Deploring the practice of filing special leave petitions on frivolous grounds,the Supreme Court has warned that it would "collapse" under the burden if the rot is not stemmed and referred the issue to a Constitution Bench to fix parameters for entertaining such pleas.
"If special leave petitions (SLPs) are entertained against all and sundry kinds of orders passed by any court or tribunal, then this Court after some time will collapse under its own burden," a bench of Justices Markandeya Katju and R M Lodha observed in an order.
"Sadly the position today is that it is under such pressure because of the immense volume of cases in the court that judges do not get sufficient time to deliberate over the cases, which they deserve, and this is bound to affect the quality of our judgements," it said yesterday.
The apex court passed the order while dealing with an SLP filed by one Mathai against the orders of a trial court and the Kerala High Court which had dismissed his plea for second forensic examination of a disputed will.
The bench said Article 136 which grants the apex court discretionary powers to entertain appeals against the lower courts/tribunals has to be used sparingly only in exceptional cases involving grave Constitutional matters, serious miscarriage of justice and violation of fundamental rights.
"Now-a-days, it has become a practice of filing SLPs against all kinds of orders of the High Court or other authorities without realising the scope of Article 136. Hence, we feel it incumbent on us to reiterate that Article 136 was never meant to be an ordinary forum of appeal at all like Section 96 or even Section 100 CPC.
"Under the constitutional scheme, the last court in the country in ordinary cases was meant to be the High Court. The Supreme Court as the apex court in the country was meant to deal with important issues like constitutional questions, questions of law of general importance or where grave injustice had been done," the bench said.
The apex court said it has limited time at its disposal and it cannot be expected to hear every kind of dispute.
In 2009, almost 70,000 cases were filed in this Court of which an overwhelming number were SLPs under Article 136. At present, all these cases have to be heard orally, whereas the US Supreme Court hears only about 100 to 120 cases every year and the Canadian Supreme Court hears only 60 cases per year.
"However, it is for the Constitution Bench to which we are referring this matter to decide what are the kinds of cases in which discretion under Article 136 should be exercised," the bench said.
"In our opinion, the time has now come when an authoritative decision by a Constitution Bench should lay down some broad guidelines as to when the discretion under Article 136 of the Constitution should be exercised, i.e., in what kind of cases a petition under Article 136 should be entertained," the bench said in its order.
The apex court said the Constitution Bench may also appoint am Amicus Curiae to assist in the matter so that it can be settled after considering the views of all the concerned parties.
Accordingly, it issued notices to the Bar Council of India, Supreme Court Bar Association and the Supreme Court Advocates on Records Association to file their response on the issue.
