Article 136

Any legislation, subordinate to the Constitution, cannot whittle down, the jurisdiction of the
Supreme Court under Article 136 or of the Constitutional courts in this country as observed
by the Supreme Court in case of Mahendra Saree Emporium II vs. G.V. Srinivasa Murthy
(2005) 1 SCC 481. Conclusiveness or finality given by a statute to any decision of a Court or
Tribunal cannot deter the Supreme Court from exercising this jurisdiction. It is not restricted
even by the appellate provisions enumerated under Cr. P.C or any other statute.

“it is not possible to define the limitations on the exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction
vested in this Court by Art. 136…….. It being an exceptional and overriding power,
naturally, it has to be exercised sparingly and with caution and only in special and
extraordinary situations.” [Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. vs. CIT West Bengal AIR 1955 SC
65 / (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC)]. Article 136 does not give a right to a party to appeal to the
Supreme Court. It confers a wide discretionary power on the Supreme Court to interefere in
suitable cases.

A pure question of law though never raised or argued before High Court can be gone into but
not of fact or a mixed question of law and fact or in respect of jurisdiction of the court. In
case the question of fact to be decided the Supreme Court may direct the same to be decided
by the appropriate authority and where any mixed question of law and fact went to the root of
the matter and it became relevant the Supreme Court may remand the matter back to the High
Court for fresh consideration. Similar direction was made by Supreme Court in the matter of
Anil Jain vs. CIT & Anr (2007) 294 ITR 435 (SC). Interference by the Supreme Court is
justified in tax matters where the question is purely one of law and there was a difference of
opinion among various High courts.
In Delhi Administration vs. Madan Lal Nangia AIR 2003 SC 4672 it was held that if a SLP is
summarily dismissed, this cannot prevent other parties from filing a SLP against the same
judgement.

Judgments on section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

1. 1 Judgments on Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Permitted
Grounds of Challenge for setting aside award and Public Policy:- 1. Challenge to award can
only be permitted on grounds available under S.34 - Court does not sit in appeal over
award. - Plea that claim was based on fabricated documents - Cannot be
re-examined. 1.1. P. R. Shah, Shares and Stock Broker (P) Ltd. v/s M/s. B. H. H. Securities
(P) Ltd., reported in AIR 2012 SC 1866. 2.

It is permissible for the Constitutional Courts to declare legislative enactments

unconstitutional and void in some cases, but not because the judicial power is superior in
degree or dignity to the legislative. The Court while declaring a law as invalid or
unconstitutional is only enforcing the legislative will and the limits imposed by the
Constitution on the law-making bodies. No Court can declare a statute unconstitutional and
void, solely on the ground of unjust and harsh provisions, or because it is supposed to violate
some natural, social, political or economic rights of the citizen, unless it can be shown that
such injustice is, in fact, prohibited or such rights guaranteed or protected by the Constitution.
Strictly speaking, the Courts are not guardians of all kinds of rights of the people of the State,
unless those rights are secured and protected by some constitutional provision which comes
within the judicial cognizance.( Itc Limited vs Deputy Commissioner (Ct), Guntur ... on 20
June, 2002
Equivalent citations: 2002 (4) ALD 324, 2002 (4) ALT 500)