Discuss the scope of the Supreme Court's discretionary appellate jurisdiction under Article 136. Why does the Court often defer to High Courts at the interlocutory stage?

Article 136 allows the Supreme Court, "in its discretion", to grant special leave to appeal from any judgment or order of any court or tribunal in India [1]. It is a residual and extraordinary power. Parties have no right to it, and the Court's restraint in using it keeps the judicial hierarchy intact.

Scope of Article 136

• Very wide reach: It applies "notwithstanding anything in this Chapter". It covers any judgment, decree, sentence or order, final or interim, civil or criminal, from any court or tribunal [1].
• Limit in the text: Orders of courts or tribunals set up under Armed Forces laws are excluded [1].
• Limits the Court sets itself: The power is used sparingly, only where there is grave injustice or a departure from legal process (Pritam Singh v. State, 1950) [2].
• Two stages: The Court first decides whether to grant leave, and only then hears the appeal. A non-speaking dismissal of an SLP does not merge the High Court's order into the Supreme Court's order. It is also not law declared under Article 141 (Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala, 2000) [3].
• Docket pressure: Over time, SLPs have become close to a routine appeal. The Law Commission's 229th Report (2009) proposed regional Cassation Benches to take over this appellate load [4].

Why the Court defers at the interlocutory stage

• Proper forum: High Courts have wide powers under Article 226 and are the first forum on facts. The Supreme Court avoids becoming a court of first instance.
• Interim orders are not final: Stepping in early would prejudge the merits and lead to parallel proceedings.
• Managing its docket: Hearing interim appeals adds to the backlog the 229th Report warned about [4].
• Recent example: In October 2026, a Bench headed by Justice M.M. Sundresh declined to entertain the TMC faction's plea to operate four police-frozen accounts holding over ₹800 crore. The Calcutta High Court had already refused interim relief, and the challenge to the FIRs was still pending there. The Court instead asked the High Court to expedite the case [5].
• Exception: The Court still steps in where an interim order is plainly illegal or would cause harm that cannot be undone.

Article 136 makes the Supreme Court the final safety valve of justice, and its deference at the interim stage keeps the hierarchy orderly and its docket manageable. When it defers, it should also push for time-bound disposal by the High Court, as in the TMC case. That way restraint does not delay justice, and access to justice under Articles 14 and 21 and SDG 16 is upheld.