Special leave against acquittal: Article 136 is a fair procedure, and bona fide private applicants are not absolutely barred.

Article 136 confers a wide but judicially controlled special leave jurisdiction, and the procedural safeguards attached to its exercise are treated as part of a fair process consistent with Article 21. In proceedings against an acquittal, a bona fide private citizen is not absolutely barred from seeking special leave, although the Court must scrutinise such requests closely to prevent abuse, busybody litigation, or mala fide use. The text also notes a narrower view that private intervention should be confined to cases of public interest where the State has not acted for reasons unrelated to that interest.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the special leave jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution is a composite power-cum-procedure that satisfies the requirement of fair procedure under Article 21 in proceedings against an acquittal. (ii) Whether a private citizen, other than the complainant or the State, has locus standi to seek special leave under Article 136 against an acquittal.

Issue (i): Whether the special leave jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution is a composite power-cum-procedure that satisfies the requirement of fair procedure under Article 21 in proceedings against an acquittal.

Analysis: Article 136 confers a wide, discretionary jurisdiction on the Supreme Court to grant special leave in appropriate cases. The power is not an arbitrary one, but is exercised through established judicial procedure and settled norms of hearing. The grant or refusal of special leave is thus controlled by judicial discretion and is informed by fair procedure. That procedural element is inherent in the constitutional scheme and answers the requirement of Article 21.

Conclusion: The special leave jurisdiction under Article 136 does not violate Article 21 and is constitutionally valid.

Issue (ii): Whether a private citizen, other than the complainant or the State, has locus standi to seek special leave under Article 136 against an acquittal.

Analysis: A criminal offence is a wrong against society, and the State is ordinarily the prosecutor; however, Article 136 is of the widest amplitude and its invocation depends on the Court's discretion. The majority held that there is no inflexible constitutional bar preventing a bona fide private citizen from approaching the Court, though the Court must guard against abuse, busybody litigation, and personal vendetta. The separate opinion took a narrower view, holding that a private party other than the complainant may be heard only where public interest justifies intervention and the State has failed to act for reasons not connected with public interest.

Conclusion: A private citizen is not absolutely barred from seeking special leave against an acquittal, but the Court must exercise strict discretion and refuse meddlesome or mala fide invocation.

Final Conclusion: The constitutional challenge failed, the validity of the special leave proceedings was upheld, and the writ petition was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Article 136 embodies a constitutionally fair procedure inherent in the grant and hearing of special leave, and a bona fide private applicant is not absolutely excluded from invoking it against an acquittal, subject to the Court's strict judicial discretion to prevent abuse.

---