Sir, in the welter of amendments moved in the House there are some common points which are of fundamental importance. We have allowed under article 111, appeals in civil cases where substantial question of law is involved, subject to a pecuniary limitation. The question is whether we would be right in putting any limitation on people’s life and liberty. Can we distinguish the life and liberty of the meanest individual in the State from those of a rich man? In criminal law in a civilised State no distinction can exist between the rich and the poor, between the great and the small. In civil cases there is not much harm done to society if wrong decisions are passed in individual cases. But if you have one innocent man robbed of his liberty, untold mischief will follow. In fact, it is only by allowing recourse to the highest Court of law that the supremacy of law can be fully established. The safety of a State lies in the people’s faith in the rule of law. The Court of the last resort should be the ultimate tribunal which would decide questions of legal rights in criminal cases. The points that arise in this connection are, (1) whether any right of appeal should be allowed and, (2) if so under what conditions and with that safeguards. The further question is whether the provision should be inserted in the Constitution itself. I submit that the matter is of great constitutional importance. If a man’s life and liberty are not matters of concern for this Assembly I think nothing would be worth considering at all. As the question which have been raised by these amendments are of fundamental importance, I think, rights of final appeal, whatever they are, should be embodied in the Constitution itself. There will be no justification for this Honourable House for shirking its responsibility in defining rights of appeal in criminal cases when it has with such meticulous care defined rights of appeal in civil cases. I think that the matter should not be left to the Parliament. In fact, that means the next Parliament, not this Assembly sitting in another place as the Legislative Assembly, but the next Parliament after the next general elections or even a subsequent Parliament. There is no justification for this House to suspend its activities and leave a void to be filled in by a future Parliament of unknown composition and disposition. We have no right to refuse to define the law and thereby to ensure substantial justice in criminal cases. We should therefore define the law in the Constitution itself. We have entered in the Constitution so many comparatively unimportant matters and we should not hesitate to include this important provision therein.
