Too many special leave petitions burden the Supreme Court

Special leave petitions: what is the problem?

A top court is meant to settle big questions of law for the whole country. When it spends most of its time on ordinary appeals, those big questions wait.

• The Supreme Court has more than 96,000 pending cases, about 2,500 per judge, as per the National Judicial Data Grid.
• Its strength was raised from 34 to 38 judges in May, but cases keep piling up.
• Special leave petitions are about 80% of fresh filings.
• Experts say clearer filters are needed, without shutting the door to justice.
• By comparison, the United States Supreme Court hears about 70–80 cases a year, and the United Kingdom’s Supreme Court granted 45 of 207 requests in 2025-26.

What is a special leave petition?

Article 136 gives the Supreme Court a special power: it may grant ‘special leave’ (permission) to appeal against any judgment or order of any court or tribunal in India, except military tribunals.

This power is discretionary, which means the Court may or may not hear the appeal. It was meant for exceptional cases where grave injustice or an important legal question is involved.

In the Constituent Assembly, H V Pataskar said India needed a “fountainhead of all justice” in place of the King, to whom appeals once went. Over time, however, SLPs became a routine second or third appeal.

Parliament decides the number of judges by law under Article 124. The Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act, 1956 has been amended many times to raise the number.

Main jurisdictions of the Supreme Court

Which laws and Articles apply?

• Article 124: composition of the Supreme Court; Parliament fixes the number of judges.
• Article 136: special leave to appeal (discretionary).
• Article 137: review of its own judgments; curative petition created in Rupa Ashok Hurra case (2002).
• Article 142: power to pass any order for ‘complete justice’.

Why does special leave petitions matter?

What are the problems with special leave petitions?

• SLPs have become a routine appeal, not an exceptional remedy.
• Government is the biggest litigant and appeals too often.
• Adding judges alone does not cut the backlog.
• Strict filters could deny justice to poor people.

What should be done next on special leave petitions?

• Set clear, published criteria for admitting SLPs.
• Create regional benches or a National Court of Appeal, as the Law Commission’s 229th Report (2009) suggested.
• Reduce government appeals through a strong litigation policy.
• Strengthen High Courts so fewer cases need to go higher.

What can Prelims ask on special leave petitions?

Prelims probability: Expect a statement question: Article 136 gives the Supreme Court discretionary power to grant special leave to appeal; Parliament decides the number of judges.

• Article 136: discretionary special leave to appeal; not for military tribunals.
• Article 124: Parliament decides the number of judges; now 38.
• Article 131: original jurisdiction (Centre–State and inter-State disputes).
• Curative petition: Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra (2002).
• National Judicial Data Grid tracks pending cases.

How to write about special leave petitions in Mains

Practice question (15 marks, 250 words): Special leave petitions under Article 136 were meant to be an exceptional remedy but now dominate the Supreme Court’s docket. Examine the problem and suggest reforms.

• Intro: 96,000+ pending cases; SLPs 80% of filings.
• Purpose of Article 136 vs present use.
• Effects: delay, less time for constitutional questions.
• Reforms: admission criteria, regional benches, government litigation policy, stronger High Courts.
• Conclusion: filter wisely without closing the door to justice.