Section 205 certification requires an actual substantial constitutional question; belated new points cannot found leave to appeal.

A certificate under Section 205 of the Government of India Act, 1935 lies only where a substantial question of law as to interpretation of the Act is actually involved in the case, not where a new constitutional point is raised for the first time in the certificate application. A question must be necessary to the decision, and a hypothetical or belated contention cannot create certification jurisdiction. On sanction under Section 270, the provision applies only to acts done or purported to be done in discharge of official duty; alleged participation in unlawful assembly, rioting, and grievous hurt did not meet that test, so no prior sanction was required and no substantial question of law arose.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a certificate for leave to appeal to the Federal Court could be granted under Section 205 of the Government of India Act, 1935 when the constitutional question had not been raised in the trial court or in the appeal and was sought to be raised for the first time in the certificate application. (ii) Whether the prosecution was barred for want of sanction under Section 270 of the Government of India Act, 1935, so as to give rise to a substantial question of law for the purpose of Section 205.

Issue (i): Whether a certificate for leave to appeal to the Federal Court could be granted under Section 205 of the Government of India Act, 1935 when the constitutional question had not been raised in the trial court or in the appeal and was sought to be raised for the first time in the certificate application.

Analysis: The requirement under Section 205 is that the case must involve a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Government of India Act or an Order made thereunder. The expression "involve" was understood to mean that the question must be necessary to the decision of the case and not merely a remote or hypothetical possibility. Where the constitutional point was neither raised nor decided in the proceedings below, and the High Court had no occasion to consider it when deciding the appeal, a later application could not create a new substantial question of law for purposes of certification.

Conclusion: No certificate could be granted on a new constitutional point raised for the first time in the application, and the issue was answered against the applicants.

Issue (ii): Whether the prosecution was barred for want of sanction under Section 270 of the Government of India Act, 1935, so as to give rise to a substantial question of law for the purpose of Section 205.

Analysis: The sanction provision applies only where the act complained of was done or purported to be done in the discharge of official duty. On the facts stated, participation in an unlawful assembly, rioting, and causing grievous hurt could not reasonably be treated as acts done in the discharge of official duty. The alleged sanction issue therefore did not satisfy the statutory test, and in any event the matter raised only the application of settled principles to the facts rather than a substantial question of law on interpretation of the Act.

Conclusion: Prior sanction was not necessary, and no substantial question of law arose under Section 270; this issue was decided against the applicants.

Final Conclusion: The application for a certificate of leave to appeal was not maintainable on the grounds raised, and the request for certification failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A certificate under Section 205 of the Government of India Act, 1935 lies only where a substantial question of law as to interpretation of the Act was actually raised or necessarily involved in the case, and a mere new or hypothetical constitutional contention first advanced in the certificate application cannot justify certification.

---