Report No. 45
36. Broad considerations that have weighed with the Commission.-
We should make it clear that we do not, in making a recommendation1 for amending Article 133(1), wish to underrate the importance of the Supreme Court, or to impose undue restrictions on access to the Supreme Court for getting questions of law decided. Opinions could differ as to the proper role of the highest court in the land as a court of appeal in questions not raising constitutional issues. We have attempted to indicate what we conceive to be its proper role. The High Court should not be thought of as another step in the ladder of appeals. So far as questions of fact or questions of law of minor importance are concerned, the litigant should be content with the position as resulting from the judgment of the High Court.
The possibility that another Court may take a different view on facts or on questions of law of minor importance, always remains. If it does, its decision is not necessarily likely to be more satisfactory to the defeated party or to the society at large than the decision of the Court below. A party may be anxious to have his case taken to yet another court. But the question still remains how far it is in the public interest to do so. These are the broad considerations that have weighed with us.
1. Para. 354, supra.