 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
|
 |
 |
|
|
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
 |
 |
|
||||||||||
 |
|
|||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
Report No. 99 1.3. Objectives of inquiry.- We shall give in brief at the appropriate place a gist of the views expressed on these questions.1 At this stage, it may be mentioned that the principal object in eliciting views on the above questions was to enable the Commission to consider if the time taken in oral argument could be reduced, so as to make it possible for the higher courts to hear a larger number of cases on each working day. This reduction was not to be an end in itself. It was intended to secure greater disposal, speaking numerically. But, apart from the numerical aspect-the aspect of quantity-the Commission, in putting these questions, had also in mind another-and equally important-aspect. The Commission wished to have informed public opinion on the question whether the quality of presentation could also be improved by introducing a system of written arguments which might put forth a party's case in brief yet precise terms, supported by relevant-and only the relevant-authorities and materials. 1. Chapters 2, 3 and 4, infra.    |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
 |
|
|||||||||||
 |
|
 |
|
|||||||||
Back