📌”Substantial question of law”: Leading Authorities
Introduction
- Recently, in Chandrabhan v. Saraswati 2022, while deconstructing the scope of Section 100 as given under the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, the Hon’ble Supreme Court mulled as to what “substantial question of law” actually would mean
- Rimmalapudi Subba Rao v. Noony Veeraju 1951
- Held,
” When a question of law is fairly arguable, where there is room for difference of opinion on it or where the Court thought it necessary to deal with that question at some length and discuss alternative views, then the question would be a substantial question of law. On the other hand if the question was practically covered by the decision of the highest court or
if the general principles to be applied in determining the question are well settled and the only question was of applying those principles to the particular fact of the case it would not be a substantial question of law.”
- Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari 2001
- Held,
“To be ‘substantial’, a question of law must be debatable, not previously settled by law of the land or a binding precedent, and must have a material bearing on the decision of the case, if answered either way, insofar as the rights of the parties before it are concerned”