 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
|
 |
 |
|
|
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
 |
 |
|
||||||||||
 |
|
|||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
Report No. 58 Gist of the replies 3.49. Opinion received by us on this question reveals strong opposition to curtailment of this jurisdiction Of the Supreme Court. It has been stated that it is almost impossible to anticipate all possible situations in which the discretion under Article 136 should be exercised. Many of the replies stress the desirability of preserving the existing wide discretion of the Supreme Court, and point out that it may be assumed that the discretion is exercised sparingly and only in cases of exceptional nature. The overwhelming majority of the replies on the Question are against the imposition of limitations suggested in the query. In particular, it may be stated that some Judges1 of the Supreme Court, in a written reply on our Questionnaire, do not favour any modification in the scope of appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution against judgements of High Court. 1. S. No. 50.    |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
 |
|
|||||||||||
 |
|
 |
|
|||||||||
Back