Read Time: 08 minutes

Synopsis

 The Supreme Court has said that its jurisdiction can be invoked sparingly and in very exceptional circumstances in order to advance the cause of justice.

The top court declared that orders passed by the NCDRC cannot be challenged before it directly unless those are passed by the top consumer body in its original jurisdiction.

A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra said, "the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to grant special leave to appeal can be invoked in very exceptional circumstances. The question of law of general public importance or a decision which shocks the conscience of the Court are some of the prime requisites for the grant of special leave".

The court also pointed out the provisions of Article 136 of the Constitution, in which the special leave petition are filed, as such are not circumscribed by any limitation.

"But when the party aggrieved has alternative remedy to go before the High Court, invoking its writ jurisdiction or supervisory jurisdiction as the case may be, this Court should not entertain petition seeking special leave thereby short-circuit the legal procedure prescribed," the bench said.

The apex court said the limitations on its power are implicit in its nature and character. 

"It being an exceptional and overriding power, naturally it has to be exercised sparingly and with caution and only in very exceptional situations. The power will only be used to advance the cause of justice and its exercise will be governed by well established principles which govern the exercise of overriding constitutional powers," the bench added.

The court dealt with the scope and grant of special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution while considering a plea filed by M/s Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Limited against an order passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.

The bench relied upon several judgements by the Supreme Court, including in the case of 'Ibrat Faizan v. Omaxe Buildhome Private Limited '(2022), to conclude that it should not adjudicate this petition on merits. 

"We must ask the petitioner herein to first go before the jurisdictional High Court either by way of a writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution or by invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of the jurisdictional High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. Of course, after the High Court adjudicates and passes a final order, it is always open for either of the parties to thereafter come before this Court by filing special leave petition, seeking leave to appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution," the bench said.

The matter before the apex court arose out of the NCDRC's dismissal of the appeal filed by the petitioner and affirmation of the order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission of Delhi, holding that complainant Suresh Chand Jain and another were entitled to receive the claim amount and appropriate compensation from the petitioner and its joint venture partner viz Allahabad Bank for the goods stolen from the premises in question.

Top Court relied upon the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which stood repealed on July 20, 2020 with enactment of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and pointed out that a plain reading of the aforesaid provisions of the Act 1986 and Act 2019, respectively would indicate that the remedy of appeal to this Court is available only with respect to the orders passed by the NCDRC in exercise of its powers conferred by Section 21(a)(i) of the Act 1986 and 58(1)(a)(i) or 58(1)(a)(ii) of the Act 2019. 

"In other words, both the Acts provide for the remedy of appeal to this Court only with respect to the orders which are passed by the NCDRC in its original jurisdiction or as the court of first instance (original orders) and no further appeal lies against the orders which are passed by the NCDRC in exercise of its appellate or revisional jurisdiction," the bench said.

Case Title: M/S UNIVERSAL SOMPO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. vs. SURESH CHAND JAIN & ANR.