SC: No time, can146;t hear every kind of dispute

The Supreme Court has limited time at its disposal and it cannot be expected to hear every kind of dispute.8221; Giving out a clear message

The Supreme Court has limited time at its disposal and it cannot be expected to hear every kind of dispute.8221; Giving out a clear message, the apex court has taken a tough stand against individuals invoking its discretionary jurisdiction granted under Article 136 of the Constitution.

8220;If the Supreme Court entertains all and sundry kinds of cases it will soon be flooded with a huge amount of backlog and will not be able to deal with important questions relating to the Constitution or the law or where grave injustice has been done, for which it is really meant under the Constitutional scheme,8221; reaffirmed the Bench comprising Justices S B Sinha and Markandeya Katju.

The Judges observed: 8220;Nowadays it has become a practice of filing SLPs Special Leave Petitions against all kinds of orders of the High Court or other authorities without realising the scope of Article 136.8221; Clarifying the said provision of the Constitution, which grants discretionary power to the apex court to granting special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, sentence or any order made by any court or tribunal in India, the Bench reiterated that Article 136 8220;is not a regular forum of appeal at all8221;.

Terming it as a 8220;residual provision8221; which enables the top court to interfere with the judgment or order of any court, Justice Katju, writing for the Bench, noted: 8220;The SC 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 has been done.8221;

8220;We feel it incumbent on us to reiterate that Article 136 was never meant to be an ordinary forum of appeal like Section 96 or even Section 100 of the CrPC. Under the Constitutional scheme, ordinarily the last resort in the country in ordinary cases was meant to be the High Court,8221; the Judges added.

The crucial 8216;reminders8217; came on appeal filed by a woman against her estranged husband in a dowry case, which the Judges dismissed finding it 8220;not a fit case8221; to be entertained under Article 136.

Challenging the judgment of the Madras High Court which had quashed a criminal case filed against her husband, the appellant, Suriyakala, had moved the SC seeking restoration of the same. Dismissing her petition, the court observed that Article 136 conferred a discretionary power on the SC to entertain such appeals and there was no inherent right with a citizen to invoke the jurisdiction.