 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
|
 |
 |
|
|
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
 |
 |
|
||||||||||
 |
|
|||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
Report No. 58 Hearing by whole Court considered 3.36. According to this view, we ought to recognise that hereafter when the Indian Legislature attempts to implement, by appropriate legislation, the Directive Principles which are fundamental to the governance of the country, the constitutional problems which may arise before the Supreme Court may need a close examination in depth not only of the provisions of the Constitution, but also of complex socio-economic considerations; and, in discharging this onerous task, both the Bar and the Bench will have to make research on the several issues involved and devote more time for debate and discussion of those issues. If the whole court hears such matters, it would be a collective decision of the Court, though, it is inevitable that, on occasions, the minority and the majority views may be expressed. Besides, if the whole court sits together to hear matters, the possibility of conflicting judgments, delivered by different Benches, will be eliminated. That is why, according to this view, the ultimate goal to be reached, not immediately, but in future by stages, should be to leave freedom to the Supreme Court to concentrate on really important issues and lay down the law on those issues authoritatively.    |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
 |
|
|||||||||||
 |
|
 |
|
|||||||||
Back