Scribd
Upload
29 views4 pages

Respondent Jurisdiction

The document discusses whether a special leave petition filed by the petitioner is maintainable. It argues that special leave cannot be granted as substantial justice has been done, no exceptional circumstances exist, and the petitioner does not have locus standi and has not exhausted alternative legal remedies.

Uploaded by

Akarshan Jaiswal
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
29 views4 pages

Respondent Jurisdiction

The document discusses whether a special leave petition filed by the petitioner is maintainable. It argues that special leave cannot be granted as substantial justice has been done, no exceptional circumstances exist, and the petitioner does not have locus standi and has not exhausted alternative legal remedies.

Uploaded by

Akarshan Jaiswal
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 4

1

THE LEGAL CHRONICLES MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2021

[1]. WHETHER SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION IS NOT


MAINTAINABLE?

1. Art. 136(1) of the Constitution of India empowers the Supreme Court to grant, in its
discretion, 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 India1.
 2.  It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the appeal filed by the petitioner
is not maintainable as Special Leave cannot be granted when substantial justice has been
done and no exceptional or special circumstances exist for the case to be maintainable.
Also, there has been no failure of justice and Special Leave Petition cannot be granted
just as the Children’s Court treated every juvenile offender justly. Further, no substantial
question of law is involved in the present case and no special circumstances existed to
refrain from the statutory process of appeal. The petitioner had an option to appeal to the
High Court of Bombay but she went straight to Supreme Court which is a disregarded
practice in Supreme Court. 

[1.1] NO EXCEPTIONAL AND SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES EXIST


AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE HAS BEEN DONE

3.  It is humbly contended by the respondent that the petitioner must show that exceptional
circumstances exist and that if there is no interference, it will result in substantial and grave
injustice and the case has features of sufficient gravity to warrant a review of the decision
appealed against, on merits. Only then the Court would exercise its overriding powers under
Art. 136 (1- Art. 136, Constitution of India, 1950.). Special leave will not be granted when
there is no failure of justice or when substantial justice is done, though the decision might
suffer from some legal errors2.
4.  In Nazir Mohamed v. J. Kamala And Ors3, SC stated a question of law will be
“substantial” when it is debatable, not previously settled by the law of the land or any
binding precedent, and must have a material influencing the decision of the case or the
rights of the parties before it4

1- Art. 136, Constitution of India, 1950


2- Council of Scientific and Industrial Research v. K. G. S. Bhatt, (1989) 4 SCC 635; See also, State
of H. P. v. Kailash Chand Mahajan, AIR 1992 SC 1277.
3- AIR 2020 SC 4321
4- Civil Procedure Code, Sec. 100, para. 33 (1908)
5- Sir Chunilal Mehta and Sons, Ltd. v. Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd., AIR 1962
SC 1314.
1
THE LEGAL CHRONICLES MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2021

5. Whether a matter involves a substantial question of law also depends on whether it is of


general public importance, which directly or substantially affects the rights of the parties5.
6.    It is also explained in Pritam Singh v. The State 19506 that that the power under Art.
136, the Court will grant special leave when it is shown that exceptional and special
circumstances exist, that substantial and grave injustice has been done and that the case
in question presents features of sufficient gravity to warrant a review of the decision
appealed against. The court also stated that article 136 does not confer upon a litigant a right
to appeal against any order or judgment but vest the SC of India with a discretionary power
to interfere with the order of the lower courts only in exceptional cases where gross
injustice has been carried out.
7.  It is humbly submitted by the respondent’s counsel before the hon’ble court that the
matter does not involve a substantial question of law as the petitioner does not have a
material influencing the decision of the case or the rights of the parties before it. The counsel
of the respondent contends that justice has been served not only to Moriarity but also to the
other juvenile offenders. There is no gross injustice or miscarriage of justice happening
therefore no exceptional and special circumstances exist and substantial justice has been
done.

[1.2] PETITIONER DOES NOT HAVE THE LOCUS STANDI TO


PRESENT HIS CASE

8. Locus Standi is defined in Black’s Laws Dictionary as a right to appear in a court or


before anybody on a given question. It is a right to bring an action or to be heard in a given
forum7. An aggrieved person can only have the right to appeal before the respective court8.
9. In the recent judgment Shripal Bhati and Ors. vs. State of U.P. and Ors. (2020(3)
SCT491 (SC)) Supreme Court reiterated the same point that unless the injury is suffered
personally, a person cannot be said to be an aggrieved person and therefore has no locus
stand9.
10. The counsel for re
spondent most humbly contends that the Petitioner, Ms. Enola has no locus standi to file the
Special Leave Petition as she is not an aggrieved person. She is a stranger to Moriarity and
has no right to file the Special Leave Petition on his behalf. 
1- Art. 136, Constitution of India, 1950
2- Council of Scientific and Industrial Research v. K. G. S. Bhatt, (1989) 4 SCC 635; See also, State
of H. P. v. Kailash Chand Mahajan, AIR 1992 SC 1277.
3- AIR 2020 SC 4321
4- Civil Procedure Code, Sec. 100, para. 33 (1908)
5- Sir Chunilal Mehta and Sons, Ltd. v. Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd., AIR 1962
SC 1314.
1
THE LEGAL CHRONICLES MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2021

11. In the case of State of Uttaranchal v. Sehnaz Mirza ( 2008(4)ESC571(SC)) Supreme


Court stated a special leave petition can be filed under Art. 136 by a person who is a party to
the decision against which the appeal is sought to be filed and a person who is not a party to
the case, but is adversely affected thereby may also file the special leave petition. By this
observation, Ms. Enola does not qualify to file the petition, as she was not the party to the
decision against which the appeal is sought to be filed. She is not adversely affected by the
decision as she was in no way related to the case. Therefore, the petitioner does not have the
locus standi to present this case. Hence, Special Leave Petition is not maintainable.   
 
[1.3] THE PETITIONER HAS NOT EXHAUSTED HER ALTERNATIVE
REMEDIES

12. Supreme Court does not entertain appeals against an order of a tribunal unless the
appellant has exhausted the alternative remedies provided by the relevant law. For example,
the Supreme Court rejected the appeal by the appellants who moved to the Supreme Court
straightaway from the tax tribunal without first appealing to the concerned High Court10.
13. It is humbly submitted to the Hon’ble Court in the case of Nirma Ltd. vs. Lurgi Lentjes
Energietechnik GMBH and Ors.11 136, the aggrieved party must exhaust any remedy
which may be available under the law before the lower appellate authority or the High Court,
and the court also observed that the remedy available was an efficacious alternative remedy.
14. According to the JJ Act 2015 any person aggrieved by an order of the Children’s Court
may file an appeal before the High Court in accordance with the procedure specified in the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Section 101(5), Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection)
Act 2015.) 
15. The Counsel for the respondent contends that although the power under article 136 has
been held to be plenary, limitless, adjunctive, and unassailable, in Pritam Singh v. the
State12, it was held that the powers under Article 136 should be exercised with caution and in
accordance with law and set legal principles.  
16. The
Counsel for the Respondent contends that the petitioner has not exhausted any of the
efficacious alternative remedies available and is unnecessarily burdening the court, which

1- Art. 136, Constitution of India, 1950


2- Council of Scientific and Industrial Research v. K. G. S. Bhatt, (1989) 4 SCC 635; See also, State
of H. P. v. Kailash Chand Mahajan, AIR 1992 SC 1277.
3- AIR 2020 SC 4321
4- Civil Procedure Code, Sec. 100, para. 33 (1908)
5- Sir Chunilal Mehta and Sons, Ltd. v. Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd., AIR 1962
SC 1314.
1
THE LEGAL CHRONICLES MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2021

already has a heavy backlog of cases. The also Petitioner hasn’t used the remedy provided by
the JJ Act 2015 to appeal in the Bombay High Court and is unnecessarily burdening the
court, which already has a heavy backlog of cases. Therefore, the petitioner has not
exhausted his alternative remedies. Hence, Special Leave Petition is not maintainable.
 
 
 

1- Art. 136, Constitution of India, 1950


2- Council of Scientific and Industrial Research v. K. G. S. Bhatt, (1989) 4 SCC 635; See also, State
of H. P. v. Kailash Chand Mahajan, AIR 1992 SC 1277.
3- AIR 2020 SC 4321
4- Civil Procedure Code, Sec. 100, para. 33 (1908)
5- Sir Chunilal Mehta and Sons, Ltd. v. Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd., AIR 1962
SC 1314.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy