Introduction to the Appellate Jurisdiction of the Supreme

Court

Types of Jurisdictions

Original Advisory

Appellate
 Appellate Jurisdiction

Art. 136 (SLP)

Art. 132
(Constitutional)

Art. 133 Art. 134 Art. 134A

(Civil) (Criminal) (Certificate for
Appeal)

Chapter IV of Part V of the Constitution of India, 1950 which is titled

“The Union Judiciary” contains twenty-six Articles (Articles 124 to 147) that
deal with the functioning, scope and nature of jurisdiction and powers of the
Supreme Court of India.

Appellate Jurisdiction refers to the power of a higher court to review and

potentially overturn the decisions made by lower courts. This means that when
a case is heard by a lower court, the parties involved have the right to appeal
the decision to a higher court if they believe that an error was made or that law
was applied incorrectly. The higher court, in this case, is the appellant court.

Appellate Jurisdiction is distinct from original jurisdiction, which refers to the

power of a court to hear a case for the first time. Lower courts usually have
original jurisdiction, while higher courts usually have appellate jurisdiction.

The appellate process served as an important check and balance on the power
of lower courts and helps to ensure consistency and fairness in the legal
system. It also plays a crucial role in interpreting and shaping the law through
the decisions of the appellate court, which can have a lasting impact on legal
principles and precedents.
When the compass and variety of jurisdiction and the powers of the Supreme
Court, and the extent of the territory over which it presides, are taken into
consideration, the Supreme Court of India will appear to be one of the
most potent judicial organ in the world today. It is a significant
constitutional court and exerts a potent influence on the moulding and
shaping of the constitutional jurisprudence in India.

An appeal is a creature of statute and there is no inherent right of appeal. The

powers given by Article 136 of the Constitution are in the nature of special or
residuary powers and vests in the Supreme Court a plenary jurisdiction in the
matter of entertaining and hearing appeals, by granting of Special Leave
against any kind of judgement or order made by a court or tribunal.

The Supreme Court has Original, Appellate and Advisory jurisdiction. Its
exclusive original jurisdiction includes any dispute between the Centre and
State(s) or between States as well as matters concerning enforcement of
fundamental rights of individuals.

Objective & Importance of Appellate Jurisdiction

1. To review Lower Court Decisions for errors or legal inconsistencies.

2. To establish legal precedents and interpretations of the law.

3. To ensure rights and liberties are protected

4. To provide guidance to the lower courts

5. To maintain integrity of the legal system

6. To provide an opportunity to the legal system to improve and review

itself

7. To ensure legal decisions align with constitutional principles

8. To provide an opportunity to seek redress

9. To provide an opportunity for the legal system to adapt to societal

needs.
 10. Provide a mechanism for correcting errors.

11. Protecting individual rights and liberties.

12. Interpret and shape the law

13. Enhance the legal system

14. Provide legal guidance to the lower courts.

Article 131: Original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court Subject to

the provisions of this Constitution, the Supreme Court shall, to the
exclusion of any other court, have original jurisdiction in any
dispute
(a) between the Government of India and one or more States; or
(b) between the Government of India and any State or States on
one side and one or more other States on the other; or
(c) between two or more States, if and in so far as the dispute
involves any question (whether of law or fact) on which the
existence or extent of a legal right depends: Provided that the said
jurisdiction shall not extend to a dispute arising out of any treaty,
agreement, covenant, engagements, and or other similar
instrument which, having been entered into or executed before the
commencement of this Constitution, continues in operation after
such commencement, or which provides that the said jurisdiction
shall not extend to such a dispute

The nature of Art. 131 is subject to provisions of the Constitution and is limited
to the disputes involving legal rights as mentioned in the Article itself. But, one
can see that the jurisdiction is extremely wide, provided the dispute is a
justiciable one. It does not describe the types of disputes in the provision but is
subjective to the judicial interpretation and facts of the case whether or not the
constituents of Art. 131 are fulfilled.

The intention of the Constitution makers is such that disputes should not be
subjected to several tiers of the judicial hierarchy, but should come, for once
and for all, before the highest court of land.

A simple understanding of Article 131 gives that:

  exclusive jurisdiction vests in the Supreme Court of India to the
exclusion of any other court,
 there must exist a 'dispute',
 said dispute must be between either the Government of India i.e. the
Central Government and one or more constituent State or States or
between two or more of such constituent States of the Union of India.
 the dispute must involve a question of law or a question of fact upon
which the extent or the very existence of a legal right is predicated.

The State of Bihar filed a lawsuit State of Bihar v. Union of India (1970) 1
SCC 67. in the Supreme Court under Art. 131 against the Union of India, which
owns the Railways, and the government-owned Hindustan Steel Limited in an
effort to obtain compensation for the insufficient supply of iron and steel that
the State of Bihar tried ordering in connection with the Gandak Project.

The Court held that Art. 131 did not apply since its language disallows the
concept of a private individual, business, or organization acting as a party to
the dispute either on their own or in conjunction with the union government
Furthermore, it was decided that the definition of "State" as it appears in
Article 12 differs from the one stated in Art. 131.

As a result, pursuant to Article 131, a Government Company that is regarded as

a part of the State under Part III cannot be sued by a State (Bihar in the
instance at issue). Therefore, the Court said that Hindustan Steel could not be
treated as a "State" for that similar reason, and the expanded definition of
"state" provided under Art. 12 could not be used under Art. 131.

Article 132: Appellate jurisdiction of Supreme Court in appeals

from High Courts in certain cases
( 1 ) An appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from any judgment,
decree or final order of a High Court in the territory of India,
whether in a civil, criminal or other proceeding, if the High Court
certifies under Article 134A that the case involves a substantial
question of law as t the interpretation of this Constitution
(2) Omitted
(3) Where such a certificate is given, any party in the case may
appeal to the Supreme Court on the ground that any such
question as aforesaid has been wrongly decided Explanation For
the purposes of this article, the expression final order includes an
order declaring an issue which, if decided in favour of the
appellant, would be sufficient for the final disposal of the case.
Under Art. 132(1), an appeal lied to the Supreme Court from any judgement,
decree or final order, whether in a civil, criminal or other proceedings, of a
High Court if it certifies that the case involves a substantial question of law as
to the interpretation of the Constitution.
The power of Supreme Court to hear appeals in Constitutional matters is very
broad because I acts as guardian of the constitution.

According to Article 132(3), where such a certificate is given, any party in

the case may appeal to the Supreme Court on the ground that any such
question has been wrongly decided.

A very wide power is conferred on the Supreme Court to hear appeals in

constitutional matters. No difficulty will be felt in bringing a constitutional
controversy before the Court which has been made the final authority in the
matters of interpretation of the Constitution. However, when the appeal is not
competent under Article 132 the Supreme Court will not hear it even if the
High Court has granted the necessary certificate (Syedna Taher v. State of
Bombay, AIR 1958 SC 253, 255).

The implication of Article 132(3) is that the appellant who comes before the
Supreme Court under this article is not entitled to challenge the proprietary of
the decision appealed against on a ground other than that on which the High
Court granted the certificate. If, however on appeal, a question is sought to be
raised before the Supreme Court other than the one on which the High Court
has granted the certificate, it is necessary to seek the permission of the
Supreme Court (Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1953 SC 83;
State of Mysore v. Chablani, AIR 1969 SC 325, 327).

This means that appellant should ordinarily confine himself to the

constitutional law point involved. Such a restriction is necessary so that the
facility with which appeals in constitutional matters can reach the Supreme
Court may not be misused by the appellant raising all sorts of extraneous pleas
once his appeal has come before the Court on the ground that it involves a
substantial question of constitutional law (State of Bombay v.
Jagmohandas, AIR 1966 SC 1418).

Questions of constitutional interpretation are thus placed in a special category

irrespective of the nature of proceedings in which they arise. Such question
can always be taken in appeal to the Supreme Court so that this Court may
have the last say. As divergent interpretation of a constitutional provision by
various High Courts would create difficulties for the people, it is desirable that
such questions are decided authoritatively as soon as possible.

Hence, Article 132 provides machinery for this purpose. In State of Jammu
and Kashmir v. Ganga Singh (AIR 1960 SC 356,359) the Supreme
Court, commented on Article 132 as “the principle underlying the Article is
that the final authority of interpreting the Constitution must rely with the
Supreme Court. With that object the article is freed from other limitations
imposed under Articles 133 and 134 and the right of the widest amplitude is
allowed irrespective of the nature of the proceedings in a case involving only a
substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution”.

Article 133: Appellate jurisdiction of Supreme Court in appeals

from High Courts in regard to civil matters.
(1) An appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from any judgment,
decree or final order in a civil proceeding of a High Court in the
territory of India if the High Court certifies under article 134A-
(a) that the case involves a substantial question of law of general
importance; and
(b) that in the opinion of the High Court the said question needs to
be decided by the Supreme Court.
(2) Notwithstanding anything in article 132, any party appealing
to the Supreme Court under clause (1) may urge as one of the
grounds in such appeal that a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of this Constitution has been wrongly decided.
(3) Notwithstanding anything in this article, no appeal shall,
unless Parliament by law otherwise provides, lie to the Supreme
Court from the judgment, decree or final order of one Judge of a
High Court.

In Amarjeet Kaur v. Pritam Singh (AIR 1974 SC 206), the Supreme

Court held that when appeal against a decree was pending, the Court of appeal
had seisin of the whole case and the whole matter became sub judice again,
though for certain purposes, i.e. execution, the decree was regarded as final.
The decree of the trial court gets merged with the decree of the appellate court.

Therefore the court of appeal shall have all the powers and shall perform as
nearly as may be, the same duties as are conferred and imposed on the court of
original jurisdiction. When the appeal, therefore was pending in the Supreme
Court, it was continuation of the original proceedings and the entire issue was
at large it is well settled law that the court could take judicial notice of the
change in law and mould the relief on the basis of the right altered under the
amended law.

Under this Article, unless Parliament provides otherwise, appeal lies to the
Supreme Court from the judgement, decree or final order of the Single High
Court Judge.

The certificate granted by the High Court does not obligate the Supreme Court
to hear the case, and it is entitled to determine whether the certificate was
rightly granted and whether the conditions prerequisite to the grant were
satisfied.

When there is no justification for issuing the certificate by the High Court, the
Supreme Court can always revoke it. In Express Newspaper Ltd. vs State
of Madras 1981 SCC (2) 479, the Supreme Court revoked the certificate
granted by the High Court as, in the opinion of the Supreme Court, no
substantial question

Article 134:  Appellate jurisdiction of Supreme Court in regard to

criminal matters.
(1) An appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from any judgment,
final order or sentence in a criminal proceeding of a High Court in
the territory of India if the High Court-
(a) has on appeal reversed an order of acquittal of an accused
person and sentenced him to death; or
(b) has withdrawn for trial before itself any case from any court
subordinate to its authority and has in such trial convicted the
accused person and sentenced him to death; or
(c) certifies under article 134A that the case is a fit one for appeal
to the Supreme Court:
Provided that an appeal under sub-clause (c) shall lie subject to
such provisions as may be made in that behalf under clause (1) of
article 145 and to such conditions as the High Court may establish
or require.
(2) Parliament may by law confer on the Supreme Court any
further powers to entertain and hear appeals from any judgment,
final order or sentence in a criminal proceeding of a High Court in
the territory of India subject to such conditions and limitations as
may be specified in such law.

Under Article 134 an appeal to the Supreme Court against the judgment, final
order or sentence of the High Court in criminal case is maintainable even
without certificate of the High Court in the two cases.

Firstly, when the High Court on appeal has reversed an order of acquittal of
an accused person and sentenced him to death, and secondly, when the High
Court has withdrawn, for trial before itself from any court subordinate to its
authority and in such trial has convicted the accused person and sentenced
him to death.

Further, with the certificate of the High court when it certifies that the case is
„fit one for appeal to the Supreme Court‟ . Under the case where appeal is
without the certificate of the High Court, an appeal lies to the Supreme Court
as a matter of right if the requirements laid down therein are fulfilled (Pritam
Singh v. State, AIR 1950 SC 169).

But it is not so under the other condition, where it is done with a certificate of
appeal. In this regard not merely the High Court has the discretion to grant
the certificate, the Supreme Court has also the power to see whether the High
Court’s discretion has been judicially exercised.

In Mohinder Singh v. State of Punjab(AIR 1953 SC 415.), the Supreme

Court observed that the certificate of fitness is to be granted only when
exceptional and special circumstances exist and the High Court must apply its
mind judicially. Thus, Baladin v. State of Utter Pradesh (AIR 1958 SC
181), the High Court merely recorded the order, leave to appeal to the
Supreme Court is granted, without giving any reasons. The Supreme Court
refused to accept the appeal as it felt that the High Court had exercised its
jurisdiction mechanically and not judicially.

Article 134(A): Certificate for appeal to the Supreme Court Every

High Court, passing or making a judgment, decree, final order, or
sentence, referred to in clause ( 1 ) of Article 132 or clause ( 1 ) of
Article 133, or clause ( 1 ) of Article 134

(a) may, if it deems fit so to do, on its own motion; and

(b) shall, if an oral application is made, by or on behalf of the party
aggrieved, immediately after the passing or making of such
judgment, decree, final order or sentence, determine, as soon as
may be after such passing or making, the question whether a
certificate of the nature referred to in clause ( 1 ) of Article 132, or
clause ( 1 ) of Article 133 or, as the case may be, sub clause (c) of
clause ( 1 ) of Article 134, may be given in respect of that case
Prior to insertion of 134A, there was no provision in Art. 132, 133 or 134 as to
when and in what form an application for a certificate to fitness for appeal to
the Supreme Court was to be made to the High Court and what limitation, if
anyone was to apply to such application for certificate. As a result, there was
no uniformity in the rules or decisions of various High Courts in these points.

Court was to be made to the High Court and what limitation, if anyone was to
apply to such application for certificate. As a result, there was no uniformity in
the rules or decisions of the various High Courts in these points. The foregoing
anomaly has been removed by inserting Art. 134A, by the 44 th Amendment
Act, 1978. Article 134A is ancillary to Articles 132(1), 133(1) and 141(1)(c). The
High Court can issue a certificate only when it is satisfied that the conditions
in Articles 132, 133 or 134 as the case may be satisfied.

In the case of State Bank of India vs SBI Union, AIR 1987 SC 2203, A
single judge granted a certificate under 134A without referring to the article
under which the appeal could be filed and the Supreme Court revoked the
certificate as the case could fall under Articles 133(1), but such a certificate
could not be granted because of the bar imposed by Articles 133(3). The
Supreme Court however permitted the appellant to apply under Article 136.

Article 136: Special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court

(1) Notwithstanding anything in this Chapter, the Supreme Court
may, in its discretion, grant special leave to appeal 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
(2) Nothing in clause ( 1 ) shall apply to any judgment,
determination, sentence or order passed or made by any court or
tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the Armed
Forces.
This is the power to grant special leave. The power of the court is discretionary
in nature. This discretionary power may be exercised by the court, where the
very essence of granting justice is violated, and the court below has done
wrong to the law and the parties. Since there is no said rule when can or
cannot the power under Article 136 can be invoked. Thus it becomes the
discretionary power of the Apex Court.
The power vested under Article 136 is wider than the power granted under
Article 134A. As per 134A, the High Court grants certificate making it fit to
appeal to Supreme Court. The very purpose of enacting such a provision in the
Indian Constitution is so that the Apex court has the power to interfere if any
law has been wrongly interpreted by the court or any injustice has been done.

In Mathai Joby vs George, 2010 4 SCC 358, The will of the defendant
was challenged as not being genuine. The special leave jurisdiction of the court
has been invoked, praying before the court, to enable the petitioner to send the
will of the defendant for forensic testing a second time, which was rejected by
the Trial Court and the High Court. The Court held that such a claim was
tantamount to trivialization of the discretionary power of the court. Thus, the
ambit of the discretionary appellate jurisdiction of the SC was sought to be
determined.

The concern behind this reference order in 2010 was that under Article 136,
"all kinds of special leave petitions were being filed against every kind of
order". The order cited two aspects of this issue:

1. arrears in the SC were increasing heavily and Special Leave Petitions (SLPs)
formed the main chunk and
2. the SC was being converted into a typical appellate court entertaining
matters that do not involve any significant questions of law or the
Constitution.

The Supreme Court shall have the jurisdiction to reverse, confirm, annul or
modify the decree or order of the forum appealed against and in the event of a
remand the lower forum shall have to rehear the matter and comply with such
direction as may accompany the order of remand.

The appellate jurisdiction inherently carries with a power to issue corrective

directions binding in the forum below and failure on the part of the latter to
carry out such direction or show disrespect to or to question the priority of
such directions would be destructive of the hierarchal system in the
administration of justice. The seekers of justice and the society would lose
faith in both. In spite of the Supreme Court and the High Court being both
constitutionally independent of each other and both being courts of record, to
the extent of exercise of appellate jurisdiction, certainly the Supreme Court
exercises a superior jurisdiction and hence is a superior court than the High
Courts which exercise in that context an inferior or subordinate jurisdiction
(Tirupati Balaji Developers Pvt Ltd. v. State of Bihar, AIR 2004 SC
2351).

Article 143: (Advisory Jurisdiction) Power of President to consult

Supreme Court ( 1 ) If at any time it appears to the President that
a question of law or fact has arisen, or is likely to arise, which is
of such a nature and of such public importance that it is expedient
to obtain the opinion of the Supreme Court upon it, he may refer
the question to that Court for consideration and the Court may,
after such hearing as it thinks fit, report to the President its
opinion thereon
(2) The President may, notwithstanding anything in the proviso
to Article 131, refer a dispute of the kind mentioned in the said
proviso to the Supreme Court for opinion and the Supreme Court
shall, after such hearing as it thinks fit, report to the President its
opinion thereon

The power of the Supreme Court is in simpler terms to advise the President in
matters of public importance which has already arisen or is likely to arise.
Article 143(1) talks about it, when the president faces difficulty in the question
of law or fact with the present to present or future contingencies and is of such
public importance, then it may refer to the court for its consideration. The
scope of this article is very wide.

It is important to understand that the court is not bound to give the opinion as
the wordings of the Article is clearly stating that it may after hearing if thinks
fit may report to its opinion to the President.

The use of the word may at both the places paramount to the non-obligatory
character of this provision. The Supreme Court may refuse to give its opinion
if it good and strong reasons to do so.

Nature is not mandatory from both sides; the President may seek the opinion,
and the Supreme Court may give the opinion. However, any matter which has
been excluded from being dealt with by the Supreme Court under its original
jurisdiction may be referred under advisory jurisdiction (Article 143(2)), and
the Supreme Court shall report to the president thereon.
 In the case of M. Ismail Faruqui v. Union of India AIR 1995 SC 605,
the President sought the advisory opinion of the Court on the issue of whether
there was a temple at the sight of Babri Masjid. However, the Court held that
the President must provide appropriate reasons for seeking the Court's
opinion. The Court further held that it was not bound to provide the advisory
opinion where it considered the reasons to be improper. The Court thus
refused to give its advisory opinion on the ground that the reference was
superfluous.