N. Suriyakala vs. A. Mohandoss - Supreme Court Case

 N. Suriyakala vs. A. Mohandoss - Supreme Court Case Summary of Leading Case -

On 12th February, 2007, a two Judges Bench in N. Suriyakala vs. A. Mohandoss & Ors. [Criminal Appeal No. 188 of 2007] while clarifying the scope of Article 136 of the Constitution said that "Article 136 of the Constitution is not a regular forum of appeal at all. It is a residual provision which enables the Supreme Court to interfere with the judgment or order of any court or tribunal in India in its discretion". "The use of the words "in its discretion" in Article 136 clearly indicates that Article 136 does not confer a right of appeal upon any party but merely vests a discretion in the Supreme Court to interfere in exceptional cases", the Bench said.

Re-iterating that Article 136 was never meant to be an ordinary forum of appeal at all like Section 96 or even Section 100 CPC, the Bench said "under the constitutional scheme, ordinarily 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. 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 was really meant under the Constitutional Scheme. After all, the Supreme Court has limited time at its disposal and it cannot be expected to hear every kind of dispute."

Landmark Cases of India / सुप्रीम कोर्ट के ऐतिहासिक फैसले


Popular posts from this blog

100 Questions on Indian Constitution for UPSC 2020 Pre Exam

भारतीय संविधान से संबंधित 100 महत्वपूर्ण प्रश्न उतर

संविधान की प्रमुख विशेषताओं का उल्लेख | Characteristics of the Constitution of India