Appeal Procedures And Judicial Review
1. Appeal Procedures in India
Appeal is a legal process where a party requests a higher court to review the decision of a lower court. The higher court may affirm, reverse, or modify the lower court's judgment. Appeals are a fundamental part of the judicial system, ensuring fairness and legal accountability.
Types of Appeals
First Appeal – Challenging a trial court’s judgment in a higher court (e.g., Sessions Court → High Court).
Second Appeal – Challenging a lower appellate court's judgment in a superior court (e.g., High Court → Supreme Court).
Special Leave Petition (SLP) – Appeal to the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution against any judgment of a court/tribunal.
Appeal by Certificate – Under Article 134(1) or 133 of the Constitution, for cases requiring the Supreme Court’s intervention due to legal significance.
Procedural Requirements
Filing within statutory time limits (e.g., 90 days for civil appeals, 30–60 days for criminal appeals).
Deposit of court fees and preparation of records and certified copies.
Submission of grounds of appeal highlighting errors in law or fact.
Case Laws on Appeals
Case 1: State of Maharashtra v. Somnath Choudhary (1992)
Facts: A criminal conviction in Sessions Court was challenged in the High Court.
Issue: Whether the High Court can re-examine evidence beyond procedural errors.
Judgment: The Supreme Court held that first appeal courts have full power to review evidence and can reverse convictions if errors in fact or law are found.
Significance: Clarified scope of first appeals in criminal matters.
Case 2: Union of India v. Raghubir Singh (1989)
Facts: Civil service officer challenged disciplinary proceedings in a High Court.
Issue: Whether appeal lies against administrative orders.
Judgment: Supreme Court emphasized statutory and constitutional limits on appeals, stating only orders specifically allowed under law are appealable.
Significance: Defined appealable orders and restricted unnecessary litigation.
Case 3: M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1991)
Facts: Environmental litigation against polluting industries.
Issue: Whether Supreme Court can intervene through appeal-like powers.
Judgment: Court exercised public interest judicial review powers under Article 32 and directed strict environmental compliance.
Significance: Demonstrates overlap between appeal and judicial review, especially in public interest matters.
Case 4: Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980)
Facts: Appeal against death sentence.
Issue: Whether higher courts can interfere in capital punishment cases.
Judgment: Supreme Court held that appeals in capital punishment cases require heightened scrutiny and appellate courts have the authority to commute sentences if mitigating circumstances exist.
Significance: Emphasized the protective role of appeals in safeguarding fundamental rights.
Case 5: K.C. Gajapati Narayan Deo v. State of Orissa (1961)
Facts: Civil appeal involving land disputes and property rights.
Issue: Scope of second appeals to the Supreme Court under Article 136.
Judgment: Supreme Court held that second appeal can be filed only if substantial questions of law are involved, not mere factual disagreements.
Significance: Clarified the limited scope of Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction.
2. Judicial Review in India
Judicial Review is the power of courts to examine the constitutionality or legality of executive, legislative, or administrative actions. Unlike appeals, judicial review does not necessarily challenge facts but focuses on law, procedure, and constitutional validity.
Types of Judicial Review
Constitutional Review – Examining laws or amendments for violation of Fundamental Rights or Constitution (Articles 13, 32, 226).
Administrative Review – Checking whether administrative decisions are ultra vires or arbitrary.
Judicial Review of Tribunals – Ensuring tribunals act within statutory powers.
Case Laws on Judicial Review
Case 6: Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)
Facts: Challenge to constitutional amendments restricting fundamental rights.
Issue: Extent of Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution.
Judgment: Supreme Court held that Parliament cannot alter the basic structure of the Constitution.
Significance: Landmark case on judicial review of legislative action.
Case 7: Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)
Facts: Passport impounded without giving reasons.
Issue: Whether procedure violated Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty).
Judgment: Supreme Court held that any law affecting fundamental rights must be fair, just, and reasonable.
Significance: Strengthened judicial review over executive action and procedural fairness.
Case 8: A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950)
Facts: Detention under Preventive Detention Act challenged.
Issue: Scope of judicial review of preventive detention.
Judgment: Supreme Court initially took a narrow view, later expanded in Maneka Gandhi’s case.
Significance: Demonstrates evolution of judicial review principles in protecting fundamental rights.
Case 9: S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994)
Facts: Dismissal of state governments under Article 356 (President’s Rule).
Issue: Whether presidential proclamation can be challenged.
Judgment: Supreme Court held that judicial review is available; misuse of Article 356 is unconstitutional.
Significance: Established limits on executive power and reinforced the supremacy of Constitution.
Case 10: Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975)
Facts: Challenge to election of Prime Minister.
Issue: Validity of executive actions and amendments.
Judgment: Supreme Court struck down unconstitutional amendments and actions.
Significance: Demonstrated judiciary’s active role in maintaining rule of law through review.
3. Key Principles from Appeal and Judicial Review Cases
Appeals focus on errors in law and fact, while judicial review focuses on constitutionality and legality.
Higher courts have discretion in admitting second appeals (Substantial Question of Law principle).
Fundamental rights are safeguarded through both appeal and judicial review.
Procedural fairness and natural justice are crucial in both appeal and review proceedings.
Public interest matters allow courts to exercise review powers proactively (e.g., environmental cases).
4. Summary
Appeals: Correct judicial errors, protect rights, ensure fairness in civil and criminal matters.
Judicial Review: Safeguard Constitution, protect fundamental rights, ensure legality of administrative/executive actions.
Overlap: In cases like environmental or fundamental rights issues, appeal and judicial review powers often converge.
Key Takeaways from Cases:
Supreme Court limits second appeals to substantial questions of law (K.C. Gajapati).
Appellate courts can review both facts and law (Somnath Choudhary).
Judicial review ensures basic structure, procedural fairness, and constitutionality (Kesavananda Bharati, Maneka Gandhi, S.R. Bommai).
RELATED Blog
comments