Can an SLP Be Filed Against an Interim Order? Supreme Court Precedents and Article 136

By Adv. Tarun Choudhury

An interim order may appear temporary, but its consequences can be anything but temporary. A stay on the recovery of a substantial debt, an injunction affecting commercial activity, or a direction that alters the position of property before the final hearing can cause serious prejudice to a party. In some cases, waiting for the final judgement may offer little practical relief because the damage has already been done.

This raises an important question: can an SLP be filed against an interim order of a High Court?

The short answer is yes. Article 136 of the Constitution of India does not impose a blanket prohibition on filing a Special Leave Petition against an interim or interlocutory order. However, the fact that such a petition can be filed does not mean that the Supreme Court will necessarily entertain it or grant relief.

The distinction matters. The Supreme Court possesses an exceptionally wide appellate discretion, but it exercises that discretion with considerable restraint. An SLP against an interim order must therefore do more than express disagreement with the High Court’s decision. It should demonstrate a compelling reason for the Supreme Court to intervene at an intermediate stage of the proceedings.

The Supreme Court’s decisions in Pritam Singh v. The State, Mathai @ Joby v. George, Kishor Kirtilal Mehta v. Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust, and Authorised Officer, State Bank of Travancore v. Mathew K.C. help explain how this principle operates in practice.

Also Read: Special Leave Petition (SLP) in Supreme Court – Complete FAQs Guide

1. What Does Article 136 of the Constitution Provide?

Article 136 empowers the Supreme Court, in its discretion, to grant special leave to appeal from a judgement, decree, determination, sentence or order passed by a court or tribunal in India, subject to the constitutional exceptions specified in the provision.

The language of Article 136 is deliberately broad. It does not restrict the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction exclusively to final judgements. Nor does it expressly exclude interim orders from its reach.

Consequently, an interim order of a High Court can, in an appropriate case, be challenged before the Supreme Court through an SLP under Article 136.

That does not make Article 136 an ordinary appellate remedy. A party cannot assume that every order causing inconvenience, financial pressure or procedural disadvantage deserves the Supreme Court’s intervention.

The jurisdiction is discretionary. The Court considers the nature of the order, the stage of the proceedings, the grounds raised, the consequences of allowing the order to operate, and whether intervention is justified despite the availability of further proceedings before the High Court.

In other words, the legal question is not simply whether an interim order can be challenged. It is whether the particular order presents circumstances serious enough to justify the Supreme Court’s intervention before the underlying dispute has been finally decided.

Key Principle: The Scope of Article 136

• Article 136 confers discretionary special-leave jurisdiction on the Supreme Court.
• The provision is not expressly restricted to final judgements.
• An interim order of a High Court may be challenged through an SLP in an appropriate case.
• The existence of jurisdiction does not guarantee that the Supreme Court will entertain the petition or grant relief.

2. The Supreme Court’s Approach: Wide Power, Exceptional Intervention

The foundation of the Court’s approach can be traced to Pritam Singh v. The State, AIR 1950 SC 169.

In this early decision, the Supreme Court explained the exceptional character of its jurisdiction under Article 136. The power was not intended to provide another routine stage of appeal in every case. It was designed to be exercised where the circumstances justify the Court’s intervention.

Although the case was not a ruling specifically about interim orders, its reasoning remains important when considering an SLP against an interim order.

The principle is straightforward: the existence of jurisdiction does not create an automatic right to relief.

This distinction is particularly important when the High Court has not yet completed the proceedings before it. The Supreme Court ordinarily allows the High Court to manage its own proceedings and decide the dispute in the first instance. It is reluctant to interrupt that process unless there is a sufficiently strong reason to do so.

An interim order may therefore be legally challengeable while still presenting a weak case for immediate intervention.

Also Read: Can I File an SLP Against a High Court Judgement? Article 136 Explained

What Does Pritam Singh Establish?

The decision illustrates the exceptional character of the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction under Article 136. The availability of this constitutional remedy does not mean that every grievance warrants immediate intervention.

Also Read: SLP vs Review Petition: Key Differences, Merger & Second SLP Explained

3. Mathai @ Joby v. George: Article 136 Cannot Be Permanently Restricted

One of the most significant authorities on the breadth of Article 136 is Mathai @ Joby v. George, (2016) 7 SCC 700.

The case arose from a reference concerning the scope of the Supreme Court’s special-leave jurisdiction. The earlier proceedings included a 2010 reference order, but the legal position must be understood in light of the subsequent five-judge Bench decision delivered in 2016.

The larger bench declined to impose permanent, rigid restrictions on the exercise of Article 136. The Court did not accept the proposition that its constitutional power should be confined by an exhaustive set of limitations that would prevent it from responding to exceptional circumstances.

At the same time, the judgement does not mean that the Supreme Court should intervene routinely. The power must be exercised with circumspection, having regard to the exceptional nature of the jurisdiction.

For the present issue, the significance of Mathai @ Joby is that Article 136 cannot be read as categorically excluding a particular class of orders merely because they are interim or interlocutory.

However, this authority should not be overstated. It does not establish that every interim order is a suitable subject for an SLP, nor does it remove the Court’s discretion to refuse leave.

The correct reading is that the constitutional power remains broad, while its exercise depends on the circumstances of the individual case.

Why Is Mathai @ Joby Important for an SLP Against an Interim Order?

• Broad constitutional power: Article 136 confers wide discretionary jurisdiction on the Supreme Court.
• No automatic entitlement: The breadth of the jurisdiction does not create a right to have every petition entertained.
• Exceptional intervention: The Court exercises its power with circumspection.
• Case-specific assessment: Whether intervention is justified depends on the circumstances of the individual case.
• Also Read: Can the Supreme Court Stay a High Court Judgment?

Key Takeaways: Can an SLP Be Filed Against an Interim Order?

Legal Question	Position Explained in the Article
Can an SLP be filed against an interim order of a High Court?	Yes, in an appropriate case, under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
Does Article 136 apply only to final judgements?	No. Its language is not restricted exclusively to final judgements.
Does the availability of an SLP guarantee relief?	No. The Supreme Court exercises its special-leave jurisdiction at its discretion.
What is the significance of Pritam Singh v. The State?	It explains the exceptional character of the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction under Article 136.
What is the significance of Mathai @ Joby v. George?	It addresses the breadth of Article 136 and the limits of imposing rigid restrictions on its exercise.
What is the central consideration?	Whether the circumstances justify Supreme Court intervention at an intermediate stage of the proceedings.

4. Kishor Kirtilal Mehta v. Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust: Corrective Intervention in an Interim Matter

In Kishor Kirtilal Mehta v. Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust (2007) 10 SCC 21, the Supreme Court considered SLP proceedings arising from orders of the High Court in a dispute concerning the administration of the Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust.

The litigation involved competing positions in the trust-related suit and questions concerning interim protection while the proceedings remained pending. The case illustrates that the Supreme Court may examine an interim-stage dispute when the circumstances warrant corrective intervention.

Corrective Jurisdiction Under Article 136

In paragraph 10, the Court made an important observation: it was not the Court’s role to interfere with every interim order passed by a High Court. There could nevertheless be occasions when the Supreme Court was required to step in as a matter of corrective jurisdiction. Such occasions, the Court explained, would depend on the facts and circumstances and would be rare.

The Court also recognised that it would normally not interfere with a High Court’s refusal to grant a stay. But it declined to accept the absolute proposition that it could never do so, whatever the circumstances.

This is a useful illustration of the balance Article 136 requires. The Supreme Court respects the High Court’s discretion, but that respect does not amount to a permanent surrender of its own constitutional authority.

The case should not be treated as a general invitation to challenge every refusal of interim relief. Its value lies in the narrower principle that exceptional circumstances may justify intervention even at an interlocutory stage.

5. Mathew K.C.: The Importance of Restraint in Interim Proceedings

A particularly relevant decision is Authorised Officer, State Bank of Travancore v. Mathew K.C. (2018) 3 SCC 85.

The dispute arose in the context of loan recovery and proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). The borrower approached the High Court, where interim protection affected the secured creditor’s ability to proceed with recovery despite the statutory remedy available under Section 17 of the Act.

The Supreme Court examined the circumstances in which a High Court should exercise its writ jurisdiction when an effective statutory remedy is available. The case is important because it demonstrates how an interim order can have substantial consequences even though the underlying dispute remains pending.

Supreme Court Restraint in Interim Orders

In paragraph 6, the Supreme Court observed that it was normally “loath to interfere” with interim orders passed by a High Court in proceedings that remained pending before it, except in special circumstances where intervention was necessary to prevent manifest injustice or an abuse of the process of law.

This observation is directly relevant when considering an SLP against interim order.

It reflects two related principles. First, the Supreme Court does not ordinarily substitute its judgment for that of the High Court at an interim stage. Second, restraint is not an absolute prohibition. Where the circumstances disclose a compelling reason for intervention, the Court retains the power to act.

Alternative Remedies and an SLP Against an Interim Order

The decision also highlights the importance of alternative remedies. If the underlying statute provides an effective mechanism for challenging the action in question, a party may find it difficult to justify extraordinary intervention without first pursuing that remedy, unless recognised exceptions apply.

The lesson is not that interim orders can never be challenged. It is that the grounds for intervention must be carefully established, particularly where the challenged order interrupts a statutory process.

6. Is an SLP Against an Interim Order Maintainable?

The authorities discussed above support a clear distinction between maintainability and the exercise of discretion.

The mere fact that an order is interim does not automatically make an SLP under Article 136 non-maintainable. The Supreme Court’s constitutional jurisdiction is broad enough to permit intervention in an appropriate case.

However, the petitioner must still satisfy the Court that the case warrants the exercise of that jurisdiction.

A petition may be legally competent but fail to persuade the Court to grant leave. Equally, the Court may conclude that the issue should first be considered by the High Court, particularly where the proceedings are at an early stage and the alleged error can be addressed through the ordinary judicial process.

Legal Position on an SLP Against an Interim Order

The practical position can be summarised as follows:

Question	Legal Position
Can an SLP be filed against a High Court interim order?	Yes, Article 136 does not categorically exclude interim orders.
Is the Supreme Court bound to entertain it?	No. The jurisdiction is discretionary.
Does every incorrect interim order justify an SLP?	No. The circumstances must justify exceptional intervention.
Is an alternative remedy relevant?	Yes. Its availability may weigh against immediate intervention.
Can urgent interim relief be sought from the Supreme Court?	Yes. The appropriate interim prayer may be included in the SLP.
Does filing an SLP automatically stay the challenged order?	No. A stay must be specifically granted by the Court.

The distinction between filing a petition and obtaining relief is essential. A litigant should not confuse the existence of a constitutional remedy with a likelihood of success.

7. When Might the Supreme Court Intervene Against an Interim Order?

There is no exhaustive checklist that guarantees intervention. Nevertheless, certain circumstances may make a petition more compelling.

A. The Order Causes Serious and Immediate Prejudice

An interim order may have consequences that cannot realistically be reversed at the end of the case. For example, a stay may prevent a secured creditor from proceeding with lawful recovery for an extended period, or an injunction may disrupt a commercial arrangement in a way that cannot be adequately remedied by a later judgment.

The petitioner should explain the actual consequences of the order rather than merely describe it as unfair or legally incorrect.

B. The Order Appears to Exceed the Court’s Jurisdiction

A substantial jurisdictional error may provide a stronger basis for intervention than a routine disagreement over procedure. The petition should identify the precise legal limit allegedly crossed and explain why the error warrants immediate correction.

C. The Order Creates a Manifestly Unjust Situation

The Court may be concerned where the operation of an order produces serious injustice that cannot appropriately await the final hearing.

A claim of manifest injustice, however, must be supported by the record and the circumstances of the case. The expression should not be used as a substitute for identifying a clear legal or factual error.

D. The Order Substantially Defeats the Purpose of the Proceedings

In some cases, an interim order may have consequences so extensive that it effectively determines the practical outcome of the dispute before the court has reached a final decision.

The petitioner should explain why ordinary proceedings are insufficient to protect the relevant rights and why immediate intervention is justified.

E. The Order Reflects a Serious Procedural Irregularity

A material failure to consider relevant circumstances, a serious denial of procedural fairness, or an order passed without a legally sustainable basis may strengthen the case for intervention.

Not every procedural error is sufficient. The petitioner must show why the error is serious enough to justify the Supreme Court’s attention at that stage.

Factors Determining Intervention in an SLP Against an Interim Order

Ultimately, the strength of an SLP depends on the specific order, the applicable law, the procedural history, and the consequences of allowing the order to remain in force.

8. The Significance of High Court Bar Association, Allahabad v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2024)

In High Court Bar Association, Allahabad v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2024 INSC 150, the Supreme Court considered the issue of interim orders of High Courts and the practice of treating such orders as automatically expiring after a fixed period.

The decision is relevant to the broader discussion of interim relief, judicial discretion and the proper management of pending proceedings.

However, it should be used with care in an article about SLPs against interim orders. The judgment was not a direct ruling that determines the maintainability of every SLP challenging an interim order under Article 136.

Its relevance is contextual. It reinforces the importance of judicial discretion and cautions against rigid approaches that interfere with the proper exercise of judicial power.

The decision does not remove the need to examine the particular order challenged before the Supreme Court. Nor does it establish that a party affected by an interim order is automatically entitled to relief under Article 136.

The governing question remains whether the circumstances of the individual case justify intervention.

9. Should a Litigant First Approach the High Court?

This is often the more practical question.

Where a matter is pending before a High Court, the affected party may be able to seek modification, vacation or clarification of the interim order before that very court. Depending on the applicable procedure and the nature of the order, this may be a sensible first step.

The High Court is already familiar with the proceedings and may be able to address an error without requiring the Supreme Court to intervene.

However, approaching the High Court again is not an inflexible prerequisite in every conceivable case. The appropriate course depends on the nature of the order, the available remedies, urgency and the legal circumstances.

For instance, if an interim order creates an immediate and demonstrable risk of irreversible prejudice, the petitioner may contend that waiting for the High Court to reconsider the matter would not provide adequate protection. That contention must be supported by specific facts, not simply by an assertion of urgency.

The availability of an alternative remedy is also important where the dispute arises under a special statute. If the law provides a specific appellate or review mechanism, the petitioner should explain why that mechanism does not adequately address the problem, or why an exception to the ordinary rule should apply.

A well-prepared petition addresses these issues directly. It explains not only why the impugned order is legally vulnerable, but also why the Supreme Court should consider the matter at that particular stage.

Factors to Consider Before Approaching the Supreme Court

Factor	What the Petitioner Should Address
High Court Remedy	Whether modification, vacation or clarification of the interim order can be sought before the High Court.
Urgency	Whether the order creates an immediate risk of irreversible prejudice.
Alternative Remedy	Whether an appellate or review mechanism exists under the applicable statute.
Legal Grounds	Whether the impugned order presents a sufficiently compelling legal issue for intervention.
Timing	Whether intervention by the Supreme Court is justified at the particular stage of the proceedings.

10. Does Filing an SLP Automatically Stay the Interim Order?

No.

Filing an SLP does not, by itself, suspend the operation of the order under challenge. Unless the Supreme Court grants a stay or other appropriate interim relief, the impugned order ordinarily continues to operate according to its terms.

This point is especially important where the order affects possession, recovery proceedings, commercial activity or other time-sensitive rights.

Order XVII Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 recognises the Court’s power to stay the execution of a decree or order, or to stay proceedings, subject to the terms and conditions it considers appropriate.

A petitioner who requires urgent protection should therefore consider whether an express interim prayer is necessary and ensure that the supporting facts establish the urgency and the nature of the prejudice likely to arise.

The mere filing of a petition should never be treated as a substitute for a specific judicial order granting protection.

Key Points About Interim Relief in an SLP

• Filing an SLP does not automatically stay the impugned order.
• The Supreme Court must grant a stay or other appropriate interim relief.
• The petitioner should explain the urgency and the nature of the prejudice likely to arise.
• The interim prayer should clearly specify the protection sought.
• The supporting facts should establish why the requested protection is necessary.

11. Limitation Period and Procedure for Filing an SLP

The ordinary limitation period for a civil Special Leave Petition is addressed in Order XXI Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013.

Under that rule, an SLP is ordinarily required to be lodged within 90 days from the date of the judgment or order sought to be challenged, subject to the specific provisions governing the case, applicable exclusions and the possibility of seeking condonation of delay where legally available.

The limitation period must be calculated carefully. The nature of the proceedings, the date of the impugned order, any applicable statutory provisions and the relevant procedural rules should be checked before filing.

The Supreme Court Rules also provide for the inclusion of an interim prayer in the SLP itself. Under Order XXI Rule 3(1)(a), a separate application for interim relief is not required merely for the purpose of making that prayer; the interim relief sought should be incorporated in the prescribed SLP form.

This does not mean that interim relief will necessarily be granted. The petitioner must still establish a sufficient basis for the requested protection.

Checklist Before Filing an SLP Against an Interim Order

Before filing, the following points deserve particular attention:

• Identify the precise error: Explain the legal or jurisdictional defect in the impugned order.
• Demonstrate urgency: State the actual prejudice likely to occur if the order remains in operation.
• Address alternative remedies: Explain whether a remedy exists before the High Court or under the relevant statute and why the proposed course is justified.
• Prepare a clear chronology: Present the relevant dates and procedural developments in a concise, logical sequence.
• Support the grounds with the record: Ensure that the grounds are tied to the pleadings, documents and proceedings before the court whose order is challenged.
• Frame the interim prayer carefully: Specify the protection sought and explain why it is necessary.
• Verify limitation: Confirm the applicable filing deadline and address any delay in accordance with the relevant rules.

A petition should be built around the facts and legal issues of the individual case. General assertions that an order is arbitrary, harsh or contrary to law are unlikely to be persuasive without supporting particulars.

12. A Practical Illustration

Consider a borrower whose High Court petition has resulted in an interim order restraining a secured creditor from proceeding with recovery action under the SARFAESI Act. The proceedings remain pending, but the order continues to prevent further action for a substantial period.

The secured creditor may argue that the interim protection was granted despite an available statutory remedy and that the continuing restraint causes serious prejudice. Depending on the facts, the creditor may seek appropriate relief before the High Court or consider an SLP under Article 136.

The existence of financial prejudice alone does not guarantee that the Supreme Court will intervene. The creditor must identify the legal basis for challenging the order, explain the inadequacy of the available alternative remedy where relevant, and demonstrate why immediate intervention is justified.

This example illustrates the practical approach reflected in Mathew K.C.: an interim order may be open to challenge, but the Supreme Court will examine the circumstances before deciding whether to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction.

The same principle applies in commercial, property and other civil disputes. The question is not simply whether the interim order causes difficulty. It is whether the order, viewed in its legal and factual context, presents a sufficiently compelling case for immediate intervention.

Factors That May Influence Supreme Court Intervention

Consideration	Relevance to the SLP
Legal Defect	Whether the impugned order presents a substantial legal or jurisdictional concern.
Financial Prejudice	Whether the continuing order causes serious prejudice, considered alongside the other circumstances.
Alternative Remedy	Whether another remedy is available and whether it adequately addresses the problem.
Urgency	Whether immediate intervention is justified by the facts of the case.
Judicial Discretion	Whether the circumstances warrant the exercise of the Supreme Court’s extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 136.

13. Common Misconceptions About an SLP Against an Interim Order

Misconception 1: An SLP Can Be Filed Only Against a Final Judgment

That is incorrect. Article 136 does not categorically exclude interim or interlocutory orders.

Misconception 2: If an SLP Is Maintainable, the Supreme Court Must Hear It on the Merits

Maintainability does not create an entitlement to leave. The Court retains discretion to refuse intervention.

Misconception 3: Every Serious Financial Loss Justifies an SLP

Financial prejudice may be relevant, but it must be considered alongside the legal grounds, available remedies and circumstances of the case.

Misconception 4: Filing an SLP Automatically Stays the High Court’s Order

It does not. A stay or other interim relief must be granted by the Supreme Court.

Misconception 5: The Supreme Court Can Never Interfere While Proceedings Remain Pending Before the High Court

That is also incorrect. Exceptional circumstances may justify intervention, although the Court ordinarily exercises restraint.

Key Takeaway

The maintainability of an SLP against an interim order and the grant of relief are separate questions. Article 136 gives the Supreme Court extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction, but intervention depends on the facts, legal grounds, available remedies and circumstances of the individual case.

Also Read: When Does the Supreme Court Interfere With a High Court Judgment? SLP Grounds Under Article 136

Conclusion: The Remedy Exists, but the Case Must Justify Intervention

The legal position is clear. An SLP against interim order is not barred merely because the challenged order is interlocutory. Article 136 gives the Supreme Court broad constitutional power to intervene where the circumstances warrant it.

That power, however, is exercised sparingly. The Supreme Court ordinarily respects the High Court’s control over pending proceedings and does not intervene simply because a party disagrees with an interim decision.

The judgments in Pritam Singh, Mathai @ Joby, Kishor Kirtilal Mehta and Mathew K.C. reflect the same underlying principle: the jurisdiction is wide, but its exercise requires judicial restraint.

For a litigant considering an SLP, the real task is therefore to establish why the impugned order requires immediate correction, what serious prejudice may result if it remains in force, and why the circumstances justify the Supreme Court’s intervention at that stage.

A carefully framed petition, supported by the record and directed at a substantial legal issue, is far more persuasive than a general complaint against an interim order.

The remedy is available. Whether it should be exercised depends on the strength of the case.

Also Read: NRI Supreme Court Litigation: Can You File a Second SLP After Review?

Need to Challenge an Interim Order of the High Court?

An interim order can have consequences that last far beyond the hearing at which it was passed. If you believe a High Court’s interim order has seriously affected your legal rights, the next step should be based on a clear understanding of your remedies under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.

Before deciding whether to file a Special Leave Petition (SLP) against an interim order in the Supreme Court, it is important to assess the facts of your case, the legal grounds available, the urgency of the matter and the remedies that may already be open to you.

Seek Experienced Legal Guidance

Adv. Tarun Choudhury
Supreme Court Advocate | 25+ Years of Legal Experience

If you are considering challenging an interim order, seek professional legal advice to understand your available options, applicable limitation requirements and the appropriate course of action.

• Call for Legal Consultation: 9650499965
• WhatsApp for Legal Assistance: 8851978611
• Email: admin@legalserviceindia.com

Do not let uncertainty delay your decision. Discuss the facts of your case and understand the legal remedies that may be available to you.

Legal Service India — Informed Legal Decisions Begin with the Right Guidance.

Frequently Asked Questions

1. Can an SLP be filed against an interim order of a High Court?

Yes. Article 136 does not categorically prohibit an SLP against an interim or interlocutory order. However, the Supreme Court exercises its jurisdiction with restraint and may decline to interfere where the circumstances do not justify immediate intervention.

2. Is an SLP against an interim order maintainable under Article 136?

It may be maintainable. The fact that an order is interim does not, by itself, bar the exercise of Article 136. Maintainability must nevertheless be distinguished from the Court’s discretion to grant leave and relief.

3. What is the limitation period for filing an SLP against an interim order?

For a civil SLP, Order XXI Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 ordinarily provides a period of 90 days from the date of the judgment or order challenged, subject to the applicable rules, exclusions and any legally available request for condonation of delay. The relevant period should be verified for the particular proceedings.

4. Does filing an SLP stay the interim order passed by the High Court?

No. The filing of an SLP does not automatically stay the impugned order. The petitioner must seek appropriate interim relief, and the Supreme Court must grant it.

5. Will the Supreme Court interfere with every interim order that causes prejudice?

No. The Court does not ordinarily interfere merely because a party has suffered inconvenience or disagrees with the High Court’s decision. The petitioner must establish circumstances that justify the exceptional exercise of Article 136 jurisdiction.

Key Takeaways: Can an SLP Be Filed Against an Interim Order?

• An SLP can be filed against an interim order: Article 136 of the Constitution of India does not impose a blanket prohibition on filing a Special Leave Petition (SLP) against an interim or interlocutory order of a High Court.
• The Supreme Court’s jurisdiction is discretionary: Although an SLP against an interim order may be maintainable, the Supreme Court is not bound to entertain every petition. It exercises its extraordinary jurisdiction with considerable restraint.
• Maintainability and relief are different questions: The fact that an SLP can be filed does not guarantee that the Supreme Court will grant special leave or interfere with the challenged order.
• Exceptional circumstances may justify intervention: Serious jurisdictional errors, manifest injustice, abuse of the process of law or substantial prejudice may support a request for intervention, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case.
• Mathew K.C. emphasises judicial restraint: In Authorized Officer, State Bank of Travancore v. Mathew K.C., (2018) 3 SCC 85, the Supreme Court highlighted its reluctance to interfere with interim orders in pending High Court proceedings except in special circumstances.
• Mathai @ Joby v. George explains the breadth of Article 136: The five-judge Bench decision, reported in (2016) 7 SCC 700, declined to impose permanent, rigid restrictions on the Supreme Court’s special-leave jurisdiction.
• Alternative remedies can influence the decision: Where an effective statutory remedy or an appropriate remedy before the High Court is available, the Supreme Court may consider whether immediate intervention is justified.
• Filing an SLP does not automatically stay the impugned order: A petitioner who requires urgent protection must seek appropriate interim relief. The challenged order does not automatically become inoperative merely because an SLP has been filed.
• Limitation requirements must be checked carefully: The ordinary limitation period for a civil SLP is generally 90 days under Order XXI Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, subject to the applicable procedural provisions and any legally available exclusion or condonation of delay.
• The strength of the petition depends on its facts: A persuasive SLP should identify the specific legal error, explain the urgency, demonstrate the prejudice likely to arise and address the availability of alternative remedies.

In Summary

An SLP against an interim order is not categorically barred under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. However, the Supreme Court exercises its jurisdiction sparingly, and intervention depends on whether the circumstances of the particular case justify immediate judicial interference.

Important Links

• Lawyers in India
• Copyright Registration in India
• Caveat Filing in Supreme Court of India
• Mutual Consent Divorce in Delhi/NCR : WhatsApp 9650499965