DRAFT CONSTITUTION 643
should not have power to dabble with it because it really is a matter not so much of law as a mailer of inherent jurisdiction. If the High Court, for reasons which are patent to any lawyer does certify that notwithstanding that the cause of the matter involved in any particular case does not fall within (a) and (b) by reason of the fact that the property qualification is less than what is prescribed there, nonetheless it is a cause or a matter which ought to go to the Supreme Court by reason of the fact that the point involved in it does not merely affect the particular litigants who appear before the Supreme Court, but as a matter which affects the generality of the public, I think it is a jurisdiction which ought to be inherent in the High Court itself and I therefore think that clause (c) should not be placed within the purview of the power of Parliament.
On the other hand if the amendment moved by my friend Prof. Saksena were to go through, two things will happen. One thing that will happen has already been referred to by my friend Bakshi Tek Chand that Parliament may altogether take away the Appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in civil matters. It seems to me that that would be a disastrous consequence. To establish a Supreme Court in this country and to allow any authority in Parliament to denude and to take away completely all the powers of appeal from the Supreme Court would be to my mind a very mendacious thing. We might ourselves take courage in our own hands and say that the Supreme Court shall not function as a court of appeal in civil matters and confine it to the same position which has been given to the Federal Court.
The other thing will be that Parliament would be in a position to take away sub-clause (c) which, as I said, ought to remain there permanently, because it is reallly a matter of inherent jurisdiction. Therefore it seems to me that the plea that the appellate power of the Supreme Court should be made elastic is completely satisfied by my amendment No. 25, because under my amendment it would be open to Parliament to regulate the provisions contained in (a) and (b) without in any way taking away the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court completely or without affecting the provisions contained in (c). Sir, I therefore oppose Mr. Saksena’s amendment.
[In all 4 amendments were adopted, one was rejected. Article
111, as amended, was added to the Constitution]