Now, Sir, I will come to the exact amendments of which I made mention in the opening of my speech namely, Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena’s amendment and my amendment No. 25. If my amendment went through, the result would be this: that the Supreme Court would continue to be a Court of Appeal and Parliament would not be able to reduce its position as a Court of Appeal, although it may have the power to reduce the number of appeals, or the nature of appeals that may go to the Supreme Court. In any case, subclause (c) of article 111 would remain intact and beyond the power of Parliament. My view is that although we may leave it to Parliament to decide the monetary value of cases which may go the Privy Council, the last part of clause (1) of article 111, which is (c), ought to remain as it is and Parliament should not have power to dabble with it because it really is a matter not so much of law as a matter of inherent jurisdiction. If the High Court, for reasons which are patent to any lawyer does certify that notwithstanding that the cause of the matter involved in any particular case does not fall within (a) and (b) by reason of the fact that the property qualification is less than what is prescribed there, nonetheless it is a cause or a matter which ought to go to the Supreme Court by reason of the fact that the point involved in it does not merely affect the particular litigants who appear before the Supreme Court, but as a matter which affects the generality of the public, I think it is a jurisdiction which ought to be inherent in the High Court itself and I therefore think that clause (c) should not be placed within the purview of the power of Parliament.
