Login : Advocate | Client
Home Post Your Case My Account Law College Law Library

Report No. 58

Procedure not serving any significant purpose

6.31. There is another consideration which has weighed with us in dealing with this question, namely, that the procedure involved in the reference proceedings does not serve any significant purpose; we have already adverted1 to this consideration while dealing with section 256. On the recommendation that we have made, as a result of which section 256 will be replaced by an appropriate section providing for an appeal to the High Court on a substantial question of law, a direct reference to the Supreme Court under section 257 seems to us to be juristically unjustified.

If there is a divergence of opinion amongst the High Courts on any issue of law, it is legitimate that even that question should form part of the grounds which the party affected by that decision will take in its appeal before the High Court, and the High Court may consider the divergence of opinion, and, conceivably, in some cases, may change its view. That is the normal procedure of appeals and second appeals in judicial proceedings; and we see no justification for departing from this procedure, particularly when we are, in substance, assimilating the proceedings before the Tribunal to those before the first appellate Court.

1. Para. 6.23, supra.

Structure and Jurisdiction of the Higher Judiciary Back

Client Area | Advocate Area | Blogs | About Us | User Agreement | Privacy Policy | Advertise | Media Coverage | Contact Us | Site Map
powered and driven by neosys