Holding

Article 136 confers a wide discretionary power on the Supreme Court, allowing a private party to seek special leave in public‑interest cases without violating Article 21.

Summary

The accused, S. R. Sadhanantham, was acquitted by the Madras High Court of murder (s.302 IPC) and assault (s.148 IPC). The victim's brother, Arunachalam, filed a special leave petition under Article 136 of the Constitution, obtained leave, and the Supreme Court set aside the acquittal, restoring conviction and life sentence. Sadhanantham challenged this by filing a writ petition under Article 32, arguing that a private individual lacks locus standi to invoke Article 136 and that granting leave violated Article 21's requirement of fair procedure. The Court held that Article 136 confers a discretionary, residuary power on the Supreme Court, which may be exercised in public‑interest cases even by private parties, and that the procedure implicit in Article 136 satisfies the procedural guarantees of Article 21. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed and the conviction upheld.

Issues considered

Whether a private person, not the State or the complainant, has locus standi to invoke Article 136 for special leave to appeal an acquittal.
Whether the grant of special leave under Article 136, and the subsequent appeal, infringes Article 21's guarantee of procedure established by law.
Whether an antecedent statutory right of appeal is a prerequisite for the Supreme Court to entertain a special leave petition.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 378
Constitution of Indias. Article 131, s. Article 133, s. Article 134, s. Article 135, s. Article 136, s. Article 21, s. Article 32
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 148, s. 302

Subjects

Article 136Special leaveLocus standiCriminal appealMurderArticle 21Procedural fairnessPublic interest litigationCriminal Procedure CodeConviction and acquittal

Judgment

..
873

P. S. R. SADHANANTHAM A
v.
ARUNACHALAM & Ai'IR.
February 1, 1980
[V. R KRISHNA h1m, s.
MURTAZA E\ZAL Au, D. A. DESAI,
R. S. PATHAK AND A. D. KOSHAL, JJ.]

Constitution of India 1950, Article 136- Scope of jurisdiction-High Court
in appeal setting aside conviction and sentence by trial court for murder-
No appeal preferred by government-Private party if could invoke jurisdiction
under Article 136.
c
Words & Phrases-'Crime'-Definition of.
The petitioner was acquitted by the High Court in appeal, of charges under
sections 302 and 148 I.P.C., but the brother of the deceased-not the State nor
even the first informant, petitioned this Court under Article 136 of the Consti-
tution for special leave to appeal against acquittal, got leave, had his appeal
· heard, which was ultimately allowed the court setting aside the judgment of the
High Court, and restoring the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial
• court under section 302 I.P.C. (Arunachalam v. S. R. Sadhananthan [1979]
3 S.C.R. 482).

The petitioner filed the writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution,
• contending : (1) that Article 136 did not empower the grant of special leave
to the brother of the deceased and the grant of special leave by the Court and E
its entertaining the appeal violated Article 21 of the Constitution, and (2) be·
fore the Court may grant special leave under Article 136 there must be an
antecedent right of appeal absent which the question of leave by the Court does
not arise.

Dismissing the petition,
F
HELD: (per Krishna Iyer, .Murtaza Fazal Ali and Desai, JJ).
1. Justice is functionally outraged not only when an innocent person is
punished but also when a gtrilty criminal gets away with it stultifying the legal
system. [877H, 878A]

2. An insightful understanding of the sweep, scope and character of Art. 136
will easily dispel the dichotomy between an antecedent right of appeal and a G
subsequent grant of leave. [878D] ·

3. The jural reach and plural range of the judicial process to remove injustice
in a ~ven society is a sure index of the versatile genius of law-in-action as a
delivery system of social justice. Our constitutional order vests in the summit
court a jurisdiction to do justice, at once omnipresent and omnipotent but con-
trolled and guided by that refined yet flexible censor called judicial discretion. B
This nidus of power and process, which master-minds the broad observance
throughout the Republic of justice according to law, is Art. 136. [878E-F]
.,'../
·..

BU SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1980] 2 S.C.R. '

A 4. In express terms, Art. 136 does not confer a right of appeal on a party
as such but it confers a wide discretionary power on the Supreme Court to inter"'
fere in suitable cases. Article 136 is a special jurisdiction. It is residuary
power; it is extra-ordinary in its amplitude, its limit, when it chases injustice, is
the sky itself. This Court functionally fulfils itself by reaching out to injustice
wherever it is and this power is largely derived in the common run of cases
from Art. 136. [878G-H, 879A]
.,
B 5. There is a procedure necessarily implicit in the po\ver vested in the summit
court. It must be remembered that Art. 136 confers jurisdiction on the highest
court. The founding. fathers unarguabl)' intended in the very terms of Art. 136
that it shall be exercised by the highest judges of the land with scrupulous
adherence to judicial principles well-established by precedents in bur jurispru·
dence. Judicial discretion is canalised authority, not arbitrary eccentricity.
[879A-C]
c
6. It is manifest that Art. 136 is of composite structure, is power-cum-
procedure-power in that it vests jurisdiction in the Supreme Court, and proce·
dure in that it spella a mode of hearing. It obligates the exercise of judicial
discretion and the mode of hearing so characteristic of the c-0urt process. In
short, there is an in-built prescription of power and procedure in terms of Art.
136 which meets the demand of A."1. 21. [879E-F]
D
7. If Art. 21 is telescoped into Art. 136, it follows that fair procedure is
imprinted on the special leave that the court may grant or refuse. With a
motion is made for leave to appeal against an acquittal, this Court appreciates
the gravity of the peril to personal liberty involved in that proceeding. While
conSidering the petition under Art. 136 the court·will pay attention to the ques-
tion of liberty, the person who seeks such leave from the court, his motive and
E his locus standi.and the weighty factors which persuade the court to grant
special leave. [879F·G]
8. 'The wider the discretionary power the more sparing its exercise. The
court may not, save in special situations, grant leave to one who is not eo
nomine a party on the record. [880C·D]
9. Sometimes indifference of bureaucratic officials, at other times politicisa-
F tion of higher functionaries may result in refusal to take a case to this Court
under Art. 136 even though the justice of the /is may well justify it. In the
absence of an independent prosecution authority easily accessible to every citi-
,, zen, a wider connotation of the expression 'standiiig' is necessary for Art. 136
I to further its mission. There are jurisdictions in which private individuals-
not the State alone-may institute criminal proceedings. [880G-H, 881A]
10. The narrow limits set, into the concept of 'person aggrieved' and 'stand·
G ing' needs liberalisation. [88 IE]
Baker v. Carr (1962) 369 U.S. 186, Attorney-General of the Gambia v.
Pierra Sarr N'Jie, [1961] A.C. 617, Bar Council of Maharashtra v. M. v.
Dabholkar, [1975] 2 SCC 702 referred to.
(Per Pathak and Koshal, JJ concurring).
H 1. Article 136 seeks to confer on the Supren1e Court the widest conceivable
range of judicial power, making it perhaps among the most powerful courts in
the wor]d. 'fhe judicial power reaches out to every judgment, decree, determi- ;'ll
'"·i··
j
>
\< -, : •

~.:·f.·]·. ·.•
·~
SADHANANTHAM v. ARUNACHALAM (Krishna Iyer,!.) 87 5

nation, sentence or order affecting the rights and obligations of persons in civil A
matters, of life and liberty in criminal matters as well as matters touching the
Revenues of the State. It is an attempt to ensure that the foundations of the
/ Indian Republic, which have been laid on the bed-rock of justice, are not under-
mined by justice anywhere in the land. , l884CE]

Bharat Bank Ltd. v. Employees of the Bharat Bank Ltd. !1950] S.C.R. 459,
474, Durga Shankar Mehta v. Thakur Raghuraj Singh and Others, [1955] 1 B
S.f:.R. 267, 2 72, referred to.

2. Article 136 vests in the Supreme Court, a plenary jurisdiction in the
matter of entertaining and hearing appeals by grant of special leave. However,
a limitation is inbuilt into the jurisdiction of the Court and it flows from the
nature and character of the case intended to be brought before the Court, and
it requires compliance despite the apparent plenitude of power vested in the
Court. When a petition is presented to the Court under Article 136, the Court
c
will have due regard to the nature and character of the cause sought to be
brou8ht before it when entertaining and disposing of the petition. [884E-G]

3. A crime. is' an act deemed by Iaw to be harmful to society in general, even
though its immediate victim is an individual. Murder injures primarily the
particular victim, but its blatant disregard of human life puts it beyond a matter
of mere compensation between. the murderer and the victim's family. Those D
who commit such acts are proceeded against by the State in order that, if
convicted, they may be punished. No private person has a direct interest in a
criminaJ proceeding although exception may be Jnade by the Statute in certain
cases. [885C-FJ
Kenny's Outlines of Crilninal Law, 16th Edn., p. 2 para 3 Blacksto~s Com-
mentaries, 111 p. 2, Mogul Steamship Co. v. Mc Greger Gew & Co. [1889] 23
E
QBD 598; referred to.

4. The notion of crime e.s a threat to the whole community is the material
counter-part of the formal rule that the State alone is master of a. criminal pro-
secution. In a criminal proceeding, the State stands forward as prosecutor on
public grounds. No private person has a direct interest in a ·criminal proceed-
ing, although exception may be made by the statute in ce11ain cases. A crimi- F
nal prosecution is not intended for the private satisfaction of a personal
vendetta or revenge. In India, the criminal law envisages the State as the
prosecutor. !885E-F]

Salmond on.Jurisprudence, 12th Edn. p. 92 para 14 and Current Legal Prob·
/ems, 1955; Glanville Williams, "The Definition'of Crime", p. 107 at p. 122;
referred to.
G

5. Under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, s. 378, the right of appeal
vested in the State has now been made subject to leave being granted to the
State by the High Court. The complainant continues to be subject to the pre-
requisite condition that· he must obtain special leave to appeal. The fetters so
imposed on the right to appeal are prompted by the reluctance to ex-
pose a person, who has been acquitted by a competent 1:::ourt of a criminal B
charge, to· the anxiety and tension of a further examination of t11e case, even
though it is held by a superior court. [886B-C]

T --
876 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1980] 2 S.C.R,

A Law Commission of India 48th Report 1972 pp. 17-21 referred to.

6. What follows from the grant of speci6l leave is an appeal, a,nd the juris-
diction must, therefore, be invoked by a petitioner possessing a locus standi re·
cognised in law. [887F-G] ·

7. Access to the jurisdiction under A.rticle 13 6 cannot be permitted to a
private party who seeks to employ the judicial process for the satisfaction of
B private revenge or personal vendetta. Nor can it be permitted as an instru·
ment of coercion where a. civil action would lie. In every case, the Court is
bound to consider what is the interest which brings the petitioner to court and
whether the interest of the public community will benefit by the grant of special
leave. . [887B-C]

8. The Court should entertain a special leave petition filed by a private
party, other than the complainant, in those cases only where it is convinced that
the public interest justifies an appeal against the acquittal and that the State has
refrained from petitioning for special leave for reasons which do not bear on
the public interest but are prompted by private influence, want of bona fide and
other extraneous considerations. [887E-Fl

9. Tue procedure followed by this Court in disposing of a petition under
·D Article 136 is oonsistent with the procedure contemplated by Article 21 for the
Court in exercising its jurisdiction will do so as a court of law following the
well-known norms of procedure which have been recognised for long as govern-
ing and informing !he proceedings of all courts. Article 21 is, therefore, not
violated. [887G-H, 888A]

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition No. 355 of 1979.
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution)
P. R. Mridul, K. Jayaram, K. Ram Kumar and Aruneshwar Gupta
for the Petitioner.
Soli l. Sorabjee, Solicitor General, R. N. Sachthey, E. C. Agarwala
and Miss A. Subhashini for Respondent No. 1.
F
The Judgment of V. R. Krishna Iyer, S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, and
D. A Desa~ JJ. was delivered by Krishna Iyer, J. and concurring
opinion of R. S. Pathak and A D. Kosha1 JJ. was delivered by Pathak,
J.
·G KRISHNA IYER, J. Is it constitutionally valid or desirable on prin-
ciple to permit a private citizen, who has but loO'Se nexus with the
victim of a crime, to invoke the special power under Art. 136 of the
Constitution for leave to appeal against an acquittal of the alleged
criminal thereby p1.1tting in peril his life or liberty in the absence of aµy
legislative provision arming such officious outsider with the right to
B appeal ? This issue, profound on its face but unsound on reflection,
falls fp'r decision in this writ petition under Art. 32 of the Constitu-
tion. The facts, compressed into a single sentence, are that the pcti-

-- - I
SADHANANTHAM; v. ARUNACHALAM (Krishna Iyer, l.) 877
•
tioner was acquitted of a murder charge by the High Court in appeal A
but the brother of the deceased-not the State nor even the first infor-
niant-moved this Court under Art. 136, got leave and had his appeal
heard which resulted in the petitioner (accused) being convicted and
sentenced to the life term under s. 302 I.P.C. The present contention
urged to upset that conviction, is that the leave to appeal and the
subsequent proceedings were unconstitutional as violative of Art. 21 B
the procedl\Ial 1nagna carta protective of life and liberty-and, there-
fore, the sentence must fail. This plea, faintly presented before this
Court when the appeal was heard, was briefly considered and rightly
rejected. This second battle, doomed to fail like the first, demands of
( us a condensed ratiocination in negation of the contentioa hopefully
urged by Sri Mridul, counsel for the petitioner. .~

Two inter-laced issues arise and they turn on (a) the content and
<:haracter of Art. 136 vis-a-vis Art. 21, and (b) the locus standi of a
Good Samaritan, if we may use that expression to refer to a public-
spirited citizen seeking to trigger the legal process to see that justice is
done to his neighbour. D

Article 21, in its sublime brevity, guardians human liberty by insist-
ing on the prescription of procedure established by law, n,ot fiat as sine
qua IWn for deprivation of personal freedom. And those procedures so
established must be fair, not fanciful, nor formal nor flimsy, as laid
down in Maneka Gandhi's case.(1) So, it is axiomatic that our cons-
titutional jurisprudence mandates the State not to deprive a person of
his personal liberty without adherence W fair procedure laid down by .
)aw. The question is whether there is any procedure, fair or other-
wise, which enables a kindly neighbour who is not a complainant or
first informant, to appeal to the Supreme Court against an allegedly
erroneous acquittal by the High Court. The corpus juris contains no
black-letter law arming any such purely compassionate soul to approach
this Court, argues Sri Mridul; and so, his client's liberty has been de-
prived by a proceeding initiated by someone without any procedure esta-
blished by law. We see the dexterity in the advocacy but reject its
efficacy. Nor are we impressed with the submission that the brother of G
the deceased in the case, or any other high-minded citizen, is an offi·
cious meddler who has no business nor grievance when the commission
of grievous crime is going unpunished. There is a spiritual sensitivity
for our criminal justice system which approves of the view that a wrong
done to anyone is a wrong done to oneself, although for pragmatic .cun·
siderations the law leashes the right to initiate proceedings in sp'me H
situations. Again, 'justice is functionally outraged not only when an
(1) Maneka Gandhi v. Union oflndia [1978] I SCC 248.
878 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1980] 2 S.C.R.-

· A innocent person is punished but also when a guilty criminal gets away
with it stultifying the legal system. The deep concern cf the law is to
track down, try and punish the culprit, and if found not guilty, to ac-
quit the accused.
It is imperative under Art. 21 that there should be some civilised
B procedure for holding a man guilty and depriving him of his liberty.
Undoubtedly, this Court, if it grants leave under Art. 136 and eventual-
ly finds him guilty, deprives him of his liberty; and so the crucial ques-
tion that falls for decision is as to whether there is any procedure as
predicated by Art. 21 independent of or implicit in Art. 136. It is appa- 1
rent that there is no statutory provision which creates a right of appeal
c in favour of a stranger enabling him to challenge an acquittal by the /
High Court. The Criminal Procedure Code does not create such a
right pf appeal and, speaking generally, a right of appeal is the crea-
ture of statute. So it is submitted that before the court may grant spe-
cial leave under Art. 136 there must be an antecedent right of appeal,
absent which the question of leave by the court does not arise. The
D argument is ingenious but inference is fallacious.
An insightful understanding of the sweep, scope and character of
Art. 136 will easily dispel the dichotpm.y between an antecedent right
pf appeal and a subsequent grant of leave, which is the corner-stone
of the contention of the petitioner.
I The jural reach and plural range of the judicial process to remove
injustice in a given society is a sure index of the versatile genius· .of
law-in-action as a delivery system of social justice. By this standard,
our constitutional order vests in the summit court a jurisdiction to do
justice, at once omnipresent and omniPiOtent but controlled and guided
F by that refined yet flexible censor called judicial discretion. This nidus "'
('
of power and process, which master-minds the broad observance
throughout the Republic of justice according to law, is Art. 136.
Specificity being essential to legality, let us see if the broad spec·
trum spread-out of Art. 136 fills the bill from the point of view of
G "procedure established by law". In express tenns, Art. 136 does no~
confer a right of appeal on a party as such but it confers a wide dis-
cretionary power on the Supreme Court to interfere in suitable cases.
The discretionary dimension is considerable but that relates to the
power of the court. The question is whether it spells by implication,
a fair proced11re as contemplated by Art. 21. In our view, it does.
H Article 136 is a special jurisdiction. It is residuary· power; it is extra-
ordinary in its amplitude, its liinit, when it chases injustice, in the sky
itself. This Court functionally fulfils itself by reaching out to injustice
SADHANANTHAM v. ARUNACHALAM (Krishna lyer, !.) 8 79

wherever i~ is and this power is largely derived in the common run of A
cases from Art. 136. Is it merely a power in the Court to be exercised
~ in any manner it fancies'? Is there no procedural limitat¥in in the man·
I ner of exercise and the occasion for exercise ? Is there no duty to Act
fairly while hearing a case under Art. 136, either in the matter of grant
of leave or, after such gi:ant, in the final disposal of the appeal? We
have hardly any doubt that there is a procedure necessarily implicit in B
the power vested in the summit court. It must be remembered that Art.
136 confers jurisdiction on the highest court. The founding fathers
unarguably iii.tended in the very terms of Art. 136 that it shall be exer-
cised by the highest judges of the land with scrupulous adherence to
judicial principles well-established by precedents in our jurisprudence.
Judicial discretion is canalised authority not arbitrary eccentricity. c
Cardozo, with elegant accuracy, has observed(') :
The judge, even when he is free, is still not wholly free.
He is not to innovate at pleasure. He is not a knighterrant
roaming at will in pursuit of his pwn ideal of beauty or of
goodness. He is to draw his inspiration from consecrated D
principles. He is not to yield to spasmodic sentiment, to vague
.. and unregulated benevolence. He is to exercise a discretion
i:1formed by tradition, methodized by analogy, disciplined by
system, and subordinated to 'the primordial necessity of order
in the social life. Wide enough in all conscience is the field
of discretion that remains." E

It is manifest that Art. 136 is of composite structure, is power-cum-
precedure--power in that it vests jurisdiction in. the Supreme Court,
and procedure in that it spells a mode of hearing. It Obligates the exer-
cise of judicial discretion and the mode of hearing so characteristic of
the court process. In short, there is an in-built prescription of power F
and pmcedure in terms of Art. 13 6 which meets the demand of Art. 21.

We may eye the issue slightly differently. If Art. 21 is telescoped
into Art. 136, the conclusion follows that fair procedure is imprinted on
>
tile special leave that the court may grant or refuse. When a motion is
made for leave to appeal against an acquittal, this Court appreciates G
the gravity of the peril to personal liberty involved in that
proceeding. It is fair to assume that while considering the petition
under Art. 136 the court will pay attention to the question of liberty,
the person who seeks such leave from the court, his motive and his
locus standi and the weighty factors which persuade the court to grant
special leave. When this conspectus of proceS'Sual circumstances and , H
(1) Benjamin Cardozo, The Nature of tbe Judicial Process, Yale lrnivcrsity
Press (1921).
\,. 2-138SCI/80

._..,.,,,,.....,__ ~--~ --- . -·-- .•......-..-
sso SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1980] 2 s.c.R.

A criteria pl~y upon the jurisdiction of the court under Art. 136, it is
reasonable to conclude that the desideratum of fair procedure implied
in Art. 21 is adequately answered.
Once we hold that Art 136 is a comp,osite provision whic1t Veils '"\'
a wide jurisdiction and, by the very fact of entrusting this unique juris-
diction in the Supreme Court, postulates, inarticulately though, the
B
methodology of exercising that power, nothing nw're remains in tjie
objection of the petitioner. It is open to the court to grant special leave
:µid the subsequent process of hearing) are well-established. Thus. there
is an integral provision of power-cum-procedure which answers with
the desideratum of Art. 21 justifying deprivation of life and liberty.
' c The wider the discretionary power the more sparing its exercise.
Times out of number this Court has stressed that though parties promis-
cuously 'provoke' this jurisdiction, the Court parsimoniously invokes
the power. Moreover, the Qourt may not, save in special situations,
grant leave to one who is not eo nomine a party on the record. Thns,
procedural limitations exist and are governed by well-worn rules of
D
guidance.
Sri Mridul urged that every inquisitive benefactor or offensive ad-
venturer cannot 'rush in' and upset a verdict of acquittal by resort to
Art. 136. This is really a matter for exercise of judicial discretion and
the Court can be trusted to bear in mind time-honoured practices and ·
E the values of Art. 21. But no dogmatic proscription of leave under
Art. 136 to a non-party applicant can be laid down inflexibly. For
access to justice is not a cloistered virtue.
It is true that the strictest vigilance over abuse of the p~ess of
the court, especially at the expensively exalted level of the Supreme
F Court, should be maint!)ined and ordinarily meddlesome bystanders
should uot be granted 'visa'. It is also true that in the criminal jiirisdic-
' lion this strictness applies a fortiori since an adverse verdict from this
Court may result in irretrievable injury IP life or liberty.
t
Having said this, we mnst emphasise that we are living in times -<
when many societal pollutants create new problems of unredre6Sed
G grievance when the State becomes the sole repository for initiation of
criminal action. Sometimes, pachydermic indifference of bureaucratic
officials, at other times politicisation of higher functionaries may result
in refusal to take a case to this Court under Art. 13 6 even though the
justice of the /i$ may well justify it. While "the criminal law should
not be used as a weapon in personal vendettas between private indiYi-
H
duals", as Lord Sl1awcr01s(') once wrote, in the absence of an indepen-
(1) The Times, 26May1977, 20.
SADHANANTHAM v. ARUNACHALAM (Knshna Iyer,!.)
. ' .
88 I

dent prosecution authority easily accessible to every citizen, a wider A
connotation of the expression 'standing' is necessary for Art. 136 to
further its mission. There are jurisdictions in which private indivi-
( duals--not the State alone-may institute criminal proceedings. The
Law Reform Commission (Australia) in its Discu8sion Paper No. 4
on "Access to Courts-I Standing: PuWic Interest Suits" wrote:
The general rule, at the present time, is that anyone may B
commence proceedings and prosecute in the magistrate's
court. The argument for retention ,of that right arises at
either end of the spectrum-the great cases al!.d the frequent

.J petty cases. The great cases are those touching government
itself-a Watergate or a Poulson. However independent they
may legally be any ~ublic official, police or prosecuting c
authority, must be subject tp some government supervision
and be dependent on government funds; its officers will
inevitably have personal !inks with government. They will
be part of the "establishment". There may be cases where a
decision not to prosecute a case having political ramifications D
will be seen. rightly or wrongly, as ' politically lllj(l'tivated.
Accepting the possibility of occasional abuse the Commission
sees merit in retaining some right of a citizen to ventilate such
a matt.er in the courts.
Even the English System, as pointed by the Discussion paper, permits
a private citizen to file an indictment. In our view, the narrow limits E
set, in vintage English law, into the concept of 'person aggrieved' and
'standing' needs liberalisation in our democratic situation., In
Dabholkar's case('!. this court imparted such a wider meaning. The
American Supreme Court relaxed the restrictive attitude towards
'standing' in the famous case of Baker v. Carr.(') Lord Denning, in
the notable case of the Attorney-General of the Gambia v. Pierra Sarr F
N lie,(') spoke thus :
.... the words 'person aggrieved' are of wide import and
should not be subjected to a restrictive interpretation. They
do not include, of course, a mere busybody who is interfering
in things which do n,ot concern him; G
'Prof.· S. A. de Smith takes the same view(•) :
All developed legal systems have had to face the problem
of adjusting conflicts between two aspects of the public
(I) Bar Council of Maharashtra v. M. V. Dabholkar [1975] 2 SCC 702.
(2) [1962] 369us 186. q
(3) 1961AC617.
{4) Quoted in 'Standing and Justiciability' by V. S. Deshpande Journal of
the Indian Law Institute April-June, 1971, Vol.13, No. 2, p.174.
882 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1980] 2 S.C.ll.

· 'i\ interest-the desirability pf encouraging individual citizens
to participate actively in the enforcement of the law, and the
undesirability of encouraging the professional litigant and the
meddlesome interloper to invoke the jurisdiction of the courts
in matters that do not cpncem him,
B Prof. H.W.R. Wade strikes a similar note:(')
In other words, certiorari is not confined by a narrow
conception of locus standi. It contains an element of the
actio popu/aris. This is because it looks beyond the personal
rights of the applicant; it is designed to keep the machinery
·c of justice in proper working order by preventing inferior
tribunals and public authorities from abusing their ppwers.
In Dabholkar's case, one of us wrote. in his separate opinion( 2 )
The possible apprehension that widening legal standing
with a public connotation may unloose a flood of litigation
D which may overwhelm the judges is misplaced because public
resort to court to suppress public mischief is a tribute to the
justice system.
This view is echoed by the Australian Law Reforms Commission.
The crucial significance pf access jurisprudence has been best
E expressed by Cappelletti : ( 3 )
The right of effective access to justice has emerged with
the new social rlghts. Indeed, it is of paramount importance
among these new rights since, clearly, the enjoyment of
traditional as well as new social rights ·presupposes mecha-
nisms for their effective protection. Such protection, moreover,
is best assured by a workable remedy within the framework
of the judicial system. Effective access to justice can· thus
be seen as the most basic requirement-the most ba\ic
'human right'-of a system which purports to guarantll!!
legal rights.
G We are thus satisfied that the bogey of busybodies blackmailing
adversaries through frivolous invocation of Art.136 is chimerical.
Access to J W>tice to every bona fide seeker is a democratic dimension
of remedial jurisprudence even as public interest litigation, class action.

(1) ibid p. 175.
U (2) Krishna Iyer, J. in Bar Counfil of Maharashtra v. M. V. Dabho/kar [1'751
2 sec 102 at 120.
(3) Access to Courts-I Satnding : Public Interest Suits p. 3.
SADHANANTHAM V. ARUNACHALAM (Pathak, J.) 883

pro bono proceedings, are. We cannot dwell in the home of pro- A
cessua! obsolscence when our Constitntion highlights social justice as
a goal. We hold that there is no merit in the contentions of the Writ
petitioner and dismiss the petition.
PATHAK, J : The High Court of Madras in its appellate jurisdic-
tion acquitted the petitioner, Sadhanantham, of charges under s. 302
B
and· s. 148, I.P.C. Arunachalam, a brother of the deceased, petitioned
to this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution for special leave
to appeal against the acquittal. The court granted special leave, and
ultimately allowed the appeal, Arunachalam v. .P. S. .R.
Sadhanantham(I), and setting aside the judgment of the High Court
restored the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court under c
s. 302, I.P.C. The petitioner has filed this writ petition contendihg
that the judgment and order of this Court is a nullity and should be
set aside. The principal contention is that Article 136 did not
empower this Court to grant special leave to Arunachalam (the third
respondent) and the grant of special !«ave by the Court and its enter-
taining the appeal violates Article 21 of the Constitution. D
The maintainability of the appeal on the ground that Arunachalam
was not entitled to petition under Article 136 of the Constitution for
special leave was challenged before the Bench hearing the appeal,
but the Bench over-ruled the objection holding that it had ample
power under Article 136 to entertain the special leave petition. The E ,
learned Judges laid down that the Court had jurisdiction to entertain
appeals against judgments of acquittal by the High Court at the inst-
anoe of private parties.
We have read the judgment of our learned brother V. R. Krishna
Iyer, but because of the importance of the question we consider it
necessary to set clown our own view.
The expense of the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court
flows from an entire code of ~rovisions contained in the Constitution.
It mcludes an appeal on certificate by the High Court under Article
131 that the case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the Constitution in a civil, criminal or other proceed- G'
ing disposed of by a judgment, decree or final order of a High Court,
and an appeal on certificate under Article 133 that the case involves
a substantial questioh of law of general importance which calls for
decision by the Supreme Court. In a criminal proceeding, disposed
of by a judgment or final order or sentence of a High Court, besides
cases where the High Court has convicted the accused and sentenced H
him to death either on reversing in appeal an order of acquittal by
(I) [1979] 3 SC.R. 482.
8814 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1980] 2 S.C.R.

A tne trial court or on the case bei'ng withdrawn from the snbordiaate
court to itself for trial, an appeal lies to the Supreme Court where the
High Court "certifies that the case is fit olle' for appeal to the Supl'eme
I Court". Article 135 confers jurisdiction and power on the Supreme
Court with respect to any matter to which Article 133 or Article ·134
does not apply if such jurisdiction and power were exercisable by
B the Federal Court immediately before the commencement of the cQllSti-·
tution. Article 13 6 declares :
"136. (1) Notwithstanding anyth~ng in this Chapter,
the Supreme Court may, in its dis~retion, grant special
leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, determination,
c sentence or order in any cause or matter passed or made
by any court or tribunal in the territory of India."
j

Then follow other provisio'ns to which we need not refer.
Plainly, the jurisdiction conferred by Article 136 seeks to coafer
o• this Court the widest conceivable range of judicial power, malcing
D it perhaps among the most powerful courts in the world. · The judicial
power reaches out to every judgment, decree, determination, sentence
or order effecting the rights and obligatiol:!s of persons in civil matters,
ef life and liberty in criminal matters as ,well as matters touching the
Revenues of the State. It is .an attempt to ensure that the foundations
ef the Indian Republic, which have been laid on the bed-rock of
E justice, are not undermined liy i'njustice anywhere in the land; Bharat
Bank Ltd. v. Employees of the Bharat Bank Ltd.(I) As the Courtl
observed in Durga Shankar Mehta v. Thakur Raghuraj Singh , •Till
Others(2). Article 136 vests in the Supreme Court a plenary jurisdic-
tion in the matter of entertaining and hearing appeals by grant of
special leave.
F
Nonetheless, there is a limitation which, in our opinion, is of ·
immediate relevance. It is a limitation inbuilt into the jurisdiction
of the Court and flows from the 'nature and character of the case
intended to be brought before the Court. It is a limitation which
requires compliance despite the apparent plenitude of power vested
G in the Court. When a petition is presented to the Court under
Article 136, the Court will have due regard to the nature and chaNc-
ter of the cause sought to be brought before it when entertaiuing
a'nd disposing of the petition.
The question is : Does the brother of a deceased person, who llas
'B been murdered, possess the right to petition under Article 136 of tile
(1) [19501S.C.R.459, 474.
(2) (1955) l S.C.R. 267, 272.
~ADHANANTHAM v. ARUNACHALAM (Pathak,!.) 885

Constitution for special leave to appeal against an acquittal of the A
accused ? It is a question which touches directly on the na.ture of
a crime and of a criminal proceeding.
Several diffurent definitions of a crime have beeh attempted (and
there are some jurists who say that it is impossible of definition), but
there is broad agreement on one attribute of its nature, that it is an B
illegal act which amounts to a wron~ against the public welfare. Mogul
Steamship Co. v. Cm Greger Gew & Co.( 1 ). As a concept, crime has
been defined as "any conduct which a sufficiently powerful section of
[ any given community feels to be destructive of its own interests, as
endangering its safety, stability or comfort," which "it usually regards
as especially heinous and seeks to repress with corresponding severity; C
if possible it secured that the forces which the severeign' power in the
State can command shall be utilised to prevent the mischief or to
punish anyone who is guilty of it."(') Crimes were defined by Black-
stone(8) as "the breach and violation of public rights and duties
which affect \he whole community." A crime, therefore, is an act
. deemed by la" to be harmful to society in general even though its
immediate victim is an individual. Murder injures primarily the parti·
D

C\llar victim, but its blatant disregard of human file puts it ·beyond a
matter of mere compensation between the murderer and the victim's
•• family. Those who commit such acts are proceeded against by the
State in order that, if convicted, they may be punished. (4) The
notion of crime as a threat. to the whole community, is the material E
cQlllnterpart of the formal rule that the State alone is master
of a criminal prosecution.(') In a criminal proceeding the State
stands ·forward as prosecutor on public grounds. No private person
has a direct interest in a criminal proceeding, although exception may
be made by the statute in certain cases. It is common knowledge that F
a criminal prosecution is not intended for the private satisfaction of
a personal vendetta or revenge. ( 6 )

In India also, the criminal law envisages the State as the prose-
cutor. Under the Code of Criminal Procedure, the machinery of the

(1) [1889] 23 Q. B. D. 598, 606perLord Eslier M. R. G
(2) Kenny's Outlines of Criminal Law, 16th Edn., p. 2 para 3.
(3) Commentaries, III. 2.
(4) Salmond on Jurisprudence, 12th Edn. p. 92 para 14.
(5) Current Legal Problems, 1955 : Glanville Williams, "1he Defmition of
Crime", p, 107 at p.122.
(6} Since the matter is being treated broadly, it is unnecessary to deal here H
with the distinction between "public" and uprivate" crimes, and the
classification of crimes. which the law permits to be compounded.
886 SUPREMF. COURT REPORTS [1980] 3 S.C.R.

A State is set in motio'n on information received by the police or on a .,_
complaint filed by a private person before a Magistrate. If the case
proceeds to trial and the accused is acquitted, the right to appeal
- \
against the acquittal is closely circumscribed. Under the Code of
Criminal Procdure, 1895(') the State was entitled to appeal to the
High Court, and the complai'nant could do so only if granted special
B leave to appeal by the High Court. The right of appeal was not given
to other int·~rested persons. Under the Code of Criminal Procedure
1973,(2) the right of appeal vesred in the State bas now been made
subject to leave being granted to the State by the High Court. The
complainant continues to be subject to the pre-requisite condition that .i
c he must obtain spocial leave to appeal. The retters so imposed on
the right to appeal are prompted by the reluctance to expose a person,
who h<Js been acquitted by a competent court of a criminal charge,
to the anxiety and tension of a further examination of the case, even
though it is held by a superior court. The Law Commission of
India( 3 ) gave anxious thought to this matter, and while. noting that
D the Code recognised a few ·~xceptions by way of permitting a person
aggrieved to initiate proceedings in certain cases and permitting the •
complainant to appeal against an acquittal with special leave of the
High Court, expressed itself against the general desirability to en-
courng.o cippeals against acquittal. It referred to the common law juris-
prudence obtaining in England and other countries where a limited
E right of appeal against acquittal was vested in the State and where
the emphcsis rested on the need to decide a point of iaw of general
importance in the intersts of the general administration and proper
development of the criminal law. But simultaneously the Law Com-
mission also noted that if the right to appeal against acquittal was
retained and extended to a complainant the law should logically cover
F · also cases not instituted on complaint. It observed :
"Extreme cases of manifest injustice, where ·the Govern-
ment fails to act, and the party aggrieved has a strong foeling
that Che ma'.ter requires further consideration, should not,
in our view, be left to. the mercy of the Govcrmnent. To
G inspire and maintain confidence in the administration of
justice, that limited right of appeal with leave given to a
private party should be retained, and should embrace cases
initiated on private complaint or otherwise at the instance
of an aggrieved person."

H (I) S.417.
(?) s. 378.
(3) Forty.eighth Report, 1972, pp. 17~21, paras 43-58.
;
SADHANANTHAM v. ARUNACHALAM (Pathak, !.) 887

However, when the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 was enacted the A
~tatute, as we have seen, confined the right to appeal, in the case
-Of private parties to a complainant. · This is, as it were, a material
indication of the policy of the law.

Having regard to the fundamental nature of a criminal proceeding
to which rererence has been made, it is now appropriate to examine
B

, the consideratio'ns which the Court should keep in mind when enter-
taining a petition for special leave to appeal by a private party against
an order of acquittal. From what has been said, it is plain ·that
'access to the jurisdiction under Article 136 cannot be pennitted to a
private party who seeks to employ the judicial process for the satis- c
faction of private revenge or personal vendetta. Nor can it be
permitted as an instrument of coercion where a civil action would
lie. In every case, the Court is bound to consider what is the interest
which brings the petitioner to court and whether the interest of the
public community will benefit by the grant of special leaV'e. 'In a
jurisprudence which elevates the right to life and liberty to a funda- D
mental priority, it is incumbent upon the court to closely scrutinise
the motives and urges of those who seek to employ its process against
the life or liberty of another.' In this enquiry, the Court would
perhaps prefer to be satisfied whether or not the State has good reason
·for not coming forward itself to petition for .special leave. We think
that the Court should entertain a special leave petition filed by ,a E
private party, other than the complainant, i'n those cases only where
it is convinced that the public interest justifi.cs an appeal against the
acquittal and that the State has refrained from petitioning for special
leave for reasons which do not bear on the public interest but are
. prompted by private influence want of bona fide and other extraneous
considerations. We would restrict accordingly the right of a private F
party, other than the complainant, to petition for special leave against
an order of acquittal. It is perhaps desirable to keep in mind that
what follows from the grant of special leave is an appeal, and the
jurisdiction must, therefore, be iJ;ivoked by a petitioner possessing a
locus standi recognised in law. G

In 'regard to the question whether the proo~dure followed by this
·Court in disposing of a petition for special leave under Article 136
is consistent with the procedure contemplated by Article 21, we have
no hesitation in holding that the principle is inbuilt within the terms of
Article 136 itself that the Court in exercising its jurisdiction will do H
'.SO as a court of law following the well-known norms of procedure
which hav0 been recognised for long as governing and informing the

......... - --
888 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1980] 2 S.C.R. '
I A proceedings of all courts. We have no hesitation in holding that
Article 21 is not violated.
The petitioner has failed to establish that there is a case for inter-
fering with the judgment of this Court allowing the appeal.
The writ petition is dismissed, but in the circumstances there is.
B no order as to costs.

N.V.K. Petition dismissed.