 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
|
 |
 |
|
|
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
 |
 |
|
||||||||||
 |
|
|||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
Report No. 44 13. Appeals by certificate.- It is sometimes said that High Courts are extremely reluctant to certify that an appeal is fit to be taken to the Supreme Court, and if clauses (a) and (b) of Article 133 were deleted and only clause (c) remained, there would be few appeals to the Supreme Court and conflicting views of different High Courts would keep the law uncertain for long periods of time. We do not think any such fear to be well founded. We have not been able to obtain very detailed information about the appeals filed in the Supreme Court under Article 133(1); but we have obtained the figures for 1966 and 1967,1 and they do not show that appeals on certificate of fitness are rare or even smaller in number than those under clauses (a) and (b) of Article 133. Thus, in 1967, 367 appeals were filed in the Supreme Court under clauses (a) and (b) of Article 133, and as many as 648 under Article 133(1)(c) and Article 132(1). Of these 648 appeals it is unlikely that even half could be under Article 132(1) which concerns questions of law touching the interpretation of the Constitution. The corresponding figures for 1966 are 245 under Articles 133(1)(a) and (b), and 636 under Articles 133(1)(c) and 132(1). There seems, therefore, no ground for thinking that appeals on a certificate of fitness under Article 133(1)(c) would be rare. 1. See Appendix 1, para. 16    |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
 |
|
|||||||||||
 |
|
 |
|
|||||||||
Back