Can the Supreme Court Interfere in a Revision Petition Filed in the High Court?
Introduction
In the Indian judicial system, the hierarchy of courts plays a vital role in ensuring justice. The High Courts exercise revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) for civil matters and under Sections 397 to 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) for criminal matters. The Supreme Court of India, as the apex court under Articles 32, 131–136, 142, and 144 of the Constitution, has the ultimate power to intervene in orders passed by High Courts. However, whether and how the Supreme Court can interfere in a revision petition filed in the High Court is a nuanced question.
The answer is: Yes, the Supreme Court can interfere in a revision petition filed in the High Court, but only under limited circumstances — primarily through its special leave jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution, or in exceptional cases involving violation of fundamental rights under Article 32. This article explores the scope, conditions, legal principles, and case law on this issue in detail.
Understanding Revision Petitions in the High Court
A revision petition is not an appeal. It is a supervisory jurisdiction where the High Court examines the legality, propriety, and regularity of an order passed by a subordinate court.
- Civil revisions: Governed by Section 115 CPC, these are filed against interlocutory or final orders of subordinate civil courts where no direct appeal lies.
- Criminal revisions: Governed by Sections 397–401 CrPC, these are filed against judgments or orders of subordinate criminal courts to correct jurisdictional errors or manifest illegality.
High Courts, while dealing with revision petitions, cannot generally reassess evidence or act as an appellate court; they primarily correct jurisdictional defects.
Supreme Court’s Constitutional Powers
The Supreme Court of India draws its powers from the Constitution:
- Article 32 – Enforcement of fundamental rights.
- Article 131 – Original jurisdiction in certain disputes.
- Article 136 – 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.
- Article 142 – Power to do complete justice.
- Article 144 – All authorities to act in aid of the Supreme Court.
Article 136 is the key provision enabling the Supreme Court to interfere in orders passed by High Courts in revision matters.
How the Supreme Court Interferes in Revision Petitions
1. By Granting Special Leave under Article 136
The Supreme Court does not act as another revisional forum. Instead, if a party is aggrieved by an order passed by the High Court in a revision petition (whether civil or criminal), they can file a Special Leave Petition (SLP) under Article 136.
- Article 136 allows the Supreme Court to grant leave to appeal against any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order.
- This includes orders passed in revision petitions by High Courts.
- Once leave is granted, the SLP converts into an appeal, and the Supreme Court can examine the merits of the case.
2. By Exercising Power under Article 32 (In Rare Cases)
If the High Court’s order in a revision petition violates a party’s fundamental rights, the Supreme Court can be directly approached under Article 32 for enforcement of those rights. However, this is rare and usually reserved for exceptional cases where no other remedy is adequate.
3. By Invoking Extraordinary Powers under Article 142
In order to do complete justice, the Supreme Court can issue any orders or directions that transcend technicalities. This provision has been invoked sparingly in matters arising out of revision petitions where justice demanded extraordinary intervention.
Conditions for Supreme Court Interference
The Supreme Court does not automatically interfere in all High Court revision matters. Certain conditions are usually present:
- Substantial question of law of general public importance.
- Gross miscarriage of justice or manifest illegality by the High Court.
- Violation of fundamental rights of the petitioner.
- Lack of jurisdiction or abuse of jurisdiction by the High Court.
- Exceptional circumstances where no other adequate remedy is available.
Civil Revisions and Supreme Court’s Interference
When a civil revision under Section 115 CPC is decided by the High Court, a party aggrieved can approach the Supreme Court under Article 136 by filing an SLP.
Examples:
- Improper exercise of revisional powers by the High Court.
- High Court deciding questions beyond its jurisdiction in civil matters.
- Orders passed without following principles of natural justice.
Case Law Illustrations:
- Shankar Ramchandra Abhyankar v. Krishnaji Dattatreya Bapat (1970) – The Supreme Court clarified that once the High Court exercises its revisional jurisdiction, the aggrieved party may approach the Supreme Court through an SLP.
- Major S.S. Khanna v. Brig. F.J. Dillon (1964) – Discussed the limits of High Court’s revisional powers and scope of Supreme Court’s interference.
Criminal Revisions and Supreme Court’s Interference
Criminal revisions decided by the High Court under Sections 397–401 CrPC are also subject to Supreme Court’s scrutiny through SLPs.
Examples:
- Convictions upheld in revision by the High Court.
- Orders of acquittal reversed in revision without proper jurisdiction.
- Interference with interim bail or maintenance orders where High Court exceeded its revisional power.
Case Law Illustrations:
- Anoop Singh v. State of Punjab (2018) – The Supreme Court interfered in a criminal revision where the High Court’s order was held to be contrary to law.
- State of Kerala v. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri (1999) – The Supreme Court elaborated on the scope of revisional powers and clarified when the Supreme Court can step in.
Limitations on Supreme Court Interference
- No Automatic Right of Appeal: Article 136 is a discretionary power, not a guaranteed right.
- Rare and Exceptional: The Supreme Court will not re-examine facts or evidence unless gross injustice is apparent.
- Exhaustion of Remedies: The party should normally exhaust all remedies in the High Court before approaching the Supreme Court.
- SLP Procedure Compliance: Filing within limitation, proper documentation, certified copy of the High Court order, and compliance with Supreme Court Rules, 2013 is mandatory.
Procedure to Approach the Supreme Court After High Court Revision
- Obtain a Certified Copy of the High Court’s revision order.
- Consult a Supreme Court Advocate-on-Record (AOR), as only AORs can file petitions before the Supreme Court.
- Draft and File an SLP under Article 136 challenging the High Court order.
- State Grounds Clearly – Jurisdictional errors, violation of natural justice, substantial questions of law, or miscarriage of justice.
- Seek Interim Relief (If Needed) – A stay on the High Court order or execution can be sought while the SLP is pending.
- Await Admission – The Supreme Court may admit the SLP or dismiss it at the admission stage.
FAQs on Supreme Court Interference in High Court Revision Matters
Q1. Can the Supreme Court directly hear a revision petition?
No. The Supreme Court does not entertain revision petitions directly; it can only be approached through a Special Leave Petition under Article 136 or a writ under Article 32 in exceptional cases.
Q2. Does filing an SLP automatically stay the High Court order?
No. A separate application for stay must be filed along with the SLP, and the Supreme Court must grant it after hearing the parties.
Q3. What is the time limit to file an SLP against a High Court revision order?
Generally, 90 days from the date of the High Court order (as per the Limitation Act and Supreme Court Rules), though delays can be condoned in certain circumstances.
Q4. Can the Supreme Court reassess evidence in a revision matter?
Generally no, unless the High Court’s decision is manifestly perverse or leads to a miscarriage of justice.
Q5. Can the Supreme Court impose costs or directions while interfering in a High Court revision order?
Yes. The Supreme Court has wide discretion under Articles 136 and 142 to impose costs, give directions, or modify the order to do complete justice.
Key Takeaways
- The Supreme Court does not function as another revisional forum but as an appellate authority under Article 136 of the Constitution.
- An aggrieved party can challenge a High Court’s order in a revision petition before the Supreme Court by filing a Special Leave Petition.
- The Supreme Court’s interference is discretionary, not automatic, and reserved for cases involving grave injustice, violation of rights, or jurisdictional errors.
- Both civil and criminal revision orders can be challenged in the Supreme Court under Article 136.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court of India, being the highest judicial authority, plays a crucial role in correcting errors or miscarriages of justice arising from High Court decisions, including revision petitions. While the High Court exercises limited revisional jurisdiction, the Supreme Court’s intervention under Article 136 ensures that its supervisory function is not abused and that justice prevails. Thus, the Supreme Court can interfere in a revision petition filed in the High Court through its discretionary powers, primarily by way of Special Leave Petitions, but only in exceptional circumstances involving serious legal or constitutional issues.
This layered mechanism preserves judicial discipline, avoids unnecessary overreach, and simultaneously guarantees access to the apex court for ultimate justice.
Important: Kindly Refer New Corresponding Sections of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023, (BNS); Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, (BNSS); & Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023, (BSA) for IPC; CrPC & IEA used in the article.
Disclaimer: This information is intended for general guidance only and does not constitute legal advice. Please consult with a qualified lawyer for personalized advice specific to your situation.
Advocate J.S. Rohilla (Civil & Criminal Lawyer in Indore)
Contact: 88271 22304
