In fact, the Supreme Court is the final authority in matters like these. Logically therefore if the interpretation of the Constitution is the sole monopoly of any court, it is that of the Supreme Court. The High Court does not come in at all. In my humble submission, so far as the administration of law in this country for the last one hundred years or more is concerned, all courts have possessed the right of interpreting the Constitution and I do not think that there is any question of principle involved in withdrawing this jurisdiction from the ordinary courts. On the contrary I think that our entire Constitution is based upon the idea that every court is competent to decide this question. I know that in certain countries, there are different courts for dealing with the constitution, for dealing with the administration etc. In France, for example, there are droit administrative courts which are competent to decide each and every question. In fact, my complaint is that we are seeking to depart from the fundamental principles of the administration of justice as it has been and will be vogue till this proposed amendment will come into force. I deprecate the principle of pecuniary jurisdiction and special jurisdiction courts. How can one justify the wrong principle that if the dispute involves greater amounts, then the court dealing with it should have greater jurisdiction and should be more competent? I think this is a very pernicious principle. We have guaranteed equal opportunities and equality before the law to every person in this country and it is but meet that we should see that every litigant in this country gets full justice in the most competent court. It is said that the subordinate courts are not competent to interpret this Constitution, but we have started with the guarantee, with the postulate, that every court should be competent, and we have guaranteed that every person should have the fullest opportunity, of getting justice. When such is the case, it is unfair to say that the High Court and the High Court alone is the appropriate place where this Constitution should be interpreted. Now, Sir, apart from this, this question of interpretation will arise in two classes of cases. One class is between Government and Government, where both parties to the dispute can engage the best of counsels and incur any amount of expenses and the case may be decided by the High Court or by the Supreme Court. The second class of cases is between private parties. If it is a small case involving hundred rupees or less, the parties will go to the court little knowing what the Constitution is, little knowing what a substantial question of law is. A party to the dispute may be met by the other party with the plea that the case involves an interpretation of the Constitution, involves a substantial question of law. In that case, the court will have no option but to refer the case to the High Court. Supposing the other party does not raise this question, then the Court itself may raise this question and send it on to the High Court, even though both the parties to the dispute may not desire to take the case to the High Court. In that case they shall have to go to the High Court which will involve them in more expenses by way of engaging counsels, etc., than in ordinary courts. Looking at the question from all these points I consider that this compulsory reference to the High Court is certainly not calculated to bring about the administration of justice in a less expensive manner to the ordinary litigant.
