What If Slp Is Rejected?

leadindia636
Sep 17, 2025
4 min read

Under Article 136 of the Constitution, a Special Leave Petition is filed with the Supreme Court requesting permission to appeal before granting the leave because the case involves a significant legal question of public or general importance. The court's extraordinary discretionary power to grant permission or leave to appeal before the court is, in my opinion, exercised in the following situations:

When a significant legal issue of public or general importance is at stake, the court believes that the parties need to receive more justice. Although some justice may have been served, the justification for the actions was flawed. The goals of justice necessitate intervention from the highest court; full justice must be served.

What if SLP is rejected?

While addressing a similar question in P. Singaravelan and others vs. District Collector, Tiruppur and DT and others [(2020)3 SCC 133], the Court noted that it is clear that all of the aforementioned orders (passed in previous SLP) were non-speaking orders, as they were limited to merely refusing to grant the petitioners therein special leave to appeal. It is helpful to keep in mind at this point that it is well-established that an SLP's dismissal in response to an order or judgment of a lower forum does not imply an endorsement of the same. If this Court issues a non-speaking order, it does not fall under the merger doctrine or qualify as a declaration of law under Article 141 of the Constitution.

The aforementioned perspective has consistently been upheld by this Court in numerous rulings, such as the most recent ruling in Khoday Distilleries Ltd. v. Sri Mahadeshwara Sahakara Sakkare Karkhane Ltd. [(2019) 4 SCC 376], which stated that, when these observations are applied to the current case, it is evident that this Court has not made any pronouncements that establish the legal framework for the interpretation of GOMs No. 162. In this case, we are free to decide the appeals at hand without being swayed by earlier rulings from this Court that dismissed SLPs challenging the relief granted to drivers in a situation comparable to that of the appellants in this case. An order that was challenged before the Supreme Court was the subject of an appeal. Any subsequent orders would be subject to the doctrine of merger applicability and would be considered appellate orders.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court noted that in the Supreme Court Employees’ Welfare Association v. Union of India and Anr. (1989(4) SCC 187, State of Orissa and another v. Dhirendra Sundar Das and another [(2019) 6 SCC 270], the issue concerns equity in the pay schedules of the PAs of the Hon'ble Judges of the High Court of different High Courts and State Secretariat, and several orders of various High Courts were mentioned. These cases dealt with parity between pay scales of the PAs of the Hon’ble Judges of the High Court of different High Court and State Secretariat, etc. Employees' Welfare Association v. UOI & Anr. and State of Punjab v. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar have noted and reaffirmed that this Court does not establish any law as contemplated by Article 141 of the Constitution when a special leave petition is dismissed summarily under Article 136 of the Constitution. This is a well-established legal principle. Therefore, it cannot be claimed that this Court has declared law under Article 141 of the Constitution when a special leave petition is denied simpliciter.

Can a Writ Petition be filed following an SLP's dismissal?

It should be noted that a writ petition against a Tribunal/Authority order filed with the High Court following an SLP is a completely separate and distinct process. The Supreme Court's order dismissing the special leave petition does not, however, operate to prevent the trial of the same issues in a different proceeding, specifically because it does not apply to questions that the Supreme Court implicitly, explicitly, or even constructively decided while dismissing the petition. Rather, it does not do so on the grounds of res judicata or any other comparable public policy principle, the High Court's writ process only on the tenuous presumption that the Supreme Court must have, at the very least, implicitly, resolved the issues. Established legal principles shall serve as the High Court's guidance when exercising its discretionary jurisdiction to grant leave under Article 226. Refusing to consider a writ petition on its merits only because the petitioner's Supreme Court special leave petition was denied by a non-speaking order would be an imprudent use of that discretion.

Lead India offers a variety of legal services, such as free legal advice and internet information. We provide a facility in which you can talk to a lawyer and ask legal questions regarding the law here. Lead India's lawyers can assist you with any legal issues. In India, Lead India provides free legal assistance online. In addition to receiving free legal advice online, Lead India allows users to pose inquiries to experts for free.