SLPs

When I was going through the Hindu daily, I came across a head line in p. 8 i.e. “Article 136 only a discretionary remedy, says Supreme Court.” Immediately I asked Ashis- what is Art. 136? Before he answer (after 150+ footage), Puneet, immediately said SLP... As a poor student of Constitutional law, I had to think for a while …Okkkk Art. 136 is SLP but what is SLP???

The 1^st paragraph of the article reads and I quote

“The Supreme Court, while deciding to examine the scope of Article 136 of the Constitution, said it was like Article 226 (writ jurisdiction of High Courts) was a discretionary remedy and the Supreme Court was not bound to interfere even if there was an error of law or fact in the order under challenge.”

After taking heavy lunch, ae baat kuch hazam nahin hua... I read this line again but failed to understand. After going through it nearly 4 to 8 times, i... it might be a printing error. But it was also highlighted in the article. So, it took no time to realize that it is not error in printing but in my understanding… Moreover the judges in the bench were no other than Justice Markandey Katju and Justice R.M. Lodha. But the question is: who will interfere, if there is an error? Moreover it is a general principle of administrative law that Court must interfere… But perhaps judges know more law than what I am taught by Prof. Sebastian…

The reasoning was, it has become a practice of filing SLPs against all kinds of orders of the High Court or other authorities. The Bench said, “The power is permitted to be invoked not in a routine fashion but in very exceptional circumstances as [and] when a question of law of general public importance arises or a decision sought to be impugned before the Supreme Court shocks the conscience. The Supreme Court would not under Article 136 constitute itself into a tribunal or court just settling disputes and reduces itself to a mere court of error.”

As I understood, Hon’ble Supreme Court is not a cinema hall or a mall, so that people will go whenever they get leisure to disturb the Judges and for recreation. What the bench was trying to say by using the words “routine fashion,” i failed to understand. Are they meant to say the same plaintiff or complainant going to SC routinely??? People go only against the judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order… So, ask your High Courts or tribunal to satisfy them from the very beginning. Again, what is an “exceptional circumstance” is? My case is exceptional and extraordinary for me and same as the case of Katju J. for him… Will I not go to SC because a case might come, which may be exceptional… from my case..I don’t know what shocks the “conscience” of Supreme Court!! And what “general public importance” is!!! Let the SC say what shocks it …and what "general public importance" is? If Section 10(3)(c) of the Passport Act, which mentions "in the interest of the general public", which compelled Bhagwati J. to say Oh! My God,,, is a wide and arbitrary term, is this “general public importance” in this judgment, not that wider… 

The judges further said: “After all, the Supreme Court has limited time at its disposal and it cannot be expected to hear every kind of dispute.” I have a right to justice and here judges are showing me their Tour de l’Ile, Vacheron Constantin watches!! Who is telling them to take such a long summer break and holidays.. holydays..

The Bench noted the concern expressed by K.K. Venugopal in a lecture pointing out that an alarming state of affairs “has developed in this court because this court has gradually converted itself into a mere Court of Appeal which has sought to correct every error which it finds in the judgments of the High Courts of the country as well as the vast number of tribunals…” Mr. Venugopal, the Bench said, “has pointed out that in the year 1997 there were only 19,000 pending cases in this court, but now, there are over 55,000 pending cases and in a few years' time the pendency will cross one lakh cases. 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 U.S. Supreme Court hears only about 100 to 120 cases every year and the Canadian Supreme Court hears only 60 cases per year.” If Mr. Venugopal finds even 10 times more number of cases, what is my wrong? Will I not go to the court of law? Ask me to defend myself, my liberty and property of my own.. Certainly, I am not going to disturb the judges again…I promise...
A Bench warned: “If SLPs are entertained against all and sundry orders passed by any court or tribunal, then this court after some time will collapse under its own burden.” If judges fear of collapse and accept their failure to provide justice, who is stopping K. G. Balakrishnan C.J. to constitute benches of SC in different parts of the country, as advised by Justice K. Iyer? Is integrity of SC more important than unsatisfied citizen?, who is denied appeal because Constitution provides for one SUPREME Court only!! And judges don’t like to say that they are serving in an “ordinary appellate court”...

The Bench, therefore, wanted the issue to be settled by a Constitution Bench. Hope the Constitution Bench will give a negative expression to this type of reasoning… Yes! Some broad guidelines need to be laid down but it should be remembered that SC is not only a court of law but a court of justice… Agreed! Article 136 is discretionary but if there is a error of law, SC have to interfere... this discretion is not unfettered... In the words of Mansfield, "Discretion when applied to a court of justice, means sound discretion guided by law. It must be governed by rule, not by humour; it must not be arbitrary, vague and fanciful but legal and regular."
Judges should not forget, as the book "Off the bench" annunciate-- "judiciary being a fiduciary, its power, as a democratic instrument, must be tested, tuned and transformed to redeem its tryst with the people of delivery justice, law being the means and the Constitution setting the operational parameters..." They should also remember a single judgement, is more powerful than Indian Army, Air Force and Naval conjointly...