Top
Begin typing your search above and press return to search.
Top Stories

Article 136 - Direct Appeal From HC Single Bench Orders Maintainable In Cases Of 'Glaring Errors & Injustices' : Supreme Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK
1 Oct 2021 7:36 AM GMT
Article 136 -  Direct Appeal From HC Single Bench Orders Maintainable In Cases Of Glaring Errors & Injustices : Supreme Court
x

The Supreme Court has reiterated that existence of alternate remedies is not an absolute bar against the exercise of discretion under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. Observing that the discretion under Article 136 is "flexible and sufficiently wide to correct glaring errors and injustices", the Supreme Court recently entertained a petition filed challenging a single bench order of...

Your free access to Live Law has expired
To read the article, get a premium account.
    Your Subscription Supports Independent Journalism
Subscription starts from
599+GST
(For 6 Months)
Premium account gives you:
  • Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.
  • Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.
Already a subscriber?

The Supreme Court has reiterated that existence of alternate remedies is not an absolute bar against the exercise of discretion under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.

Observing that the discretion under Article 136 is "flexible and sufficiently wide to correct glaring errors and injustices", the Supreme Court recently entertained a petition filed challenging a single bench order of the High Court, although the appellate remedy to the division bench was not exhausted.

A bench comprising Justices Uday Umesh Lalit, S Ravindra Bhat and Bela M Trivedi was considering a Special Leave Petition filed by the Indian Institute of Technology against a single bench judgment of the Calcutta High Court, which had declared an admission criteria for JEE(Advanced) as arbitrary.

The respondent objected to the maintainability of the petition on the ground that the letters patent appeal before the division bench of the High Court has not been filed.

Rejecting this objection as "insubstantial", the Supreme Court observed :

"The ordinary rule of necessity that litigants should approach and avail of appellate remedies exhausting them before approaching this Court is a rule of convenience and not an immutable practice. It has been held to be so by this Court (Ref State of UP v Harish Chandra & Ors 1996 (9) SCC 309). Moreover, the discretion under Article 136 of the Constitution is flexible and sufficiently wide, to correct glaring errors and injustices".

Further, the bench noted that interim order was passed earlier to suspend the operation of the High Court judgment.  On the two subsequent dates of hearing, there was no objection on the part of the respondent with respect to the maintainability of the present petition. Taking into account these factors as well, the bench overruled the objection against maintainability.

On merits, the bench allowed the appeal filed by the IIT. For more on that read this report :  Condition Barring Student Who Joined IIT From Appearing In JEE(Advanced) Valid; Aimed At Preserving Valuable Public Resource Of IIT Seats : Supreme Court

Case Details

Case Title : Indian Institute of Technology Kharaghpur and others versus Soutrik Sarangi and others

Citation : LL 2021 SC 521

Coram : Justices Uday Umesh Lalit, S Ravindra Bhat and Bela M Trivedi

Appearances : Advocate Sonal Jain for appellant;Advocate S.K. Bhattacharya for respondent

Click here to read/download the judgment

Next Story
Share it