include bodies dealing with:

• Service disputes.
• Taxation.
• Company law.
• Competition law.
• Environmental matters.
• Consumer disputes.
• Industrial disputes.
• Other specialised statutory disputes.

Where a tribunal or court has delivered a decision, Article 136 may provide a route to the Supreme Court, subject to the Court’s discretion.

This makes Article 136 an important component of the constitutional system of judicial control over administrative adjudication.

Article 136 and Administrative Tribunals

Administrative tribunals are generally established under legislation to resolve specialised disputes.

A tribunal may possess expertise in a particular field, but its decisions remain subject to constitutional supervision.

Article 136 provides a route through which the Supreme Court can consider tribunal decisions in appropriate cases.

However, the existence of Article 136 does not mean that every tribunal decision automatically becomes appealable as of right.

The Supreme Court must first decide whether to grant special leave.

Article 136 and L. Chandra Kumar

L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997)

This is one of the most important cases for understanding the constitutional relationship between tribunals, High Courts and the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court held that judicial review under Articles 226 and 227 and the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 32 are part of the basic structure of the Constitution.

Tribunals can function as specialised courts of first instance in their respective fields, but their decisions remain subject to scrutiny by High Courts under Articles 226 and 227.

Article 136 continues to provide the Supreme Court with its constitutional special-leave jurisdiction over decisions of courts and tribunals, subject to its discretionary nature.

Article 136 and Judicial Review

Article 136 should be distinguished from judicial review under Articles 32 and 226.

Article 136	Articles 32 and 226
Special Leave to Appeal	Constitutional judicial review
Discretionary	Constitutional jurisdiction with different scopes
Supreme Court	Supreme Court under Article 32; High Courts under Article 226
Can operate in relation to courts and tribunals	Primarily concerned with constitutional and public-law review
Not an automatic right of appeal	Article 32 itself is a Fundamental Right
Can involve broader appellate scrutiny after leave is granted	Primarily examines constitutional/legal validity within writ jurisdiction

Thus, Article 136 is better understood as a special appellate jurisdiction, rather than simply another writ jurisdiction.

Article 136 and Administrative Decisions

Not every administrative decision can directly be challenged under Article 136.

The provision principally concerns judgments, decrees, determinations, sentences or orders of a court or tribunal.

Therefore, where an ordinary administrative authority makes an executive decision, the normal constitutional route may involve Article 226 before the High Court, depending on the circumstances.

Where a tribunal or court has adjudicated the matter, Article 136 may become relevant.

Article 136 and Quasi-Judicial Authorities

Many administrative authorities exercise quasi-judicial functions.

Examples include authorities that:

• Conduct hearings.
• Determine statutory rights.
• Resolve disputes.
• Impose penalties.
• Decide appeals under legislation.

Where the relevant body falls within the constitutional meaning of a tribunal or court, its decision may potentially come within Article 136.

The precise status of the authority depends upon the governing statute and the nature of its functions.

Grounds for Intervention Under Article 136

The Supreme Court’s jurisdiction is extremely broad, but it is exercised cautiously.

Intervention may be considered where the decision involves serious legal or procedural defects, such as:

• Jurisdictional error.
• Error of law.
• Violation of natural justice.
• Failure to consider relevant legal requirements.
• Reliance on legally irrelevant considerations.
• Serious procedural irregularity.
• Perversity in appropriate cases.
• Violation of constitutional rights.
• Manifest injustice in circumstances warranting Supreme Court intervention.

The existence of an error alone does not mean that special leave must be granted.

The Court decides whether the circumstances justify exercising its discretionary jurisdiction.

Article 136 and Natural Justice

Administrative tribunals must comply with applicable principles of natural justice and statutory procedural requirements.

Where a tribunal decides a matter after:

• Denying a legally required hearing.
• Acting with legally significant bias.
• Refusing to consider a required representation.
• Violating mandatory procedural safeguards.

the resulting decision may be challenged through the appropriate judicial remedies, and Article 136 may become relevant where the matter reaches the Supreme Court.

Article 136 and Jurisdictional Error

A tribunal cannot exercise jurisdiction beyond the authority granted by its enabling legislation.

A decision may therefore raise serious issues where the tribunal:

• Has no jurisdiction.
• Exceeds its jurisdiction.
• Acts without satisfying a jurisdictional condition.
• Decides a matter outside the statutory field.

Article 136 gives the Supreme Court power to examine such decisions where special leave is granted.

Anisminic Ltd. v. Foreign Compensation Commission (1969)

The case is an important authority concerning jurisdictional error and the consequences of serious legal errors affecting administrative adjudication.

The principles developed in such cases are relevant to understanding judicial control over tribunal decisions.

Article 136 and Error of Fact

Article 136 can involve broader appellate scrutiny than ordinary writ jurisdiction.

However, the Supreme Court does not ordinarily interfere with every factual finding merely because another interpretation of the evidence is possible.

The Court may intervene where findings are affected by serious legal defects or where the circumstances justify exercise of its exceptional jurisdiction.

Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan (1964)

The Supreme Court discussed the limits of writ jurisdiction in relation to factual findings and distinguished judicial review from ordinary appellate reconsideration of evidence.

Article 136 and Alternative Remedy

The availability of another remedy may influence whether the Supreme Court exercises its discretionary jurisdiction.

For example, a person may have:

• A statutory appeal.
• A tribunal remedy.
• A High Court remedy under Article 226.
• A statutory review or revision.

Article 136 is not ordinarily intended to bypass every available legal remedy automatically.

The Supreme Court considers the overall circumstances before deciding whether special leave should be granted.

Special Leave Petition

A petition seeking the Supreme Court’s special leave under Article 136 is commonly called a Special Leave Petition (SLP).

The process broadly involves:

1. A judgment or order is passed by a court or tribunal.
2. The aggrieved party approaches the Supreme Court under Article 136.
3. The Supreme Court considers whether special leave should be granted.
4. If leave is granted, the matter proceeds as an appeal.
5. The Supreme Court then considers the appeal according to the scope of the proceedings.

The filing of an SLP does not by itself mean that an appeal has been automatically admitted.

Article 136 and “Court or Tribunal”

The wording of Article 136 is important because it refers specifically to judgments, decrees, determinations, sentences or orders passed by courts and tribunals.

The constitutional provision therefore does not function as a general appeal against every administrative action.

Where the challenged action is an executive or administrative decision rather than a tribunal or court decision, the appropriate remedy may instead involve judicial review under Article 226 or another legally available procedure.

Article 136 and Government Policy

Article 136 can become relevant where a dispute concerning government action has already been adjudicated by a court or tribunal.

However, the Supreme Court does not ordinarily use Article 136 simply to substitute its own policy preference for that of the government.

Where specialised administrative or policy decisions are involved, the Court considers the nature of the decision and the grounds on which intervention is sought.

Article 136 and Government Contracts

Government contract disputes may reach the Supreme Court through Article 136 after adjudication by a court or tribunal.

The Court may consider questions concerning:

• Legality.
• Contractual interpretation.
• Public law principles.
• Procedural fairness.
• Arbitrary State action.
• Jurisdiction of the adjudicating authority.

Tata Cellular v. Union of India (1994)

The Supreme Court explained the principles governing judicial review of government contracts and emphasised the distinction between judicial review and appellate reconsideration of administrative commercial decisions.

Article 136 and Disciplinary Proceedings

Administrative disciplinary decisions may ultimately reach the Supreme Court where they have passed through the relevant adjudicatory or appellate process.

The Court may examine issues such as:

• Natural justice.
• Procedural legality.
• Jurisdiction.
• Statutory compliance.
• Proportionality where legally relevant.
• Serious errors affecting the disciplinary decision.

Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel (1985)

The Supreme Court examined constitutional and procedural aspects of disciplinary proceedings involving civil servants and the exceptions contained in Article 311(2).

The case is relevant to understanding judicial control over disciplinary administrative action.

Article 136 and Constitutional Rights

Administrative tribunal decisions may also involve Fundamental Rights.

Where a tribunal decision raises serious constitutional questions, Article 136 may provide a route for Supreme Court consideration after the Court grants special leave.

Important constitutional provisions may include:

• Article 14.
• Article 19.
• Article 21.
• Article 32.
• Article 226.
• Article 311 in appropriate service matters.

Important Cases

Pritam Singh v. State (1950)

The Supreme Court discussed the exceptional nature of Article 136 and emphasised that the jurisdiction should be exercised in appropriate cases rather than treated as an ordinary right of appeal.

Durga Shankar Mehta v. Thakur Raghuraj Singh (1955)

The Supreme Court explained the broad language of Article 136 and its application to decisions of tribunals.

Bharat Bank Ltd. v. Employees of Bharat Bank Ltd. (1950)

The Court considered the constitutional meaning and scope of tribunals in the context of Article 136.

Tirupati Balaji Developers (P) Ltd. v. State of Bihar (2004)

The Supreme Court discussed the nature of Article 136 jurisdiction and its discretionary character.

L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997)

The Supreme Court established the constitutional position of judicial review of tribunal decisions under Articles 226 and 227 and Article 32, while tribunals continue to exercise specialised adjudicatory functions.

Tata Cellular v. Union of India (1994)

The case is important for distinguishing judicial review from appellate review of administrative decisions, particularly in government contracts.

Article 136 and Administrative Tribunals: Example

Suppose an administrative tribunal decides a service dispute.

The tribunal:

• Has jurisdiction over the dispute.
• Conducts proceedings.
• Hears both parties.
• Delivers a final order.

The unsuccessful party may seek judicial review before the appropriate High Court under Articles 226 and 227.

Depending on the procedural history and circumstances, the matter may subsequently reach the Supreme Court under Article 136.

The Supreme Court first determines whether special leave should be granted. If leave is granted, the matter proceeds as an appeal.

This demonstrates the relationship between:

Tribunal → High Court judicial review → Supreme Court’s special-leave jurisdiction

subject to the constitutional and statutory framework applicable to the particular tribunal.

Article 136 and Judicial Restraint

The broad language of Article 136 does not mean that every tribunal decision should be brought before or reconsidered by the Supreme Court.

The Court’s discretionary jurisdiction allows it to control its docket and focus intervention on cases warranting Supreme Court consideration.

This preserves the distinction between:

• Ordinary adjudication.
• High Court judicial review.
• Supreme Court special-leave jurisdiction.

Limitations of Article 136

No Automatic Right of Appeal

A person cannot demand appellate consideration as of right merely because Article 136 exists.

Discretionary Jurisdiction

The Supreme Court decides whether special leave should be granted.

Not a General Administrative Appeal

Article 136 does not provide a general appeal against every executive or administrative decision.

Exceptional Nature

The jurisdiction is intended for appropriate cases and is not ordinarily treated as another routine stage of litigation.

Armed Forces Exception

Article 136(2) excludes courts or tribunals constituted under laws relating to the Armed Forces.

Article 136 vs Article 32

Article 136	Article 32
Special Leave to Appeal	Constitutional remedy for Fundamental Rights
Discretionary	Article 32 itself is a Fundamental Right
Primarily concerned with decisions of courts and tribunals	Concerned with enforcement of Fundamental Rights
Can become appellate after leave is granted	Primarily writ jurisdiction
Not limited to Fundamental Rights	Specifically concerned with Fundamental Rights

Article 136 vs Article 226

Article 136	Article 226
Supreme Court	High Courts
Special Leave to Appeal	Writ jurisdiction
Discretionary appellate jurisdiction	Constitutional judicial review
Concerns judgments/orders of courts and tribunals	Covers administrative action and other public-law matters
Not an automatic right of appeal	Writ jurisdiction exercised according to judicial principles
Can follow High Court or tribunal proceedings	May be the first constitutional remedy against administrative action

Importance of Article 136 in Administrative Law

Provides Supreme Court Supervision

It gives the Supreme Court a constitutional mechanism to examine decisions of courts and tribunals.

Controls Tribunal Decisions

Where appropriate, the Supreme Court can correct serious legal or procedural errors committed by tribunals.

Promotes Uniformity of Law

Supreme Court decisions under Article 136 contribute to the development and uniform application of administrative law principles.

Corrects Serious Injustice

The discretionary nature of the jurisdiction allows intervention in cases warranting Supreme Court consideration.

Complements High Court Review

Article 136 operates alongside, rather than simply replacing, judicial review under Articles 226 and 227.

Key Points for Exams

• Article 136 provides the Supreme Court with Special Leave to Appeal jurisdiction.
• It applies to judgments, decrees, determinations, sentences and orders of courts and tribunals.
• It is discretionary, not an automatic right of appeal.
• The Supreme Court may grant special leave where the circumstances justify intervention.
• Article 136 is particularly important in relation to administrative tribunals.
• It is different from Article 32 and Article 226.
• Article 226 primarily provides High Court judicial review, while Article 136 provides special-leave appellate jurisdiction.
• Article 136 does not ordinarily operate as a general appeal against every administrative decision.
• Article 136(2) excludes courts or tribunals constituted under laws relating to the Armed Forces.
• Pritam Singh, Durga Shankar Mehta, Bharat Bank, Tata Cellular and L. Chandra Kumar are important cases.
• L. Chandra Kumar is particularly important for understanding the constitutional relationship between tribunals, High Courts and the Supreme Court.
• Article 136 strengthens judicial control over specialised administrative adjudication while preserving the Supreme Court’s discretion.

Conclusion

Article 136 occupies an important position in the constitutional system of judicial control over administrative adjudication. It gives the Supreme Court a broad but discretionary power to grant special leave to appeal against decisions of courts and tribunals.

In Administrative Law, its importance is particularly visible in relation to administrative tribunals. While tribunals provide specialised adjudication, their decisions remain subject to constitutional judicial control through the mechanisms established by the Constitution.

Article 136 should not be understood as an ordinary appeal available as of right. It is a special constitutional jurisdiction, exercised at the Supreme Court’s discretion, and operates alongside the judicial review powers of the High Courts under Articles 226 and 227 and the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction under Article 32.