Holding

The Supreme Court may, as an exception, summarily dismiss a Section 116A appeal at the admission stage, and therefore the appeal must be placed for a preliminary hearing rather than being automatically admitted.

Summary

Bolin Chetia, a losing candidate in the Assam Legislative Assembly election, appealed to the Supreme Court under Section 116A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 after his election petition was dismissed by the High Court. The Court considered whether a statutory first appeal of right must automatically be admitted for a bi‑parte hearing with notice to the respondent, or whether the Supreme Court could exercise its inherent power to dismiss the appeal at the admission stage. It held that, despite the appeal being of right, the Court retains the inherent authority to summarily dismiss an appeal as an exception when it is convinced that no substantial question of fact or law is raised. Consequently, the appeal was not dismissed but was ordered to be placed for a preliminary hearing on admission. The judgment clarified that the Supreme Court Rules, including Order XV Rule 5A and Rule SA, do not limit this inherent power, and that the power to dismiss a first appeal is inherent and may be exercised sparingly.

Issues considered

Whether an appeal under Section 116A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, being a statutory first appeal of right, must be admitted for bi‑parte hearing and notice to the respondent as a matter of course.
Whether the Supreme Court retains its inherent power to summarily dismiss such an appeal at the admission stage despite the statutory right of appeal.
Whether the Supreme Court Rules (Order XV Rule 5A, Rule SA, etc.) restrict the Court's power to dismiss statutory appeals without notice.

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 384
Representation of the People Act, 1951s. 116A, s. 116C, s. 98, s. 99
Supreme Court Rules, 1966s. Order XV Rule 5A, s. Order XXI Rule 15(1)(c), s. Rule SA

Subjects

Representation of the People ActSection 116AStatutory appealSummary dismissalSupreme Court RulesPreliminary hearingInherent jurisdictionCivil appellate jurisdiction

Judgment

A BOLIN CHETIA
v.
JOGADISH BHUY AN AND ORS.

MARCH 11, 2005

B [R.C. LAHOTI, CJ. AND G.P. MATHUR, J.]

Representation ofthe People Act, 1951-Section 116A-Appeal under_:_
Power ofthe Supreme Court to summarily dismiss the appeal at the admission
C stage-Held: Though an appeal under Section 116A of the Act is preferred as
of right, yet the inherent power of Supreme Court to summarily dismiss the
appeal at the admission stage is not taken away-But such power would be
exercised only by way of exception such as, on the Court feeling convinced
that the appeal does· not raise any such question of fact or law as would
persuade this Court to put the respondent. on notice. before hearing.
D
Supreme Court Rules, 1966-0rder XV, Rule 5A-Rule 5A has been
inserted in Part JI of Order XV dealing with appeals on certificate by High
Court-It cannot be interpreted as dealing with all types of statutory appeals
filed before Supreme Court-Constitution of Indir;i, 1950-Article 145.

E Words and Phrases-"Appeal"--Meaning of

Appellant was a candidate at the legislative assembly elections in the
State of Assam. He lost in the election. His election petition was dismissed by
the High Court.

F He has filed the present appeal under Section 116A of the
Representation of the People Act, 1951. When the appeal was placed before
this Court, it felt it could hear the appellant on the question· of admission,
that is, whether the appeal deserved to be admitted for bi-parte hearing.
Appellant resisted the move of the Court submitting that this appeal being a
G statutory first appeal, it should be admitted for hearing bi-parte as of right
and a notice to respondents must issue as a matter of course. He further
submitted that the appeal need not have been listed before the Court for the
purpose of hearing on admission; rather the Registry itself should have
directed notice to be issued to the respondents and placed the appeal only
soliciting directions in the matter of printing of the paper books, filing of
H 692
BOUN CHETIA v . .IOGADJSH BHUY AN 693

- documents, etc. A
Rejecting the submissions of appellant and directing the appeal to
be placed for preliminary hearing (i.e. hearing on admission), the Court,
HELD : 1. Though an appeal under Section 116A of the Act is
preferred as of right, yet the inherent power of this Court to summarily B
dismiss the appeal at the admission stage is not taken away. Such power
would be exercised only by way of exception such as, on the Court feeling
convinced that the appeal does not raise any such question of fact or law
as would persuade this Court to put the respondent on notice before
hearing. [706-H; 707-AI

- 2. A bare reading of Sections 116A and 116C of the Representation
of the People Act shows that against every order passed by a High Court
under Section 98 or Section 99 an appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court.
C

The hearing is open on any question of law and fact, both. Every such
appeal shall be "heard and determined", as nearly as may be, in
accordance with the procedure applicable to the first appeals preferred D
against any final order passed by a High Court in exercise of its original
civil jurisdiction. The provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure shall, in
case of inconsistency, give way to the provisions contained in the Act and
the Rules made thereunder. The Supreme Court Rules additionally apply
in relation to such appeals. [697-F-G]
E
3. The Supreme Court Rules, 1966 framed in exercise of the powers
conferred by Articie 145 of the Constitution do not provide for the
procedure applicable to such appeals. If only Rules had been framed
governing the procedure for hearing of appeals under Section l 16A of
the Act, the Court could have made a specific provision for either the F
Registry issuing notice of lodgment of appeal to the respondents without
hearing ex-parte or for the appeal being placed for preliminary hearing.
[697-H; 704-BI

4. Ruic SA is not applicable here as it finds mention in Part II,
Order XV of the Rules dealing with appeals on certificate by High Court. G
Rule SA cannot be interpreted as dealing with all types of statutory
appeals filed before this Court. On the contrary, there are separate
provisions contained in the Supreme Court Rules dealing with statutory
appeals. [703-D, F)

Mis. Go/cha Investment (P) Ltd v. Shanti Chandra Bafna, [1970) 3 H
694 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005) 2 S.C.R.

A sec 65, distinguished.
5.1. The word 'appeal' is not found defined either in the
Representation of the People Act or in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
In its natural and ordinary meaning an appeal is a remedy by which a
cause determined by an inferior forum is subjected before a superior
B forum for the purpose of testing the correctness of the decision given by
the inferior forum. [698-E]

5.2. The right of appeal is a substantive and valuable right of any
appellant who is normally a person aggrieved by the impugned decision.
C According to sub-rule (1) of Rule 11 of Order 41 of the Code, the appellate
court may, after sending for the record, if it thinks fit to do so and after
appointing a day for hearing the appellant, dismiss the appeal without
sending notice to the court from whose decree the appeal is preferred
and without serving notice on the respondent. Though the court does not
assign a particular name to the proceedings held on such a date of hearing
D or such a step in the procedure of hearing the appeal, in judicial circles,
it is generally called a 'motion hearing' or 'hearing on admission' or
'preliminary hearing'. An appeal may raise a question of law alone and
the appellate court may form an opinion at the preliminary hearing
whether the appeal deserves to be heard bi-parte on that question of law
without sending for the record of the lower court. [698-F-H; 699-A)
E
6. The appellate courts including the High Court do have power to
dismiss an appeal summarily. Such power is inherent in appellate
jurisdiction. The power to dismiss summarily is available to be exercised
in regard to first appeals subject to the caution that such power will be
F exercised by way of exception and if only the first appellate court is
convinced that the appeal is so ~orthless, raising no arguable question of
fact or of law, as it would be a sheer wastage of time and money for the
respondent being called upon to appear, and would also be an exercise in
futility for the Court. The first appellate court exercising power to dismiss
the appeals summarily ought to pass a speaking order making it precise
G that it did go into the pleas-of fac.t and/or law - sought to be urged before
it and upon deliberating on them found them to be devoid of any merit
or substance and giving brief reasons. This is necessary to satisfy any
superior jurisdiction to whom the aggrieved appellant may approach
that the power to summarily dismiss the appeal was exercised jud.icially
H and consciously by way of an exception. This rule of practice does not
BOLIN CHETIA v. .IOGADISH BHUY AN 695
apply to the Supreme Court as it is the final Court and as no appeals lie A
against the decisions of this Court, including a decision by which an
appeal is summarily dismissed. (702-G-H, 703-A-B, 699-Ef

Umakant Vishnu Junanarkar v. Pramilabai and Anr., 11973) 1 SCC
152; Mahadev Tukaram Vetale and Ors. v. Smt. Sugandha and Anr., (1973)
3 sec 746 and Kiranmal Zumer/al Borana Marwadi v. Dnyanoba Bajirao B
Khot and Ors., (1983) 4 SCC 223, relied on.

S.P. Khanna v. S.N. Ghosh, (1976) Tax L.R. 1740, approved.

Shaharulla Monda/ v. Bangoo Monda/ and Ors., 13 C.W.N. 143 and
Jagdis Chandra Das v. Chandra Mohan Das, AIR (1920) Patna 509, referred C
to.

7.1. The power to summarily dismiss a first appeal, even if the
appeal is statutory and filed as of right must be held to be inherent and
so vesting in this Court as one of necessity. (705-G)
D
Sita Ram and Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 11979), 2 SCC 656,
explained.

Union of India and Anr. v. Raghubir Singh (Dead) by LRs. etc., (1989)
2 sec 754, relied on.
E
7.2. Ordinarily a finding reached on assessment of evidence,
particularly when it is oral, would not be interfered with in appeal;
though on being satisfied of a wrong approach of the trial court or
injustice shown to have been done, this Court would not only have power,
rather it would be its obligation, to rectify the mistake and dispense p
justice. [706-GJ

Surinder Singh v. Hardial Singh and Ors., [1985) 1 SCC 91, referred
to.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7376 of2003. G
From the Judgemnt and Order dated 15. 7.2003 of the Gauhati High
Court at Assam in E.P. No. 9 of 2001.

Sushi! Kumar Jain, A.P. Dhamija, Pradeep Aggarwal, Puneet Jain, H.D.
Thanvi and L.P. Singh for the Appellant. H
696 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] 2 S.C.R.

A Pragyan P. Shanna and Dr. Kailash Chand for the Respondents.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :

R..C. LAHOTI, CJ. In an appeal under Section l l6A of the
Representation of the People Act, l 951 merely on its being filed, should the
B respondent be necessarily and in routine put on notice, forgoing the application
of judicial mind to the merits of appeal, at that stage? Does this Court not
have power to summarily throw out an appeal howsoever worthless it may
....
be? These are the questions which have arisen for decision; thanks to the
submission made with vehemence by the learned counsel for appellant.

C . The appellant was a candidate at the legislative assembly elections in
the State of Assam. He lost in the election, as also in the High Court where
an election petition filed by him putting in issue the election of the returned
candidate has been directed to be dismissed on trial. He has filed the present
appeal under Section l l 6A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951
D (hereinafter 'the Act', for short).

·When the appeal was placed before the Court, we felt inclined to hear
the learned counsel for the appellant on the question of admission, that is,
whether the appeal deserved to be admitted for bi-parte hearing. The learned
counsel for the appellant.resisted the.move of the Court and submitted that
E this appeal is a statutory first appeal and, therefore, it should be admitted for
hearing bi-parte as of right and a notice to respondents must issue as a matter
of course. In fact, the learned counsel for the appellant went on to the extent
of submitting that the appeal need not have been listed before the Court for
the purpose of hearing on admission; rather the Registry itself should have
directed notice to be issued to the respondents and placed the appeal only
F soliciting directions in the matter of printing of the paper books, filing of
documents, etc. In other words, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted
that the only directions which the Court can make at this stage are those
which may be necessary for preparing the records to enable a final hearing
and no orders are needed for 'admitting' the appeal.
G
We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, as also the learned
counsel for the respondent (successful_ candidate) present on caveat.

The relevant statutory provisions contained in the Act are : -
(_
"J16A. Appeals to Supreme Court - ( l) Notwithstanding anything
H
BOLIN CHETIA v. JOGADISH BHUYAN [LAHOTI, CJ.] 697
contained in any other law for the time being in force, an appeal shall A
lie to the Supreme Court on any question (whether of law or fact)
from every order made by a High Court under section 98 or section
99.

(2) Every appeal under this Chapter shall be preferred within a period

-- of thirty days from the date of the order of the High Court under
section 98 or section 99 :

Provided that the Supreme Court may entertain an appeal after
B

the expiry of the said period of thirty days if it is satisfied that the
appellant had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within C
...... such period .

JJ6C. Procedure in appeal - (I) Subject to the provisions of this Act
and of the rules, if any, made thereunder, every appeal shall be heard
and determined by the Supreme Court as nearly as may be in
accordance with the procedure applicable to the hearing and D
determination of an appeal from any final order passed by a High
Court in the exercise of its original civil jurisdiction; and all the
provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) and the
Rules of the Court (including provisions as to the furnishing of security
and the execution of any order of the Court) shall, so far as may be,
apply in relation to such appeal." E
xxx xxx xxx xxx"

A bare reading of the above said provisions shows that against every
order passed by a High Court under Section 98 or Section 99 an appeal shall
lie to the Supreme Court. The hearing is open on any question of law and F
fact, both. Every such appeal shall be "heard and determined", as nearly as
may be, in accordance with the procedure applicable to the first appeals
preferred against any final order passed by a High Court in exercise of its
original civil jurisdiction. The provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure
shall, in case of inconsistency, give way to the provisions contained in the G
Act and the Rules made thereunder. The Supreme Court Rules additionally
apply in relation to such appeals.

The Supreme Court Rules, 1966 framed in exercise of the powe(s
conferred by Article 145 of the Constitution do not provide for the procedure
applicable to such appeals. In a book 'Supreme Court Practice and Procedure' H
698 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] 2 S.C.R.

A by B.R. Aggarwal, we find the following passage (at page 138) : -
"No separate rules have been framed by the Supreme Court for
filing and hearing appeals. under the Representation of the People
Act, 1951. The procedure in election appeals will be the same as in
the case of civil appeals.
B
As soon as election appeals are filed, they are numbered and
placed before the Court for preliminary directions. Election Appeals
are generally treated as expedited appeals. The Court gives direction
regarding preparation of the appeal paper-book. It is generally directed
that as soon as the record is ready, the appeals should be placed
c before the Court for hearing. The rest of the procedure is the same
as in the other ordinary appeals. A court-fee of Rs 250 is to be paid
on the petition of appeai~"

The Registry has also brought to our notice that all statutory appeals,
including the appeals under Section I I 6A of the Act, are placed for bearing
D on admission before the Court, unless otherwise specifically provided by the
Rules. It is also pointed out that there have been several cases in the past
where such appeals have been dismissed at the threshold as not admitted and
without noticing the respondents.

E The word 'appeal' is not found defined either in the Act or in the Code -·
of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter 'the Code', for short). In its natural and
ordinary meaning an appeal is a remedy by which a cause determined by an
inferior forum is subjected before a superior forum for the purpose of testing
the correctness ·of the decision given by the inferior forum. The right of
appeal is a substantive and valuable right of any appellant who is normally
F a person aggrieved by the impugned decision. According to .sub-rule (I) of
Rule I I of Order 4 I of the Code, the appellate court may, after sending for
the record, if it thinks fit to do so and after appointing a day for hearing the
appellant, dismiss the appeal without sending notice to the court from whose
decree the appeal is preferred and without serving notice on the respondent.
G Though the court does not assign a particular name to the proceedings held
on such a date of hearing or such a step in the procedure of hearing the
appeal, in judicial circles, it is generally called a 'motion hearing' or 'hearing .._
on admission' or 'preliniinacy hearing'. Ordinarily a court of appeal, and
specially a court of first appeal, wou'td prefer to have the records of the lower
court before it. But it is not always necessary. An appeal may raise a question
H of law alone and the appellate court may form an opinion at the preliminary
BOLIN CHETIA v. JOGADISH BHUYAN [LAHOTI, CJ.] 699

hearing whether the appeal deserves to be heard bi-parte on that question of A
law without sending for the record of the lower court. A first appeal is
generally open for hearing on questions of law and fact, both, and the appellate
court possesses power to make all such orders as the original court could
have made. The discretion conferred on the appellate court to d~smiss the
appeal at its threshold is a judicial discretion and cannot be exercised arbitrarily · B
or by whim or fancy. The appellate courts exercise the discretion in favour
of summary dismissal sparingly and only by way of exception. However, that
does not tantamount to saying that the appellate court does not possess the
power to dismiss an appeal summarily and at the threshold. Such power to
summarily dismiss can be exercised, depending on the facts and circumstances
of a given case, before issuing notice to the respondent and even before C
sending for the record of the inferior forum. Similarly, the appellate court
possesses power to admit or reject the appeal in its entirety, as also, to admit
the appeal in part in regard to a particular part of decree and dismiss it in part
if the two parts are severable. Once the appeal is admitted, the appellate court
may not, except in very exceptional cases, restrict any grounds on which the
appeal should be heard. Where the appellate court exercises its discretion in D
favour of dismissing the first appeal without issuance of notice to the
respondent, it is expected that the reasons for doing so are placed on record.
Such recording of reasons is necessary where the order of summary dismissal
is open to challenge before a superior forum. This rule of practice does not
apply to the Supreme Court as it is the final Court and as no appeals lie E
against the decisions of this Court, including a decision by which an appeal
is summarily dismissed:

It will be useful to make a reference to a few decided cases spelling out
the judicial opinion relevant to the issue at hand.
F
In Umakant Vishnu Junanarkar v. Pramilabai and Anr., [1973] l SCC
152, dealing with the power of the first appellate court to summarily dismiss
an appeal, the Supreme Court reiterated its earlier view taken in Mahadev
Tukaram Vetale and Ors. v. Smt. Sugandha and Anr., [1973] 3 SCC 746 and
held that an appeal raising triable issues should not be summarily dismissed.
Nevertheless, the availability of such power was not denied. The Court noted G
the query-whether in any circumstance, a High Court can dismiss a first
appeal summarily without giving reasons, and observed that in the particular
circumstances of that case, it was not necessary to consider such larger
question. In Shaharulla Monda/ v. Bangoo Monda/ and Ors., 13 C.W.N. 143,
the Division Bench emphasized the need for assigning reasons while summarily i
700 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2005) 2 S.C.R.

A dismissing an appeal. An appellate court summarily dismissing an appeal, is
duty-bound to exercise an independent judgment on the facts of the case and
to express (howsoever brief it may be) the result of his investigation in his
judgment.

In Jagdis Chandra Das v. Chandra Mohan Das, AIR (1920) Patna 509,
B the Division Bench was dealing with a letters patent appeal. The rules of.the
Court made a provision for the Registrar to satisfy himself that the appeal
was within time, sufficiently stamped and complied with the rules, and if so,
then to admit the first appeal and issue notice to the respondent and place the
appeal before the bench to which such appeals were assigned. Yet, the Court
C recognized the power of the Bench to call upon the appellant or his pleader,
without serving notice on the respondent, if any case was made out for
issuing notice to the respondent. lt was held that the Court could dismiss the
letters patent appeal without calling upon the respondent acting exactly as in
cases under Order XLI Rule 11. If the appeal is admitted and the Court,
having heard the appellant, desires to hear the respondent before finally
D disposing of the appeal, it may do so but if the appeal is dismissed, the
respondent need not be noticed and heard.

In S.P. Khanna v. S.N. Ghosh, (1976) Tax L.R. 1740, Section 483 of
the Companies Act, 1956 came up fer the consideration of the Division
,. . Bench of the Bombay High Court. Section 483 provides that the appeals
~
from any order or decision in the matter of the winding up of a company by
the Court, shall 'lie' to the same court to which, in the same manner in
which, and subject to the same conditions under which, appeals lie from any
order or decision of the Court in cases within its ordinary jurisdiction. The
' use of the word 'shall' makes it clear that the right of appeal conferred by
' the provision is as of right. But, the Division Bench held that an appellate
court under Section 483 has authority to hear the appellant on the merits at
the admission stage and decide whether the controversy raised in appeal has
any prima facie substance or not. The provision does not put any fetters on
the power of the Court to reject worthless appeals at the initial or admission
stage and it could not be said that mere institution of the appeal would
tantamount to its admission and must go for final hearing. The provision
I
\ / provides clearly for a remedy and is not intended to limit or control the
, exercise of the powers of the Court, and hence, appeal under Section 483 has

~
o be treated and proceeded with like any other civil appeal. The power of
the appellate court exercisable at the stage of admission of the appeal to
dismiss a non-deserving appeal, not fit one to go for final hearing, is not

'
BOLIN CHETIA v. JOGADISH BHUYAN [LAHOTI, CJ.] 701
taken away. A
Reference was made by the Bombay High Court to Mis. Go/cha
Investment (P) ltd v. Shanti Chandra Bafna, [1970] 3 SCC 65, wherein
while interpreting Chapter XLil of the Bombay High Court Rules (Rules
965, 966, 966A thereof), this Court has observed that such of the appeals as
are not required to be placed for admission are entitled to be admitted as a B
matter of course. The decision was explained by the Division Bench of the
Bombay High Court. We are inclined to extract and reproduce the following
passages from the judgment of the Bombay High Court in S.P. Khanna"s
case (supra) :

"In the constitution of such appeal and its procedure, the stage of C
admission, like the one of final hearing after issue of notice, appears
to us as inherent. Matters are placed for admission with a view to
enable the Court to apply its mind to controversy and to find out
·whether the order questioned calls for reconsideration by the higher
Court. This is usually done by giving hearing to the party-appellant. D
It is implicit that at that stage the Court may adjudicate by finding
against the petitioning appellant and upholding the order impugned.
Such adjudication at the stage of admission of appeal is part of the
jurisdiction of the appellate Court and we have doubt whether that
jurisdiction could be affected if it is explicitly granted by the statute
by framing a rule of procedure. Placing the matters for admission E
before the Court are r.ot mere matters of procedure but also involve
exercise of judicial authority by the appellate Court. Normally, if the
authority is conferred by the statute, we would be loathe to hold that
its effectiveness would stand curtailed by any procedural rule disabling
the Court, of its power of hearing the appeal and pronouncing at the F
stage of admission about the merits of the appeal by finding out
whether the same deserves further consideration by the Court.

All this process involved in "admission" has clear juridical
efficacy and recognition. It subserves the dynamics to have a speedy
and sure disposal of matters brought before the higher forums in the · G
judicial hierarchy. The Code of Civil Procedure permits expressly the
rejection of appeals at admission stage by enacting provision like
Order XLI, R. 11, C.P. Code. Even without such a provision, we
would think that it would be inbuilt (sic) (inbred) in the appellate
jurisdiction enabling the Court to hear the appellant as to the matter
brought before it and reject the appeal which may prim<;i facie have H
702 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] 2 S.C.R.

A no merit or may suffer from the defects of untenability, limitation as
well of incompetency. This stage, which is treated as admission stage
of an appeal, appears to protect the litigation from waste of costs as
well of public and private time. That can effectively check meritless
and vexatious litigations. All these considerations must be kept in
view while considering the form of appeal provided by· statute.
B Provisions of Section 483 and the appeal thereunder cannot be treated
as an exception and as erasing out all these juridical as well as judicious
considerations inherent in the admission stage of an appeal. We can
well observe that the stage of admission of appeals in Company matters
is neither superfluous nor unnecessary. In fact that posits serious
c exercise of appellate ,authority full of judicial consequences. Unless
there is something expressly dispensing with that stage, it would be
neither just nor proper to hold that in the appeals under Section 483
there cannot be a hearing at the admission stage. We have already
indicated that what was observed in Mis. Golcha's case AIR (1970)
SC 1350 (supra) was with reference to the rule of this Court and
D nothing more. That observation cannot further be strained or logically
extended as laying down that in an appeal under Section 483 of the
Act the appellate Court is powerless ?..t th~ stage of admission to find
out the merit of the appeal or is d.isabled from rejecting it though it
may be worthless. It is well settled that possible logical extensions
E from the ratio of a judgment surely are not part of the ratio itself and
it is hazardous to apply precedents in that manner."

We agree with this statement of law.

In Kiranmal Zumer/al Borana Marwadi v. Dnyanoba Bajirao K,hot and
F Ors., [1983] 4 sec 223, this Court has not countenanced the practice of the
High Court dismissing the appeal by one word order 'dismissed' if numerous
and serious questions, both of law and facts were raised in the appeal.

It ·is thus clear that the appellate courts including the High Court do
have power to dismiss an appeal summarily. Such power is inherent in appellate
G jurisdiction. The power to dismiss summarily is available to be exercised in
regard to first appeals subject to the caution that such power will be exercised
by way of exception and if only the first appellate court is convinced that the
appeal is so worthless, raising no arguable question of fact or of law, as it
would be a sheer wastage of time and money for the respondent being called
upon to appear, and would also be an exercise in futility for the Court. The
H first appellate court exercising power to dismiss the appeals summarily ought
BOLIN CHETIA v. JOGADISH BHUYAN [LAHOTI, CJ.] 703
to pass a speaking order making it precise that it did go into the pleas - of A
fact and/or law - sought to be urged before it a;d-upnrf detiberating on them
found them to be devoid of any merit or substance and giving brief reasons.
This is necessary to satisfy any superior jur!sdiction to whom the aggrieved
appellant may approach that the power to summarily dismiss the appeal was
exercised judicially and consciously by way of an exception.
B
Shri S.K. Jain, learned counsel for the appellant has placed forceful
reliance on rule SA of Order XV of the Supreme Cour~ Rules, 1966. The rule
SA catalogues three types of appeals which "on being registered shall be put
up for hearing ex-parte before the Court which may eith·~r dismiss it summarily
or direct issue of notice ... ". He submitted that the rule makes a specific C
provision for the listing of only certain categories of appeals for preliminary
hearing before the Court and in that list the appeal under Section l l 6A of the
Act is not mentioned and therefore, the applicability of Mis. Go/cha
Investments (P) Ltd. case (supra) is squarely attracted which holds that the
appeals, other than those mentioned as required to be listed for admission,
cannot be so listed. In our opinion, the submission suffers from a fallacy. D
Rule SA relied on by Shri Jain is not applicable here as it finds mention in
Part II, Order XV of the Rules, the title whereof reads as under :
"PART II
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
(A) Civil Appeals E
ORDER XV
APPEALS ON CERTIFICATE BY HIGH COURT"
This rule SA has been inserted in Part II of Order XV dealing with
appeals on certificate by High Court. Rule SA cannot be interpreted as dealing
with all types of statutory appeals filed before this Court. On the contrary, we F
find that there are separate provisions contained in the Supreme Court Rules
dealing with statutory appeals viz. Order XX-A - Appeals under Section SS
of the Monopol_ies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (S4 of 1969),
Order XX-B - Appeals under clause (b) of Section 130-E of the Customs Act,
1962 (S2of1962) and Section 35-L of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944
(l of 1944 ), Order XX-C - Appeals under Section 14 of the Terrorist Affected G
Areas (Special Courts) Act, 1984, Order XX-D - Appeals under Section 16
of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, l 98S, Order XX-
E - Appeals under Section 17 of the. Terrorist and Disruptive Activities
(Prevention) Act, 1987 and Order XX-f - Appeals under Section 23 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (68of1986). It is noticeable that the appeals H
704 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2005] 2 S.C.R.

A dealt with by Order XX-A, XX-B and XX-Fare required, on being registered,
to be listed before the Court for hearing ex-parte whereupon the appeal can
be dismissed summadly. So is the case of the special leave petitions including
those in criminal proceedings and criminal appeals. In Chapters XX-C, XX-
D and XX-E, there is a specific provision for the petition of appeal being
registered and numbered as soon as found in order whereafter the Registry
B itself shall issue notice of lodgment of appeal to the respondents. If only
Rules had been framed governing the procedure for hearing of appeals under
Section I 16A of the Act, the Court could have made a specific provision for
either the Registry issuing notice of lodgment of appeal to the respondents
without hearing ex-parte or for the appeal being placed for preliminary hearing.
C In Mis. Go/cha Investments (P) Ltd case (supra), the observations contained
in para 7 are based on the inference drawn by this Court on reading of the
Bombay High Court Rules that excepting the app,eals which were specifically
provided for being placed for admission in the Court, others were not.to be
placed for admission. The submission made by the learned counsel for the
appellant has, therefore, no merit. ·
b
It was next submitted that vires of Order XXI Rule 15(l)(c) of the
Supreme Court Rules and also Section 384 of the Criminal Procedure Code,
I 973 were put in issue in Sita Ram and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh,

E
[1979] 2 SCC 656. The Court upheld the constitutional validity of the
impugned provisions and observed that it was reasonable to hold that before
hearing the appeal under Rule 15{l)(c) ofOrder XXI, ordinarily the records
-
are sent for. Here again, it is clear that the Court was dealing with criminal
appeals and in that context made the observation that a single right of appeal
is more or less a universal requirement of the guarantee of life and liberty
rooted in the Constitution that men are fallible and so in such cases, a full
F dressed hearing of an appeal was an integral part of fundamental fairness or
procedure. Therefore, the Court held that (i) under the said Rule 15(l)(c),
ordinarily the records are serit for and are available; (ii) in the common run
of cases, the C~urt must issue notice to the opposite party and afford a
hearing in the presence of both and with the records on hand; (iii) reasons
G be record.ed in the ultimate order. However, the Court has also held that
every right of appeal does not carry with it all the right of getting the record,
hearing both sides and giving full reasons for decision. A few illu.strative
cases to which ex-parte summary procedure will still apply are : "Where the
only ground urged is a point of law which has been squarely covered by ~
ruling of this Court to keep the appeal lingering longer is survival after death.
H Where the accused has plead~d guilty of murder and the High Court, on the
BOLIN CHETIA v. JOGADISH BHUYAN [LAHOTI, CJ.] 705

evidence, is satisfied with the pleas and has awarded the lesser penalty, a A
mere appeal ex misericordia is an exercise in futility. Where a minor procedural
irregularity, clearly curable under the Code, is all that the appellant has to
urge, the full panoply of an appellate bearing is an act of supererogation.
Where the grounds, taken at their face value, are frivolous, vexatious,
malicious, wholly dilatory or blatantly mendacious, the prolongation of an B
appeal is a premium on abuse of the process of court." Krishna Iyer, J
speaking for the Court said that the preceding list was not exhaustive. 'May
be other cases can be conceived of, but the illustrations only indicate 'the
functional relevance of Order XXI, Rule 15(1 )(c)'. The distinction between
an appeal as of right and by leave was so fC'rmulated : in former case, the rule
is - 'notice, records and reasons' but the exception is (and this exception does C
exist) 'preliminary hearing on all such materials as may be placed by the
appellant and brief grounds for dismissal'. This exceptional category occurs
where, in all conscience, there is no point at all. In cases Of real doubt the
benefit of doubt goes to the appellant and notice goes to the adversary - even
if the chances of allowance of the appeal be not bright (para 55). This Court
held that a provision in the Rules dispensing with the need of listing for D
preliminary hearing "enables, not obligates. It operates in certain situations,
not in every appeal. It merely removes an apprehended disability of the court
in summarily dismissing a glaring case where its compulsive continuance,
dragging the opposite party, calling up prolix records and expanding on the
reasons for the decision, will stall the work of the court (which is an E
institutional injury to social justice) with no gain to anyone, including the
appellant to keep whom in agonising suspense for long is itself an injustice."
(para 49). {n case of appeal by leave, the discretion of Court, judicially
exerciseable, comes into play.

Suffice it to observe that Sitaram and Ors. case itself deprives the F
submission made by Shri S.K. Jain, the learned counsel for the appellant, of
all its force and charm.

The power to summarily dismiss a first appeal, even if the appeal is ·
statutory and filed as of right must be held to be inherent and so vesting in
this Court as one of necessity. The Constitution Bench decision of this Court G
in Union of India and Anr. v. Raghubir Singh (Dead) by LRs. etc., [1989] 2
SCC 754 is, in this context, quite instructive. Chief Justice R.S. Pathak speaking
for the Court noticed the volume of work demanding the attention of the .
Supreme Court (lflndia which made it necessary as a general rule of practice
and convenience for the Court to sit in divisions rather than the Court as a H
706 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] 2 S.C.R.

A whole in the interest of promoting certainty and .consistency in judicial .
decisions. The volume of work has gradually increased. It is the justice
oriented approach of this Court, develope.d by tradition and convention and
in its craving to come up to the expectations of 'We, the people of India' that
the Court has at times exercised its jurisdiction for redeeming injustice even
in individual cases though the Court was expected by the Constitution makers
B to be a federal court concentrating only on resolution of constitutional issues.
This has resulted in adding to its arrears of cases in spite of ceaselessly
working for deciding the cases, as fast as it can, and carefully avoiding the
two extremes, namely 'justice delayed' and 'justice hurried'. At times, the
Court has been criticized for being too liberal in entertaining the cases and
C adding to the pendency of dockets before it. It is, therefore, all the more
necessary that .worthless cases, wholly devoid of any merit, ought to be
checked at the entry point itself. Litigation is a costly affair. In an appeal,
where even in the absence of the opponent, the appellant fails to convince the
Court that any arguable question, either of fact or of law, is involved in the
D case, we fail to understand how the appellant can still urge that the respondent
should be noticed to appear before this Court and incur huge expenditure in
terms of money, time and energy and add to the number o_f pending matters
- an addition, which on appearance of the respondent, would be sure to be
simply struck down.

E In Surinder Singh v. Hardial Singh and Ors., (1985] l SCC 91, it has
been held that an appeal to this Court under Section l l 6A of the Act, read
with Section l l 6C, has to be treated as a civil appeal and the jurisdiction to
be exercised is as extensive as in the case of an appeal from a matter
, disposed
of in exercise of original civil jurisdiction of the High Court. In an appeal
laid before this Court, whether under any statute conferring a right of appeal
F or as a result ·of grant of leave under Article 136 of the Constitution what
opens up to be exercised is the normal civil appellate jurisdiction of the
Court. These observations were made in the context that this Court would not
ordinarily interfere with the. findings of facts reached by the trial judge.
Ordinarily a finding reached. on assessment of evidence, particularly \¥hen it
G is oral, would not be interfered with in appeal; though on being satisfied of
a wrong approach of the trial court or injustice shown to have been done, this
Court would not only have power, rather it would be its obligation, to rectify
the mistake and dispense justice.

We are, therefore, clearly of the opinion that though an appeal under
H Section l l 6A of the Act is preferred as of right, yet the inherent power of
BOLIN CHETIA v. JOGADISH BHUYAN [LAHOTI, CJ.] 707
this Court to summarily dismiss the appeal at the admission stage is not taken A
away. We hasten to add that such power would be exercised o~y by way of
exception such as, on the Court feeling convinced that the appeal does not
raise any such question of fact or law as would persuade this Court to put the
respondent on notice before hearing.

The submission forcefully urged by the learned counsel for the appell11nt B
is rejected. Let the appeal be placed for preliminary hearing (i.e. hearing on
admission) before the Court.

B.B.B. Appeal placed for preliminary hearing.