Sir, all the amendments which have been moved centre around one important question, that is, whether or to what extent an appeal shall be allowed to the highest Court in the land in criminal cases. I submit that the matter is one of great constitutional importance. We are enacting a Constitution for a Sovereign Democratic Republic. We are erecting one of the finest democracies in the world. But the implication of democracy must be squarely faced. Democracy means a rule of law as opposed to a rule of force. In autocracies and in totalitarian states the law is not supreme. But democracy means supremacy of the law where no one, be he the highest individual, is above the law. We should therefore all respect law and should be law-abiding citizens in order to inculcate that sense of law-abidingness wherein lies the safety of democracy. We should ourselves follow democratic principles, democratic methods and respect the law. The other day, when this matter was discussed in connection with article 110,111 and 112, I pointed out that there was a lacuna so far as criminal appeals to the Supreme Court were concerned. It was this disclosure that prompted the House to discuss the matter regarding the rights for criminal appeal to the Supreme Court. You were pleased to allow that discussion. It would therefore in my humble opinion be utterly wrong to characterise that discussion as irrelevant. In fact, that discussion has brought to light some of the weaknesses of the Draft Constitution necessitating so many amendments.
