In a recent case of BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. vs Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission, the Supreme Court came across an instance where they had to ponder upon the understanding of the concept of “substantial question of law”. The reference to “substantial question of law” is found in Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code which talks about Second Appeal. The provision reads as follows:

            “Save as otherwise expressly provided in the body of this Code or by any other law for the time being in force, an appeal shall lie to the High Court from every decree passed in appeal by any Court subordinate to the High Court, if the High Court is satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law.”

The substantial question of law, according to the provision, is very essential for the High Court to formulate that question and the appeal shall be heard only on the basis of this question. If the Court is not satisfied with the substantial question of law, then the appeal will not be heard. This provision marks the importance of substantial question as a primary requisite for entertaining a second appeal.

In the case of Boodireddy Chandriah and Ors. v. Arigela Laxmi and Anr.[1], the Apex Court had laid down as follows:

“After the amendment a second appeal can be filed only if a substantial question of law is involved in the case. The memorandum of appeal must precisely state the substantial question of law involved and the High Court is obliged to satisfy itself regarding the existence of such a question. If satisfied, the High Court has to formulate the substantial question of law involved in the case.”

In the case of Sir Chunilal V. Mehta and Sons Ltd. v. Century Spg. & Mfg. Co. Ltd.[2], the test for determining a substantial question of law was laid down and it was stated as follows:

“The proper test for determining whether a question of law raised in the case is substantial would, in our opinion, be whether it is of general public importance or whether it directly and substantially affects the rights of the parties and if so whether it is either an open question in the sense that it is not finally settled by this Court or by the Privy Council or by the Federal Court or is not free from difficulty or calls for discussion of alternative views.”

Hence, the present cases involving a certain amount of pondering upon the question receives a clear answer from such precedents.