Special Leave Petition (SLP) is a provision that holds a prime place in the Indian judicial system. This is a special power bestowed upon the Supreme court of India to grant leave to appeal against any judgement in case any substantial constitutional question of law is involved, or gross injustice has been done.

A SLP can only be filed against any judgement of High court within 90 days from the date of judgement or within 60 days against the order of High court refusing to grant certificate of fitness for appeal to supreme court. Additionally, The Constitution of India vests 'Discretionary power' in The Supreme court of India.

The Supreme court of India may in its discretion be able to grant special leave to appeal from any judgement or decree or order in any matter or cause passed by any court/tribunal in the territory of India. The Supreme court may also refuse to grant the leave to appeal by exercising its discretion, this is the residual power vested with the supreme court of India.

The maintainability of Special leave petitions as under article 136 of the Indian constitution is generally presumed unless there are specific circumstances that render a particular case NOT MAINTAINABLE. As, in the case of 'Lily Thomas V. Union of India (2013),' it dealt with the constitutional validity of section 8(4) of the representation of people act, 1951. The supreme court entertained the SLP challenging the provision, and the case played a significant role in establishing the importance of SLP jurisdiction in constitutional matters.

Moreover, in the case of 'CBI vs. Keshub Mahindra (1996)'related to the Bhopal gas tragedy, the supreme court entertained the SLP against the order of a lower court. The SLP allowed The supreme court to examine legal aspects of the case, emphasizing the maintainability of SLP's in matter of national and public importance.

As well as, in the case of 'Baldev Singh vs. Manohar Singh (2000)' the supreme court granted the SLP in this case where issues related to electoral disputes and disqualification of candidates were raised. The case demonstrated the courts willingness to hear matters involving complex questions of law.

Finally, in the case of 'Gujrat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. Vs. Essae Power Ltd. (2008),' The supreme court granted the SLP related to the disputes over power purchase agreements. The court used its discretionary powers under Article 136 to examine contractual issues and matters of economic importance.

In light of these cases, I am of the opinion that Special leave petition is maintainable in India. The provision for SLP is enshrined in Article 136 of the constitution of India. However, it is absolutely essential to state that Supreme court exercises its discretion in granting or refusing special leave.

The court may choose to grant SLP based on various factors including the importance of legal issues involved, the presence of a substantial question of law or matters of public interest (as seen in the cases above). The discretionary nature of SLP allows the Supreme court to focus on cases with national significance or those involving substantial legal questions.

In conclusion, while SLP is maintainable in India, its grant is subject to the discretion of the supreme court, and court decides whether to hear a case based on the circumstances and merits of each individual matter.