InJamshedHormusjiWadiaVs.

BoardofTrustees,PortofMumbaiAIR2004SC1815(para
33) Whennolawconfersastatutoryrighttoappealonaparty,Article136cannotbecalled
inaidtospelloutsucharight.TheSupremeCourtwouldnotunderArticle136constitute
itselfintoatribunalorcourtjustsettlingdisputesandreduceitselftoamerecourtoferror.
The power underArticle 136is an extraordinary power to be exercised in rare and
exceptionalcasesandonwellknownprinciples.
TheSupremeCourt inPritamSinghvsTheState1950AIR169heldthattheSCwillnot
grantspecialleavetoappealunderArticle136oftheConstitutionunlessitisshownthat
exceptionalandspecialcircumstancesexist, that substantial and grave injustice has been
doneandthecaseinquestionpresentsfeaturesofsufficient

gravity to warrant a

reviewofthedecisionappealedagainst.
InNarpatSinghVs.JaipurDevelopmentAuthority(2002)4SCC666,thisCourtobservedas
under:
"TheexerciseofjurisdictionconferredbyArt.136oftheConstitutionontheSupremeCourt
isdiscretionary.Itdoesnotconferarighttoappealonapartytolitigation;itonlyconfersa
discretionarypowerofwidestamplitudeontheSupremeCourttobeexercisedforsatisfying
thedemandsofjustice.Ononehand,itisanexceptionalpowertobeexercisedsparingly,
withcautionandcareandtoremedyextraordinarysituationsorsituationsoccasioninggross
failureofjustice.
Article136providesforamodewhichallowsfurtheranceofjusticeorcorrectionofgrave
injustice.Justiceassuchcouldbeclassifiedasanonrivalrousresource.Whatitsuffersfrom
isthetragedyofcommons.FilingofrivalrousSLPsiscomparabletotheoverexploitation
oftheresource(ofjustice)resultinginlowerefficiency.

TheSupremeCourtincaseofDhakeshwariCottonMillsvs.CITAIR1955SC65held
thattheCourthas onseveraloccasions remarkedthatitwas thehigh courtthatwas
intendedtobethefinalcourtofappealandArticle136wasjustaprovisiontoensurethat
substantialjusticeisdone.

InP.S.R.Sadhanatamvs.ArunachalamAIR1980SC856JusticeKrishnaIyersubstantiated
thereasoningforlimitingthescopeofSLPs.Hesaid,thewiderthediscretionarypower,the
more sparing its exercise. A number of times this Court as stressed that though parties
promiscuouslyprovokethisjurisdiction,theCourtparsimoniouslyinvokesthepower.Itis
true that the strictest vigilance over abuse of the process of the Court, especially at the
expensively exalted level of the Supreme Court, should be maintained and ordinarily
meddlesomebystandersshouldnotbegrantedavisa.

Thereisnomaterialwhatsoevertoshowthattheprosecutionhasdeliberatelyropedinthe
accusedpersons.Thereisnomalafideormalicelikethefactsituationwhichareprojectedin
thecaseofHardeepSingh(supra).Thus,theviewexpressedbythelearnedtrialJudgeis
absolutelyindefensibleandtheaffirmancethereofbytheHighCourtiswhollyunsustainable.