The first question is whether you would allow any right of appeal in criminal cases to the highest court. I would draw the attention of the House of the existing state of the law. In fact, there is a right of appeal to His Majesty in Council in criminal cases on a substantial question of law or in cases where grave injustice has otherwise been shown to have been done. In these circumstances I submit that, if we do not grant any right of appeal under similar terms in criminal cases to our Supreme Court, we would be taking away a right which now exists in criminal cases. Sir, a study of the criminal appeals before the Privy Council for the last forty years will show that this right of appeal is a great necessity as many cases of undeniably wrong convictions have been set aside. Especially in murder cases it often happens that a man is convicted on account of local prejudices and suspicions as a substitute for evidence. In this way sometimes innocent men are even hanged. The decisions of our Courts are sometimes guided or clouded by extraneous considerations. If such decisions are taken in appeal to the highest Court they take a dispassionate view of things and decide them on their merits and on proper consideration of evidence. I submit therefore that the right of appeal should be given in criminal cases on suitable grounds. Now what are those suitable cases? I submit that the suitable cases would be cases involving substantial questions of law. In fact, we are establishing a rule of law or democracy. Therefore, if any man has been convicted on a substantial error of law, I think that should be a good ground for allowing an appeal. Substantial questions of law have always been held to be sufficient ground for interference by the Privy Council and we should not at least take away or indefinitely suspend that right which has been so much valued and in existence for over a century. I submit, therefore, that substantial question of law should be a good ground. There is some fear in certain sections of the House that if we allow appeals on substantial question of law, the authority of the government, the authority of the executive, will be weakened. In fact, I have heard it whispered that there should be many convictions so that thereby the authority of the executive may be upheld, that if we allow too many appeals, the authority of the executive would be undermined and the safety of the State will be endangered. But I feel just the other way. If we allow the supremacy of the law to be maintained by an independent tribunal, that would be the basis of the safety of the State. The contentment of the people, their faith in the administration of justice, would be a paramount factor in making the State safe. If the ultimate jurisdiction of our highest Court in criminal cases is taken away, the dissatisfaction created thereby will go underground and will be a menace to the State. It is quite possible that sometimes the executive too would be disregarded by the Court of law, but that is why the Court of law exist, viz., to administer justice irrespective of political considerations. If the executive feels that in a particular class of cases, political or otherwise, there should be no appeal, or there should be some sort of curtailed procedure, or there should be special rules of evidence, the executive can always apply to the legislature. It is for the legislature to say what law should be passed. The independence of the legislature is also to be guaranteed and an independent legislature may prescribe the laws of evidence, laws of penalty and laws of procedure applicable to criminal cases in a particular manner. There should however be nothing to prevent appeal to be highest Court. If we allow right of appeal to the Supreme Court on substantial question of law, that will be a guarantee of the independence of the legislature in framing any law it pleases. If the legislature passes any law which would practically prevent the right of appeal on grounds of law, it is for the legislature to so. The executive, by virtue of having a majority, can always approach the legislature with their point of view, and in this way the supremacy or the independence of the executive can be maintained, but within the limited of law that the legislature lays down, the Supreme Court should always have the power to give substantial justice according to its best lights. It is for this reason that I say that the right of appeal should be allowed on substantial question of law. There can be no logical escape from this proposition. I submit, therefore, that we should not leave the matter to the next Parliament. Supposing a man is ordered to be hanged by the High Court for the first time and suppose that the decision of the High Court is wrong. It often happens that local prejudices have forced a verdict of death being passed on the unfortunate man. May I ask what should this man do? Should we ask him to wait in patience till a suitable law is passed by the next Parliament? Is he to hang in the meantime? Is he to hang in the expectation of a proper law being passed by the next Parliament? I think that the consequences would be too serious and too revolting to allow this procrastination. I submit, therefore, that the right of appeal should here and now be given to an accused person in criminal cases to the Supreme Court on substantial questions of law. A cases was recently taken to the Privy Council on a very small matter. A man was convicted by a Deputy Magistrate for a petty offence. He was acquitted in appeal by the Session Judge. The Government preferred an appeal to the High Court which convicted him. The accused appealed to the Privy Council. The Privy Council with rare clarity pointed out substantial infirmity in the evidence and acquitted him. It was argued that this was a petty case and so should not be worthy of interference by the Privy Council. Their Lordships, however pointed out that it was a case of improper conviction and he must be acquitted. So if we do not allow appeals on substantial questions of law the result will be shirking our responsibility. There will be no justification for allowing people to rot in jail or to hang pending legislation later on. Therefore, we should here and now introduce an article which would prevent men being convicted wrongly.
