 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
|
 |
 |
|
|
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
 |
 |
|
||||||||||
 |
|
|||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
Report No. 44 10. Question previously considered by the Law Commission.- The question of civil appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court was briefly discussed by the Law Commission when it considered the reform of judicial administration. In the 14th Report of the Law Commission,1 it was stated "The two rights of appeal, viz., the right of first appeal to the High Court and a further right of appeal to the Supreme Court in certain cases are, to quote the Civil Justice Committee, 'both proper and necessary' and that guarded and conditioned as at present, they are justifiable in principle, in practice 'necessary as a control over the different (and differing) High Courts and a source of strength for our judicial system with the instructed and uninstructed public'. With the abolition of the jurisdiction of the Privy Council and the creation of a Supreme Court in India, the great hardship of heavy costs which had to be incurred in England in appeals of this type has disappeared. On the whole, therefore, we see no further scope for the curtailment of first appeals to the High Court or of appeals to the Supreme Court under Article 133". But the matter was, it seems, not approached from the particular angle which we have mentioned above.    |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
 |
|
|||||||||||
 |
|
 |
|
|||||||||
Back