Article 136 of the Constitution empowers the Supreme Court, in its discretion, to grant special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order, in any cause or matter, passed by any court or tribunal in India. On its plain text, that includes interlocutory orders and orders granting or refusing bail. Yet the jurisdiction is discretionary and, by settled practice, exceptional — and petitions against interim and bail orders face the steepest climb of all.
The width of the text
Article 136(1) reads, in substance: notwithstanding anything in the Chapter, the Supreme Court may, in its discretion, grant special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order in any cause or matter passed or made by any court or tribunal in the territory of India. Three features of the text matter. First, the non-obstante opening lifts the power above the ordinary appellate articles and their conditions. Second, the enumeration — judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order — is deliberately exhaustive, and an interlocutory order is an order. Third, the governing word is may, twinned with in its discretion: nothing in Article 136 gives any litigant a right of appeal. The only textual exclusion is Article 136(2), covering courts and tribunals under armed forces law.
Discretionary, exceptional, residual
Because the article confers a discretion rather than a right, settled practice treats special leave as a reserve power for exceptional situations — grave injustice, questions of general public importance, or decisions no reasonable court could have reached. The jurisdiction is residual in a second sense: where the statute or the Constitution provides another remedy — an appeal within the same court structure, a revision, a fresh application — general practice expects that remedy to be exhausted or its futility explained before Article 136 is invoked.
Why interlocutory SLPs face an uphill task
The matter is still alive below
An interim order decides nothing finally. The proceeding continues, the order can often be varied on changed circumstances, and the grievance can be urged in appeal from the final decision.
Alternative remedies exist
Statutory appeals, revisions and modification applications usually remain open in the High Court or below. Practice expects these to be used first, or their futility explained.
Fragmented litigation
Entertaining challenges to every interim direction would splinter one case into many and stall proceedings below; the general reluctance protects the pace of the pending matter.
What still gets through
Interim orders with irreversible consequences — demolition, dispossession, freezing of operations, orders effectively deciding the whole case — are the recognised territory for intervention.
Bail and anticipatory bail SLPs
Orders granting or refusing bail under Section 483 BNSS (formerly Section 439 CrPC), and anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS (formerly Section 438 CrPC), are orders within Article 136, and petitions against them are filed by accused persons, complainants and the State alike. As a matter of general practice, the examination at the leave stage is not a rehearing of the bail application. The recurring questions are whether the order is perverse; whether relevant factors were ignored — the nature and gravity of the offence alleged, the material collected in investigation, antecedents, the risk of absconding, of tampering with evidence or of influencing witnesses; whether irrelevant considerations intruded; and whether the order records reasons at all. Discretion exercised on the relevant material is ordinarily respected, whichever way it went; unreasoned or plainly one-sided orders are the ones that attract interference. Cancellation of bail already granted is, in general practice, approached with even greater caution, since supervening conduct — breach of conditions, threats to witnesses — usually matters as much as the original order.
Procedure, limitation and defects
Strict limitation periods apply. Under the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, a special leave petition against a High Court judgment or order is ordinarily to be filed within ninety days, with the time requisite for obtaining the certified copy excluded when the dates are pleaded and proved. Delay beyond the period requires a condonation application explaining every block of time; in bail matters, where circumstances change quickly, a stale petition also risks being overtaken by events below. The Registry scrutinises the petition for compliance with the Rules — paper-book, annexures, affidavits, court fee — and notified defects must be cured within the time allowed, failing which the filing itself is imperilled. Urgent custody matters can seek early listing on a proper application, but urgency is a reason for speed in filing, not a substitute for a complete petition.
An SLP against an interim or bail order should be a considered choice, not a reflex. Where the same relief can be sought by a fresh or modification application below on changed circumstances, that route is often faster and avoids the risk of an adverse observation travelling back into the pending proceedings.
Article 136 permits much and promises nothing: the text reaches every order, and the discretion filters nearly all of them out. Whether a particular order justifies the attempt turns on its own facts, and independent legal advice on specific facts is always advisable.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can an SLP be filed against an interlocutory order at all?
Yes. Article 136 extends to any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order, and an interlocutory order is an order within that language. The bar is not maintainability but discretion: as a matter of general practice, leave against interim orders is granted sparingly, since the matter remains pending below and the grievance can usually be pressed at the final stage or through remedies in the same court.
What is the limitation period for an SLP against a High Court order?
Under the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, a special leave petition against a High Court judgment or order is ordinarily to be filed within ninety days, with time for obtaining the certified copy excluded when properly documented. Delay may be condoned for sufficient cause on a supported application, but the chronology must be complete and condonation is never a formality.
What does the Supreme Court generally look at in a bail SLP?
Framed as general practice, the examination is not a fresh bail hearing. The question is whether the order under challenge is perverse or has ignored relevant considerations — the nature and gravity of the allegations, antecedents, risk of flight or of tampering with evidence — or records reasons that do not engage with the material. An order reflecting a reasonable exercise of discretion is ordinarily left undisturbed.
What happens if the petition has Registry defects?
The Registry scrutinises every petition against the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 and notifies defects — missing annexures, uncertified copies, deficient court fee, improper affidavits — which must be cured within the time allowed. A petition not re-filed after curing defects within the permitted period can be treated as not filed, so defect-curing deserves the same diligence as the original filing.