Five Main Routes Lead a Case to India's Supreme Court, From Article 131 Suits Between Governments to Special Leave Petitions Under Article 136

The Supreme Court of India recorded 61,464 new cases in 2024, according to the statistics table in its annual report for 2024-25, and it has 38 sanctioned judges to hear them, the strength fixed by the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Act, 2026. The Constitution opens five main routes into the Court: a suit between governments, a petition to enforce a fundamental right, an appeal certified by a High Court, a special leave petition, and a question the President sends for an opinion. Each has its own article and its own filing rules.

The Court’s table splits the 2024 total into 55,747 “admission” matters and 5,717 “regular hearing” matters. Admission hearing is the first listing of a fresh case, where a bench decides whether to take it up, and for a special leave petition whether to grant leave. Regular hearing is the final hearing of matters already admitted.

Five routes, each with its own article

The Court describes its own powers as original, appellate and advisory. Original means the case starts in the Supreme Court: Article 131 for disputes between governments and Article 32 for fundamental rights. Appellate means the case arrives from a lower court: Articles 132 to 134 for appeals that a High Court certifies, and Article 136 for appeals the Court itself allows. Advisory means the President asks a question under Article 143. Narrower routes include transfer petitions, election petitions about the President and Vice-President, and contempt, all listed on the Court’s jurisdiction page.

The Court was inaugurated on 28 January 1950 in the old Parliament building, with a sanctioned strength of eight judges. Parliament has raised that number through seven Acts under Article 124. The latest change, Act 14 of 2026, set it at the Chief Justice and 37 other judges, up from the Chief Justice and 33 other judges fixed by Act 37 of 2019, according to the annual report and the 2026 Act.

Governments sue each other under Article 131

Article 131 gives the Supreme Court exclusive original jurisdiction over a dispute between the Union and one or more states, between the Union and some states on one side and others on the other, or between two or more states. No other court can hear such a suit. The dispute must involve a question on which “the existence or extent of a legal right” depends, and the article excludes disputes arising from certain pre-1950 treaties and similar instruments. How the Constitution sets up the Union and the states is covered in a Union of States.

West Bengal filed Original Suit No. 4 of 2021 asking the Court to declare that the Central Bureau of Investigation could not register cases in the state after the state withdrew its consent under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946. The judgment records the withdrawal as 16 November 2018.

The Union objected to the suit being heard at all. It argued that Article 131 is “subject to the provisions of this Constitution”, that the same question was pending in appeals under Article 136 and in High Court petitions, and that the reliefs were aimed at the CBI, which was not a party. The state answered that the opening words of Article 131 yield only to a provision that actually bars the Court. On 10 July 2024 a two-judge bench rejected the objection, said its findings had no bearing on the merits, and listed the suit for framing of issues on 13 August 2024.

Kerala’s Original Suit No. 1 of 2024 challenged limits the Union placed on the state’s borrowing, which the Union defended as protecting the country’s fiscal health. On 1 April 2024 a two-judge bench refused interim relief and sent the questions to five judges, including what the “legal right” phrase in Article 131 means and how far Article 293 lets the Union regulate state borrowing.

Anyone can petition under Article 32

Article 32 gives every person the right to move the Supreme Court directly to enforce the rights in Part III of the Constitution, and the Court can issue the writs of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari. The rights it protects are described in fundamental rights in India. The Handbook on Practice and Procedure lists no limitation period for writ petitions.

High Courts have similar writ powers for fundamental rights and, the Court’s jurisdiction page adds, “for any other purpose”, so a petitioner can choose between the two. The Court’s Rules say an Article 32 petition is heard by at least five judges unless it raises no substantial question about interpreting the Constitution.

The petition need not come from the person harmed. The Court’s page says a writ may be moved by “a public-spirited individual or group of persons” where the interest of the public at large is involved, and that the Court has treated letters, telegrams, postcards and news reports as writ petitions. This is public interest litigation. In Writ Petition No. 57 of 1979, a petition for the release of undertrial prisoners in Bihar, the Court held on 9 March 1979 that free legal services are an essential element of a “reasonable, fair and just” procedure under Article 21.

Appeals by certificate from a High Court

Articles 132 to 134 let a case move from a High Court to the Supreme Court when the High Court certifies it under Article 134A, according to the Court’s jurisdiction page. A certificate in any proceeding may say the case involves a substantial question of law about interpreting the Constitution. In a civil case it must say the case involves a substantial question of law of general importance that needs the Supreme Court’s decision.

A criminal appeal needs one of three triggers. The High Court reversed an acquittal and imposed death, life imprisonment or at least 10 years. It withdrew a case to itself and convicted on those terms. Or it certifies the case as fit for appeal. The Handbook gives 60 days from the grant of a certificate to file.

Special leave under Article 136

Article 136 lets the Supreme Court, in its discretion, grant special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, sentence or order of any court or tribunal in India. Clause (2) excludes courts and tribunals constituted under armed forces law.

In Pritam Singh v The State (1950) a bench called the power exceptional and said special leave would not be granted unless “exceptional and special circumstances exist”, that “substantial and grave injustice has been done”, and that the case has features of sufficient gravity. In Mathai @ Joby v George, a bench noted that the Court had in 2010 sent to a Constitution Bench the question whether to restrict Article 136 because of rising pendency, and itself concluded that no effort should be made to restrict it.

The petition has a clock. Under the Rules a special leave petition against a civil judgment must be lodged within 90 days of the judgment, or 60 days of a High Court’s refusal to certify. In criminal matters the limits are 90 days, or 60 days where the sentence is death. The Limitation Act’s rules on condoning delay apply, but the Court will not condone delay without notice to the respondent.

An advocate-on-record, a lawyer registered with the Court after a year’s training and a test, acts for the party, and a party who wants to argue in person must first apply for permission. The petition goes in Form No. 28 with a list of dates, certified copies of the order challenged and an affidavit, and it must say whether an earlier petition was filed against the same order. A person who expects to be a respondent can lodge a caveat to get notice. Without one, the petition is put up for hearing without the other side unless the Court orders notice.

If the bench grants leave, the petition is treated as an appeal. If it refuses, the lower court’s order stands. A judgment of 23 September 2025 (2025 INSC 1140) restated the rules from Kunhayammed v State of Kerala (2000). A refusal of leave, with or without reasons, does not merge with the order under challenge. Where the refusal gives reasons, the statement of law in it is a declaration of law under Article 141, and its other findings bind the parties by judicial discipline. Merger applies only once leave is granted and an appeal decided.

After the verdict: review and curative petitions

Article 137 lets the Court review its own judgments. Under Order XLVII, a review petition must be filed within 30 days, with a certificate that it is the first review. In a criminal case the ground is an error apparent on the face of the record, and a civil case has the grounds of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is decided by circulation, without oral argument unless the Court orders otherwise, and a second review is barred.

A curative petition is the last step. It comes from Rupa Ashok Hurra v Ashok Hurra, decided on 10 April 2002 by a five-judge bench. The Court has since said it traced the power to Articles 129 and 142, to prevent abuse of its process and cure a gross miscarriage of justice. The judgment named two grounds: a person was not heard when the judgment affected them, or a judge failed to disclose a connection that gave scope for an apprehension of bias. It added that it was neither advisable nor possible to list every ground.

Order XLVIII sets the procedure. The petition needs a senior advocate’s certificate and a statement that the review was dismissed by circulation. It goes first to the three senior-most judges and any who gave the judgment, and is listed for a hearing only if a majority finds it needs one. On 14 March 2023 a five-judge bench heard and dismissed the Union of India’s curative petition seeking to reopen the Bhopal gas settlement.

When the President asks for the Court’s opinion

Under Article 143(1), the President can refer a question of law or fact to the Court if it has arisen or is likely to arise and is important enough to need its opinion. Article 143(2) lets the President refer even a dispute that Article 131 excludes. Article 145(3) requires at least five judges for a reference. Under Order XLII, the Registrar notifies the Attorney-General to take directions on who must be served, and sends the Court’s report to the President. How the President acts on ministers’ advice is explained in how the President and the Prime Minister work together.

On 20 November 2025 five judges gave their opinion on Special Reference No. 1 of 2025, which the President made on 13 May 2025 with 14 questions about Governors’ and the President’s powers under Articles 200 and 201. The Court counted 15 earlier references, among them one decided in 1951 on the Delhi Laws Act. It noted that the 1993 reference on the Ram Janma Bhumi-Babri Masjid site was returned unanswered because it served no constitutional purpose.

Parties opposing the reference called it an appeal in disguise against the Court’s earlier ruling in State of Tamil Nadu v Governor of Tamil Nadu, which binds courts under Article 141, and argued that an Article 143 opinion does not. The Attorney General and Solicitor General said it sought clarity on principles for future governance, and the Court accepted that. It cited a 1978 majority view that other courts ought to be bound even by an advisory opinion.

The Court may also decline a question. In 2025 it returned Questions 12 and 14 unanswered as not relevant to the functional nature of the reference, and declined to answer Question 13 in general terms because it was too broad. The opinion concluded that courts cannot prescribe timelines for a Governor or the President under those articles, but that in prolonged, unexplained and indefinite inaction the Court can order a Governor to decide within a reasonable time.

From filing to a hearing

The Court’s e-Filing 2.0 module launched on 12 May 2023. The annual report says 73 per cent of the 49,463 fresh cases filed from January to August 2025 were e-filed.

The Registrar lists cases before benches under the Chief Justice’s roster, and the published cause list is the only formal notice. The Handbook puts admission hearings on Mondays and Fridays and regular hearings on Tuesdays to Thursdays, unless the Chief Justice directs otherwise. The annual report says fresh matters verified on Tuesday to Thursday are listed the next Monday, and those verified on Friday, Saturday or Monday the following Friday.

A case raising a substantial question about interpreting the Constitution goes to at least five judges under Article 145(3), as the 13-judge bench did in the basic structure case. The annual report says Constitution Benches for five, seven and nine judges have been constituted continuously since 1 July 2024, with 13 matters disposed of and 29 pending.

The judgment of 26 September 2018 in Swapnil Tripathi allowed live streaming of cases of constitutional and national importance as a pilot. The full Court decided on 20 September 2022 to stream Constitution Bench hearings, and on 27 September 2022 three benches were streamed. An official said more than eight lakh viewers watched, Deccan Herald reported.