Report No. 45
29. Questions of law which are not considered fit for decision by the Supreme Court.-
So much as regards the questions which we contemplate as appropriately falling within the appellate jurisdiction under Article 133(1)(c). We should also state here that we do not visualise such a wide scope for the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as would embrace every question of law which is "substantial between the parties". This clarification on our part becomes necessary because the expression "substantial question of law" has been given a wide meaning1 by the Privy Council.
This wide meaning was given with reference to the provisions in the Code of Civil Procedure, sections 109 and 110, corresponding to Article 133(1)(a) and (b) of the Constitution. In our view, such questions should not engage the time and attention of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, being essentially the highest court at the national level which declares the law which is binding, should not ordinarily engage itself in settling factual controversies, however great the stakes may be, unless, of course, it feels that in the interests of justice its interference on facts is called for under Article 136.
The paramount consideration indicated by the words "fit for appeal to the Supreme Court" which occur in clause (c) of Article 133(1), rules out such questions. We are sure that the undesirability of an appeal being permitted merely because the parties regard the question of law as of some importance, will, as heretofore, continue to be borne in mind by the High Courts after the proposed amendment of Article 133(1)(c).
1. See para. 8, supra.
Back
