Supreme Court Practice in India covers procedure, drafting, strategy, and institutional functioning before the Supreme Court of India. It includes filing requirements, registry scrutiny, listing procedure, limitation compliance, and courtroom preparation. Because even minor procedural defects can affect admission, careful drafting and strict compliance are essential.
A substantial part of Supreme Court practice involves Special Leave Petitions under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. In addition, statutory appeals, writ petitions, review petitions, curative petitions, and transfer petitions form an important part of the Court’s docket. Each category demands a distinct procedural structure and strategic approach. Therefore, lawyers must understand jurisdictional limits, drafting discipline, and admission-stage expectations.
This category also examines the law laid down by the Supreme Court under different legislative enactments. I analyse how the Court interprets constitutional provisions, central statutes, and regulatory frameworks across diverse areas of law. Moreover, I highlight emerging trends in judicial reasoning, doctrinal developments, and shifts in interpretative approach. Particular attention is given to constitutional law, commercial disputes, real estate, insolvency, criminal law, and administrative law.
Drawing from my experience as an Advocate-on-Record, I write about drafting standards, registry objections, admission strategy, interim relief practice, and courtroom advocacy. Further, the articles provide practical and experience-based guidance for lawyers, litigants, and researchers. They aim to explain both procedural requirements and the broader jurisprudential direction of the Supreme Court of India.
A comprehensive guide explaining how to file a civil transfer petition before the Supreme Court of India, covering jurisdiction, grounds, required documents, procedure, drafting guidelines, limitation, practical considerations, dominus litis, and 80+ FAQs to help litigants and practitioners understand the complete transfer mechanism.
A comprehensive guide to Review Petitions in the Supreme Court of India under Article 137 and Order XLVII of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013. Explore constitutional foundations, grounds for review in civil and criminal matters, landmark cases such as Kamlesh Verma, Mohd. Arif, and Lily Thomas, procedural nuances, and practical drafting strategy for Advocates-on-Record and Litigants.
The Supreme Court Rules, 2013 govern the practice and procedure before the Supreme Court of India. Framed under Article 145 of the Constitution, the Rules lay down the structure of filings, jurisdiction, timelines, and procedural requirements for every category of matter. This post provides access to the official PDF and a full bare text of Rules.
This article explains the legal effect of the Supreme Court dismissing a Special Leave Petition (SLP) at the threshold and how it interacts with the doctrine of merger. It analyses leading judgments, clarifies whether review or further remedies remain available, and outlines when a subsequent SLP can still be maintained. A clear guide for practitioners navigating post-SLP strategy.
This article explains how the Supreme Court exercises its power to transfer matrimonial cases between States under Section 25 CPC and Section 406 CrPC. It outlines the guiding principles, key judgments, and practical grounds on which transfer petitions are allowed or refused, helping litigants understand the procedural framework and the Court’s approach.
This article explains the law of contempt of court in India and provides a clear, practical guide on when and how to initiate contempt proceedings before the High Court. It discusses civil and criminal contempt, statutory requirements under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, essential conditions for filing a contempt petition, timelines, and practical steps for litigants when court orders are not followed.
This post explains a key principle under Section 100 CPC: a second appeal can be heard only on the substantial questions of law framed by the High Court. Through the Supreme Court’s ruling in Ranjit Kumar Karmakar v. Hari Shankar Das, the article highlights why High Courts must confine themselves strictly to the framed questions and cannot re-appreciate facts like a first appellate court.
This article provides the Supreme Court’s ruling in Bikash Ranjan Rout v. State (NCT of Delhi), where the Court held that a Magistrate cannot suo motu order further investigation after discharging an accused. The judgment clarifies the limits of a Magistrate’s powers post-cognizance, distinguishes between pre- and post-cognizance stages, and reaffirms that only the investigating agency may seek permission for further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC.