 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
|
 |
 |
|
|
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
 |
 |
|
||||||||||
 |
|
|||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
Report No. 44 11. Uniformity of law.- Although we have adopted a federal constitution and administration of justice is a State subject, we have chosen a unified system of courts with the Supreme Court as the final interpreter of not only the Constitution but of all laws, State or Central, and Article 141 of the Constitution expressly requires all courts to be bound by the law as declared by the Supreme Court. This makes for uniformity in the interpretation and administration of laws. In the name of uniformity, it is contended that access to the Supreme Court should not be unduly restricted, and if different High Courts have read the same law differently, the Supreme Court should be enabled quickly to end the uncertainty created by such conflict. At the same time, it is recognised by everybody that too many cases cannot be allowed to go to the Supreme Court as that would choke the working of that Court. Admittedly, therefore, a line has to be drawn somewhere. We would like to avoid a line that merely divides the rich from the poor; and as we said in our working paper, the 'valuation test' seems to discriminate unfairly between the rich litigant and the poor.    |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
 |
|
|||||||||||
 |
|
 |
|
|||||||||
Back