 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
|
 |
 |
|
|
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
 |
 |
|
||||||||||
 |
|
|||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
Report No. 58 Leave granted sparingly 3.55. Having reached this conclusion, we ought to add that we have no doubt that the very width and comprehensive character of the power conferred on the Supreme Court by Article 136 will naturally make the approach of the Court very circumspect, cautious and careful in dealing with the applications for special leave under the said Article. In fact, that is the view which has frequently been expressed by the Court itself. 3.56. It is well established that grant of special leave under Article 136 is a matter of discretion, and not of right1. Being a constitutional power, the power of the Supreme Court under Article 136 is beyond the reach of legislation2; and the over-riding power is wider than the prerogative right exercised by the Privy Council3. But the Supreme Court will grant leave only in special and exceptional cases, where it is manifest that by the disregard of the forms of legal process or by violation of the principles of natural justice or otherwise, substantial and grave injustice has been done4. 1. Manu v. State, AIR 1971 SC 1050 (1053). 2. Laliteshzvar v. Bateshzvar Prasad, AIR 1966 SC 530 (595): (1966) 2 SCR 241. 3. Durga Shanker v. Thakur Raguraj Singh, AIR 1943 SC 520 (522): (1955) SCR 267. 4. State of Andhra Pradesh v. I.S.S. Prasad Rao, AIR 1970 SC 648 (651).    |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
 |
|
|||||||||||
 |
|
 |
|
|||||||||
Back