Order of Reference.1

Subba Rao, J.-Before we dispose of the application finally we think it is necessary to get an authoritative decision by a Full Bench on the meaning of the words “substantial question of law” occurring in Article 133 of the Constitution of India. In Mahadeva Royal v. Chikka Royal2, Pandrang Row and Abdul Rahman, JJ., held chat a question is a substantial question of law if the question of law affects the rights of the parties substantially. At page 310 the learned Judges say:

“Mr. Venkatarama Sastri, the learned counsel for the respondent, contends that the contention in regard to their admissibility is flimsy and without any force and cannot be said to raise a substantial question of law. We were of opinion that there was no substance in the contention advanced by the learned Advocate-General; but if the words ‘substantial questions’ are to be understood in their being of substance to the parties, we must hold that the decision in regard to the non-admissibility of the documents is a substantial question which would entitle the petitioner to have a certificate.”

With great respect to the learned Judges we cannot agree. If the judgment is correct, it will lead to this position. Suppose in an appeal a question of limitation is raised and though that question is disposed of in one way by the Judicial Committee, or the Supreme Court or by a Full Bench of a High Court, if that question of limitation affect: substantially the rights of the parties, the High Court will be bound to give leave under Article 133 of the Constitution of India. In our view, the word “substantial” qualifies the expression “question of law” and not the subject-matter of the appeal. Unless a question of law is one of importance and difficulty or in regard to which there is a reasonable doubt or difference of opinion, it cannot be a substantial question of law within the meaning of the Article.

Mr. Narasaraju relied upon the decision of the Judicial Committee in Raghunath Prasad Singh v. Deputy Commissioner of Partabgarh3 in support of his argument. But in that judgment the Judicial Committee only decided that a substantial question of law does not mean a question of general importance but a substantial question of law between the patties. It did not purport to decide that any question of law, however flimsy and covered by authority, is a substantial question of law if it substantially affects the rights of parties. To avoid unnecessary conflict of decisions, we think that this is a fit case for referring the following question to a Full Bench:

“Whether the words ‘substantial question of law’ occurring in Article 133 of the Constitution of India mean an important or difficult question of law or any question of law affecting the rights of parties?”

The matter may be placed before the Honourable the Chief Justice for the suitable orders.

(In pursuance of the aforesaid Order of Reference. the petition coming on for hearing, the Court made the following Order): —

The Chief Justice.-The question referred for decision by a Full Bench runs as follows:

“Whether the words ‘substantia! question of law’ occurring in Article 133 of the Constitution of India mean an important or difficult question of law or any question of law affecting the rights of parties?”

The question as framed appears to contemplate only two alternatives, namely, that either it should be held that every question of law affecting the rights of parties is a substantial question of law or it is only an important or difficult question of law that would come within that description. It became evident during the course of the argument that the two alternatives are not exhaustive and there may be questions which, though they may not be very important or difficult, could nevertheless be called substantial questions. Actually in the order of reference there is a third category indicated in the following passage:

“Unless a question of law is one of importance and difficulty or in regard to which the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document