After leave is granted: how an SLP becomes an appeal in the Supreme Court

The grant of leave is a turning point in Supreme Court litigation. A Special Leave Petition, until then only a request to be heard, is converted into a full appeal that the Court will decide on merits. This article traces what follows that moment: how the appeal is registered and prepared, how interim arrangements operate in the interregnum, how the final hearing unfolds, and what remedies remain after judgment. It is a companion to the discussion of the Special Leave Petition itself.

From petition to appeal

Article 136 of the Constitution allows the Supreme Court, in its discretion, to grant special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order of any court or tribunal in India. The petition seeking that leave — the Special Leave Petition — is only the threshold stage, discussed separately.

When leave is granted, the petition ceases to be a mere request for audience. The Registry registers and numbers the matter as a civil appeal or a criminal appeal, as the case may be, and it is thereafter heard as an appeal by special leave. The parties become appellant and respondent, and the Court will in due course examine the correctness of the impugned judgment on merits, within the scope of the leave granted.

Preparing the appeal for hearing

Registration as an appeal sets in motion the steps that ready the matter for hearing. The record is settled: the relevant portions of the lower court record — pleadings, evidence, and the judgments under challenge — are brought on the appellate record. The older requirements of translation and printing survive in principle, but the process is now largely digital, with electronic filing and soft copies replacing much of the earlier paper practice.

Pleadings in the appeal are then completed. The respondent files a counter-affidavit answering the appeal, and the appellant may file a rejoinder. Before the final hearing, the Court’s practice directions require the parties to file written submissions along with convenience compilations of the materials they rely upon, so that oral argument proceeds on an organised record.

Interim arrangements in the interregnum

An interim order made at the SLP stage — a stay of the impugned judgment, a suspension of sentence, or a direction to maintain status quo — commonly continues to operate after leave is granted, unless the Court orders otherwise. It is not, however, immutable. Either party may apply for vacation, modification or clarification of the arrangement if circumstances change or the order proves unworkable.

Interim protection is frequently conditional. The Court may require the appellant to deposit a sum, furnish security, or give an undertaking, and may direct that compliance be demonstrated by affidavit. That discipline matters: a party that has obtained protection on conditions is expected to place proof of compliance on record, and a default can result in the interim order being vacated.

Final hearing and the range of outcomes

The appeal is eventually listed in the regular hearing lists for final disposal, where it is decided after full oral argument, informed by the written submissions on record. Where the bench finds a conflict in the existing law or considers that an important question deserves an authoritative pronouncement, it may refer the matter to a larger bench, and the appeal is then decided in the light of that answer.

Several outcomes are possible. The Court may dismiss the appeal, in which event the impugned judgment stands. It may allow the appeal, reversing or modifying the decision below, or remand the matter for fresh consideration in accordance with its directions. The Court may also mould the relief under Article 142 of the Constitution. Article 142 empowers the Supreme Court to pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. It is a constitutional power unique to the Supreme Court, exercised with restraint to shape relief that the strict frame of the dispute might not otherwise permit.

Merger: whose judgment survives

Once the Supreme Court decides an appeal on merits, the doctrine of merger operates. The judgment of the court below merges into that of the Supreme Court, which is thereafter the operative judgment between the parties. By contrast, the dismissal of a Special Leave Petition in limine — at the threshold, before leave is granted — does not attract merger and does not affirm the reasons of the court below; the lower court’s judgment continues to stand on its own footing.

After judgment: review, curative petition and execution

The Supreme Court’s judgment is final, but two narrow remedies remain. A review petition lies under Article 137 of the Constitution read with the Supreme Court Rules, ordinarily within thirty days of the judgment. Review is ordinarily decided by circulation without oral hearing, and only on narrow grounds — an error apparent on the face of the record, or the discovery of new and important matter that could not, with due diligence, have been produced earlier. It is not an occasion to reargue the appeal.

If the review is dismissed, the exceptional last resort is the curative petition, an established jurisdiction the Court exercises to prevent abuse of its process and gross miscarriage of justice. A curative petition must be certified by a senior advocate and is confined to narrow grounds, such as a violation of the principles of natural justice or bias on the part of a judge who participated in the decision. It is entertained only rarely.

As for compliance, the decree or order of the Supreme Court is not, in the ordinary course, executed by the Supreme Court itself. It is transmitted to the courts below and enforced through them, in the same manner as decrees and orders of those courts. Wilful disobedience of the Court’s order may attract proceedings in contempt, which is the sanction that secures obedience.

A closing word

The grant of leave transforms a discretionary petition into a regular appeal, with its own rhythm of pleadings, interim discipline, and final hearing. Understanding that rhythm — and the narrow remedies that follow judgment — allows a litigant to see the Supreme Court stage as a structured process rather than a single event, each step of which rewards preparation and candour.