INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION
What is an Interlocutory Application?
After the institution of a case, an Interlocutory Application can be filed at the Court claiming
relief before the Court delivers its final decision. Interlocutory Applications may be filed for a
range of reliefs, some of which include the grant of Interim (or temporary) Relief, the vacation of
a stay order, or the grant of anticipatory bail.
At the Supreme Court, no Interlocutory Application can be filed without serving a copy on the
Advocate-On-Record of the opposite party. When a party files an Interlocutory Application at
the Court, the Application is processed within three days of its filing. It is then listed before an
appropriate Bench.
What is an Interlocutory Order?
The relief that the Court grants is delivered in the form of an ‘Interlocutory Order’. The Court
issues Interlocutory Orders to prevent irreparable damage to a person or property during the
pendency of proceedings. These Orders decide the intermediate or collateral matters in a case.
They do not decide its outcome.
An example of an Interlocutory Order is an order by the Court to one of the parties asking them
to sell perishable property (such as food items) that is the subject matter of the suit.
What is the difference between an Interlocutory Application and an Application for Interim
Relief?
An application for Interim Relief is a type of Interlocutory Application. Interlocutory
Applications cover a wide ambit of reliefs, out of which Interim Relief is only one type.
Interlocutory Applications may be filed for relief until the suit is decided. However, Interim
Relief typically lapses after a specific period of time.
CURATIVE PETITIONS
What is a Curative Petition?
A Curative petition is considered the last available remedy for reconsidering a judgement
delivered by the Supreme Court. The curative remedy was introduced by a Constitution Bench in
Rupa Ashok Hurra v Ashok Hurra (2002).
As per Rupa Ashok Hurra, the Supreme Court can only entertain a curative petition if it falls into
the following criteria:
If there was a violation of the principles of natural justice,
If there was a question of bias against the presiding judge,
If there was an abuse of the process of the court.
These grounds were not exhaustive. In Rupa Ashok Hurra, the Supreme Court cautioned that a
curative petition should only be considered in rare circumstances to prevent frivolous litigation.
The Court stated, “Curative petitions ought to be treated as a rarity rather than regular.”
Prior to the introduction of the concept of a curative petition, the last stage to reconsider a
Supreme Court judgement was through a review petition. The curative remedy is an additional
stage available for the parties to reconsider a judgement after a review petition is exhausted.
Procedure of Curative Petition
The procedure for entertaining a curative petition is provided under the Supreme Court Rules
2013.
The curative petition shall declare that the grounds mentioned in the petition were dismissed in a
review petition.
A Senior Advocate should attest that the petition matches the requirements in Rupa Ashok
Hurra.
An Advocate-on-record should attest that the petition was the first and only petition filed in the
case
The curative petition should be filed within a “reasonable time” from the date of judgement or
order in a review petition. The rules do not expressly define “reasonable time.”
A Bench of the three senior-most judges of the Supreme Court, and the judges who passed the
judgement will consider the petition. If the majority of the judges on that Bench agree that the
matter needs substantial hearings, it will be taken up by the same Bench.
The Bench also has the power to impose exemplary costs if the petition is found to be without
merit and vexatious.
Notable Cases
In National Commission for Women v Bhaskar Lal Sharma (2013), a curative bench set aside a
judgement which observed that “kicking your daughter-in-law” does not amount to cruelty. The
National Commission for Women filed the curative petition on behalf of Monica Sharma, who
had accused her husband and in-laws of cruelty. The Supreme Court held that the observations
were made in a summons order against the accused person, and stated, “it was too early a stage,
in our view, to take a stand as to whether any of the allegations had been established or not.”
They ordered a fresh hearing.
In Union of India v Union Carbide (2023), a Constitution Bench rejected a curative petition
seeking additional compensation for victims of the Bhopal Gas Tragedy. They held that it did not
meet any of the grounds necessary to entertain a curative petition. The Bench viewed that
allowing this curative petition would open a ‘Pandora’s box‘ stating—”We find it difficult to
accept that this Court can devise a curative jurisdiction that is expansive in character”.
MISCELLEANOUS APPLICATION
A Miscellaneous Application (MA) in law refers to a petition or application filed in relation to an
already decided case or during the pendency of a case, to seek specific orders or directions from
the court that are not covered under the main suit or appeal.
It’s broader in scope than an Interlocutory Application and can be filed at various stages—
before, during, or even after the disposal of the main case.
Common purposes of a Miscellaneous Application:
Restoration of a dismissed case
Modification, clarification, or review of an earlier order
Condonation of delay in filing an appeal or application
Execution-related directions
Transfer of a case
Seeking recall of an order passed in absence of a party
Example:
After a judgment is passed in a civil appeal, a party may file a Miscellaneous Application to
clarify a certain part of the judgment that appears ambiguous.
JURISDICTION OF SUPREME COURT UNDER ARTICLE 32 , RULE OF
ALTERNATE REMEDY , LOCUS , POWER OF SUPREME COURT TO AWARD
COMPENSATION AND ARTICLE 131 ,132,133
Introduction to the article 32- [Link]
I. Article 32 read with Article 142 – Power of Compensation
Article 32 - Provides the right to constitutional remedies — allows a person to approach the
Supreme Court directly for enforcement of fundamental rights.
CASES
[Link]
bihar#:~:text=Rudal%20Shah%2C%20the%20petitioner%2C%20was,his%20continued%20inca
rceration%20was%20unlawful.
[Link]
case/
Article 142-Empowers the Supreme Court to pass any order necessary for doing “complete
justice” in any case before it.
[Link]
jurisdiction#:~:text=Writ%20jurisdiction%20under%20Articles%2032,OF%20HIMACHAL%20
PRADESH%20AOD%20%2D%20Himachal
II. Case of keshav singh vs speaker ,legislative assembly , UP(Article 32 and 226)
[Link]
notes/?amp=1
III. Locus to File a Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution
Article 32 of the Indian Constitution provides the right to constitutional remedies, allowing
individuals to approach the Supreme Court directly for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights.
It is a fundamental right itself and is considered the “heart and soul” of the Constitution by Dr.
B.R. Ambedkar.
Meaning of Locus Standi:
Locus standi means the legal capacity or standing of a person to approach the court. In a typical
legal setting, only the person whose rights have been violated can file a case. However, the
Supreme Court has relaxed this rule for writ petitions under Article 32 in certain situations.
Who Has Locus to File a Writ Petition under Article 32?
1. Directly Affected Person:
A person whose Fundamental Rights are violated has the clear right to file a writ petition under
Article 32.
2. Third Party / Public Interest Litigant (PIL):
A public-spirited individual or organization can also approach the court on behalf of those who
cannot do so due to poverty, disability, ignorance, or oppression.
This was affirmed in landmark cases like:
S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981)
People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India (1982)
Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India (1984)
3. Class Actions / Representative Petitions:
A group or association can file a writ petition on behalf of its members or an affected class,
especially in cases of mass human rights violations.
Relaxation of Traditional Locus Standi:
The Supreme Court has adopted a liberal approach to locus standi in cases involving:
Environmental protection
Prisoner rights
Child labor and bonded labor
Consumer rights
Corruption and governance
This development led to the evolution of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) under Article 32.
Limitations / Misuse Concerns:
The Court discourages frivolous or politically motivated petitions.
In Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar (1991), the Court held that PIL must be bona fide and not for
personal gain or publicity.
Conclusion:
While traditionally, only aggrieved individuals could approach the court under Article 32, the
Supreme Court’s liberal interpretation of locus standi has significantly broadened access to
justice. This ensures that even the most vulnerable sections of society can have their
Fundamental Rights protected through the efforts of concerned citizens or organizations.
IV. CAN A PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL BE QUESTIONED UNDER ARTICLE 32
While Article 32 of the Indian Constitution primarily focuses on enforcing fundamental rights
against the state, a writ of mandamus (which can be issued under Article 32) can be issued
against a private individual if it's established that they have colluded with a public authority.
Here's a more detailed explanation:
Article 32 and Fundamental Rights:
Article 32 guarantees the right to constitutional remedies, allowing individuals to approach the
Supreme Court to enforce their fundamental rights if they are violated.
Writs under Article 32:
The Supreme Court can issue various writs, including habeas corpus, mandamus, certiorari,
prohibition, and quo warranto, to enforce fundamental rights.
Mandamus and Private Individuals:
Generally, a writ of mandamus (meaning "we command") is issued to direct a public authority to
perform its legal duties. However, in certain circumstances, it can be issued against a private
individual if it's proven that they have acted in collusion with a public authority to violate
someone's fundamental rights.
Sohanlal v. Union of India:
In the case of Sohanlal v. Union of India, the Supreme Court held that a mandamus might be
issued against a private individual if they are found to have colluded with a public authority.
Public Duty:
The writ of mandamus is not applicable against any private wrong, and it is issued to compel an
authority to perform its public duty.
Quo Warranto:
The writ of Quo Warranto cannot be issued for any private organization or person, and it is
issued to inquire into the legality of a person holding a public office.
Other Writs:
The other writs, habeas corpus, certiorari, and prohibition, are also generally not issued against
private individuals, but habeas corpus can be issued against a private body if someone is being
unlawfully detained.
Importance of Article 32:
Article 32 is considered the "heart and soul" of the Constitution by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, as it
provides a direct remedy for the enforcement of fundamental rights.
V. RULE OF ALTERNATIVE REMEDY
*Rule of Alternate Remedy under Article 32*
Article 32 of the Indian Constitution provides the right to constitutional remedies, allowing
individuals to directly approach the *Supreme Court* for the enforcement of *Fundamental
Rights. However, the *"rule of alternate remedy"* is a **judicially evolved principle*, not a
constitutional limitation.
According to this rule, if an *effective and adequate alternative remedy* (such as approaching a
High Court under Article 226 or a statutory tribunal) exists, the Supreme Court may *decline to
entertain a petition under Article 32*. This rule is based on the idea of judicial efficiency and
hierarchy.
However, the Supreme Court has consistently held that the existence of an alternate remedy
*does not bar* the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 32, especially when:
- A *fundamental right is clearly violated*,
- The alternative remedy is *ineffective or burdensome*,
- There is a case of *grave injustice*,
- Or the matter involves *questions of public importance*.
*Key Case:*
- K.K. Kochunni v. State of Madras (1959): The Court held that the existence of an alternate
remedy does not bar a petitioner from approaching the Supreme Court under Article 32 for
enforcement of Fundamental Rights.
ARTICLE 131 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
[Link]
constitution/
ARTICLE 132
The Supreme Court under Article 132 of Indian Constitution holds appellate jurisdiction in cases
that involve ‘substantial questions of law’ regarding the interpretation of the Constitution.
Appeals to the Supreme Court can be made against any judgment, decree or final order passed by
a High Court irrespective of whether the matter is civil, criminal or of another nature. In order to
entertain such an appeal the High Court must certify that the case involves a significant
constitutional question under Article 134A. It is important to note that appeals are not permitted
against interlocutory orders issued by High Courts unless specifically allowed by Parliament.
The provision ensures that the Supreme Court remains the highest authority in interpreting the
Constitution while maintaining a focused jurisdiction by limiting appeals to substantial
constitutional issues. The requirement for High Court certification adds an additional layer of
scrutiny
Article 132 of Indian Constitution is an important provision which empowers the Supreme Court
appellate jurisdiction to hear appeals from High Courts in certain cases. The provision ensures
that matters of national significance and substantial importance are brought before the highest
adjudicating authority.
ARTICLE 133
Appellate Jurisdiction in Civil Matters:
The Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction in civil matters if the case involves substantial
questions of law that are of general importance and require Supreme Court intervention.
High Court Certification:
The High Court must certify that the case involves significant legal questions that merit Supreme
Court review.
This certification process ensures that only cases of significant legal importance are escalated to
the Supreme Court.
Discretion of Supreme Court:
Article 133 works alongside Article 136, which allows the Supreme Court to grant special leave
to appeal in cases where it considers necessary, even if the certification requirements are not
strictly met.
Key Points:
Focus on Legal Importance: Ensures that the Supreme Court addresses cases involving important
legal questions, preventing it from being overwhelmed by routine appeals.
High Court Gatekeeping: The certification process by High Courts acts as a filter, allowing only
cases with substantial questions of law to reach the Supreme Court.
Judicial Discretion: Provides the Supreme Court with discretion to hear significant cases even if
procedural requirements are not fully met, ensuring justice in exceptional cases
PIL AND HOW IT IS DEALT BY SUPREME COURT
[Link] OF PIL - [Link]
detail/244#:~:text=A%20Public%20Interest%20Litigation%20
[Link] OF PIL [Link]
pil/#What_are_some_essentials_of_drafting_a_PIL
[Link] JUSTICE
Participatory justice refers to a model of justice where individuals and communities are actively
involved in the legal process, especially in matters that affect their rights, welfare, or
environment. It emphasizes democratic values, inclusiveness, and collective decision-making,
aiming to give voice to marginalized and underrepresented groups.
In the context of Public Interest Litigation (PIL), participatory justice plays a crucial role in
making the legal system more accessible, responsive, and people-oriented.
[Link] OF CAPTIVE AUDIENCE
The concept of "captive audience" in relation to Public Interest Litigation (PIL) refers to
situations where certain groups of people are subjected to conditions or messages they cannot
easily avoid or escape from, and where their rights may be compromised as a result. In the
context of PIL, the term is often used when the judiciary is called upon to protect the rights and
interests of these vulnerable or voiceless groups.
Captive Audience in PIL: Key Ideas
1. Definition: A captive audience is a group of people who are unable to avoid exposure to
certain conditions, behaviors, or forms of expression, often due to circumstances beyond their
control (e.g., prisoners, children in schools, residents in slums, patients in government hospitals,
etc.).
2. Relevance in PIL: Public Interest Litigation allows any concerned individual or group to
approach the court on behalf of those who cannot approach it themselves. PILs are often filed to
protect the rights of captive audiences — for instance:
Prisoners subjected to inhuman treatment.
Slum dwellers evicted without proper rehabilitation.
Children exposed to harmful environments or forced labor.
Patients in public hospitals subjected to neglect.
3. Judicial Responsibility: The judiciary, under PIL jurisdiction, recognizes that these audiences
are more vulnerable to rights violations, and hence deserve special protection. The courts often
take proactive and liberal approaches in such cases to uphold fundamental rights under Articles
14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution.
CASE LAW – SWATI AGARWAL VS UNION OF INDIA
The concept of captive audience in relation to Public Interest Litigation (PIL) is well illustrated
in the case of Swati Agarwal v. Union of India & Ors. (2015). This case revolves around the
issue of sexual harassment and safety of women in Indian Railways, and it provides a clear
understanding of how the judiciary uses the captive audience concept to protect vulnerable
populations through PIL.
Background of the Case: Swati Agarwal v. Union of India (2015)
The petitioners, Swati Agarwal and others, filed a Public Interest Litigation under Article 32 of
the Constitution.
They raised concerns about the rising incidents of sexual harassment and assault against women
passengers on trains and at railway stations.
The petition argued that women traveling on Indian Railways were a “captive audience” —
unable to escape or avoid unsafe conditions, particularly during long-distance travel or in
isolated compartments.
Captive Audience Concept in This Case
The Supreme Court acknowledged that women passengers in trains are often trapped in confined
spaces for extended periods, especially at night, and have limited ability to seek help or remove
themselves from dangerous situations.
Judicial Response
The Court issued notices to the Union of India and Indian Railways, seeking an explanation and
measures to be taken.
It also emphasized the need for:
Installation of CCTV cameras.
Deployment of more female constables.
Formation of Women Protection Squads.
Regular safety audits and better lighting on platforms and coaches.
I. PIL CELL
The Public Interest Litigation (PIL) Cell in India is a mechanism within the judiciary, especially
the Supreme Court and various High Courts, designed to facilitate access to justice for the
disadvantaged and to allow litigation in the public interest, even when the aggrieved party is not
directly approaching the court.
Key Features of the PIL Cell:
1. Purpose:
The PIL Cell screens and processes petitions that are filed in the interest of the public,
particularly involving the rights of marginalized or disadvantaged groups, environmental
protection, corruption, and other issues affecting the public at large.
2. Role of the PIL Cell:
Preliminary Scrutiny: The Cell examines letters, petitions, and applications to determine
whether they raise genuine public interest issues.
Classification: It decides whether the petition should be registered as a PIL or treated as a
regular writ petition.
Assistance to the Court: It helps the court by summarizing the issue, ensuring compliance with
court orders, and sometimes coordinating with concerned government agencies.
LETTER PATENT
14 Letters Patent Appeal (LPA)
Letters Patent Appeal is a special appellate remedy that arises from the Letters Patent issued by
the British Crown to various High Courts in India (like Bombay, Calcutta, Madras, and later
others). These documents empowered the High Courts to frame rules, including provisions for
intra-court appeals.
In Simple Terms:
An LPA is an appeal from a Single Judge’s decision to a Division Bench (two or more judges) of
the same High Court.
Legal Basis & Applicability
Governed by the Letters Patent (e.g., Bombay Letters Patent of 1865).
Applicable in Chartered High Courts (Bombay, Calcutta, Madras) and extended to some others
like Delhi, Punjab & Haryana, etc.
Not governed by the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), but often read harmoniously with it.
Only maintainable if not barred by statute, such as:
Section 100-A of the CPC: Bars LPA in some cases (especially where the case is already
appealed under special statutes like Family Courts Act, etc.).
When Can LPA Be Filed?
Against judgments or orders of a Single Judge in:Writ petitions under Article 226 or 227,
Some original jurisdiction [Link] allowed in:Second appeals,
Statutory appeals under certain special laws (if expressly barred),
Criminal matters.
Time Limit for Filing LPA
Generally: 30 days from the date of the judgment/order.
Governed by the Limitation Act, 1963, and High Court Rules (varies slightly across states).
Delay can be condoned if “sufficient cause” is shown (under Section 5 of the Limitation Act).
Professional Ethics Perspective:
Lawyers must:
Advise clients correctly on the maintainability of an LPA.
Avoid misuse of LPAs to delay justice or re-litigate settled issues.
File within limitation and not use it as a delaying tactic — ethical conduct requires respect for
timelines and judicial economy.
AOR
Supreme Court Rules, 2013
[Link]
record/#:~:text=An%20Advocate%20on%20Record%20is,the%20Supreme%20Court%2
0of%20India
Rule 10 of Order IV (Advocates):
This rule allows the Supreme Court to refuse to register or remove the name of any advocate
from the Roll of Advocates entitled to practice before it, if the Court is satisfied that the advocate
is not fit to practice, regardless of whether the person is enrolled under the Advocates Act.
Advocates Act, 1961
Section 2(a):
Defines "Advocate" as a person entered in any roll under the provisions of the Act. This clarifies
who legally qualifies as an advocate.
Section 30: Rights of Advocates to practice
Gives an advocate the right to practice in all courts, tribunals, or authorities in India once they
are enrolled under the Act, subject to any rules made by the Supreme Court or other legal
provisions.
Section 52: Saving Clause
States that nothing in this Act affects the power of the Supreme Court to regulate its practice or
proceedings, which means the Court can still make its own rules, including about who may
appear before it.
With 2 cases from notes
Case- Arun Kumar v supreme court of India (2015) 16 SCC 57
S. 52, Advocates Act
S 145, Advocate Act
The Provisions permitting AOR to appear, plead and act b4 SC were challenged for being
unreasonable, unconstitutional, and discriminatory. This challenge was based on S. 30 of the
Advocates Act which permits every Advocate practice law in all the courts including SC.
SC held: S. 52 of Advocates act & Art 145 of the constitution were read together, the matter is
out beyond the pale of any doubt that the authority of SC to make rules as to who can act or
plead b4 SC is beyond challenge.
Case- Mohit Chaudhary Adv. - Suo Motu Cognizance (Crl. No. 5/ 2017)- Bench Hunting -SC- if
you are casting this against registrar means it is an allegation against the Chief Justice - you can
ask for extra time rather than putting allegations .
Court observation-
1. while performing your duty as an AOR do not immerse in a blind quest of relief for your
client.
2. Do not consider yourself as a mouth piece of your client
3. The court asked all the Adv and AOR to exercise judgment analysis assessment to avoid any
kind of scurrilous language intemperate submissions during arguments.
4. Prevent your client from resorting to unfair practices
5. Its every lawyer's dual duty to represent his clients case with full honesty and legitimately to
aid and assist in the administration of justice, because every client is handing over the care for
his life, liberty & property in your hand.
[Link] an Advocate-on-Record (AOR) is entitled to file and act on behalf of a party before
the Supreme Court of India, and this is governed by specific provisions in the Supreme
Court Rules, 2013.
1. Rule Governing AOR's Exclusive Right
Order IV, Rule 5 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013:
> “No advocate other than an advocate-on-record shall be entitled to file an appearance or act for
a party in the Court.”
This means only an AOR can officially represent a party in filing petitions, applications, etc., in
the Supreme Court.
Other advocates (not AORs) can appear and argue with the permission of the Court, but not file
or act formally.
2. Filing Requirement
Order IV, Rule 2
“Every pleading, petition, or other document shall be signed by an Advocate-on-Record.”
So, any petition (like SLPs, writs, appeals) must be signed and filed through an AOR.
3. Appearance of Other Advocates
Order IV, Rule 6
“A party may appear in person or by an advocate duly instructed by an advocate-on-record.”
This allows senior advocates or other lawyers to argue a case, but only if instructed by an AOR.
Hence, even a Senior Advocate cannot argue without being instructed by an AOR.
Why This Restriction?
The system ensures:
Professional accountability through AORs.
Streamlined procedure and standards.
Only advocates who have passed the AOR Examination (conducted by the Supreme Court) can
act in this capacity.
Q. Dismissal of AOR
The Supreme Court Rules, 2013 contain provisions for removal, suspension, or dismissal of an
Advocate-on-Record (AOR) primarily under Order IV, specifically:
1. Order IV, Rule 10 – Removal from the Registry of AORs
Order IV, Rule 10(1):
“The Chief Justice may, with the approval of the Court, remove from the register of Advocates-
on-Record the name of any advocate who is found guilty of professional misconduct or conduct
unbecoming of an Advocate-on-Record.”
This empowers the Chief Justice (with Court’s approval) to remove an AOR for:
Professional misconduct
Conduct unbecoming of an AOR
Order IV, Rule 10(2):
“An Advocate-on-Record who has been so removed may, after the expiry of a period of two
years, apply for his name to be restored...”
So, a dismissed AOR can apply for reinstatement after 2 years, but subject to the Court’s
discretion.
2. Order IV, Rule 11 – Suspension or Disqualification
“An Advocate-on-Record who has been found guilty of any contempt of court or other
misconduct shall be liable to suspension or disqualification by order of the Court.”
This provides for suspension or disqualification (not necessarily permanent removal) due to:
Contempt of court
Other misconduct
3. Disciplinary Oversight
In addition to the Supreme Court Rules:
An AOR is also subject to the Bar Council of India Rules.
In serious cases, proceedings can be initiated before the Bar Council under the Advocates Act,
1961.
Interpretation of “Conduct Unbecoming”
While not defined in the SC Rules, this phrase is generally understood to include:
Any act that diminishes the dignity of the Court or the AOR's role.
Breach of professional duties, such as:
Filing frivolous or false petitions
Withholding information from the Court
Disrespectful or unethical behavior in dealings with the Registry or Bench
Financial misconduct related to clients or filing
Negligence or dereliction of duty (e.g., missing procedural deadlines repeatedly)
Contextual Enforcement
In practice, what constitutes "conduct unbecoming" is judged case-by-case by the Court
and may be informed by:
Code of Ethics under the Bar Council of India Rules
Past precedents or contempt proceedings
The Court’s inherent power to preserve the sanctity of its proceedings and officers