Report No. 44
17. Opinion of the Bar.-
About the other three alternatives, opinion has-as we expected-differed. The Bar is generally against any change, and, in particular, against the proposal to delete clauses (a) and (b). We think that this is understandable. Members of the legal profession practising in the Courts have a natural bias in favour of their clients; and clients; who approach them for taking appeals to the Supreme Court are those who usually feel that justice has not been done to them in the High Court. The general feeling among the Bar2 therefore is that the doors to the Supreme Court must be kept wide open. The difficulty of obtaining a certificate and the uncertainty likely to be caused, have been emphasised. It has also been urged that the more the value of the claim the greater the stake the litigant has in the litigation, and it would not, therefore, be proper to deprive a litigant of his valuable right of appeal.
An eminent member2 of the Bar is, however, in favour of deleting clauses (a) and (b) of Article 133(1), "particularly because there should be no discrimination in the administration of justice between the rich and the poor."
1. Views of the Supreme Court Bar Association were not received
2. Shri Niren De, Attorney-General of India