E.P. High Court Bar Association

From
Shri Bhagirath Dass,
Hony .Secretary,
E.P. High Court Bar Association[unclear],
Simla.

To
Honble the Law member,
Ministry of Law  Govt of India
New Delhi

Dear Sir,

I have the honour to forward herewith a copy of the unanimous resolution of the East Punjab High Court Bar Association for your favourable consideration in connection with the jurisdiction of the proposed Supreme Court under the draft constitution.

Yours faithfully,

Simla.
Dated 29^th-Dec.1948

[signature]

Hony.Secretary,
E.P.High Court
Bar A[unclear]ssociation.

—-

[a different signature]

Having carefully considered the fourth chapter of the Draft Constitution of India relating to Federal Judicature, the East Punjab High Court Bar Association, Simla, submits the following suggestions for the consideration of the Constituent Assembly of India:-

(1) Civil Appeals. That in the matter of civil appeals to the Supreme Court, the amount ( or value) of the subject matter in dispute should not be raised from ten thousand rupees to twenty thousand rupees, because

(a) The limits of R[unclear]s.10000/- ha[unclear]s been the rule for a long time. The raising of the value of the subject matter of the dispute will be unduly harsh and will deprive a very large number of litigants belonging to middle class of getting their disputes adjudicated by the Supreme Court.

(b) The litigant will no longer have to carry his case to the Privy Council and on the whole expenses in this country will be less than they used to be in England. In view of the reduction[unclear] of expenses consequent upon the location of t he Supreme Court in India, the [unclear] value of the subject matter in dispute should have been reduced rather than increased.

(c) In view of the expectation of a more equitable distribution of wealth in free India, a sum of Rs.10,000/- will be regarded fairly substantial. T[unclear]he present inflation of currency is only a passing phase of our economic life.

(d) While in cases involving disputes of t he value of Rs.5,000/- or less, two appeals and a third Letters Patent Appeal are allowed, there is no reason why in cases of higher value (between Rs.5,000/- and Rs.20,000/-) only one appeal should be allo[unclear]wed.

(2) Criminal Appeals. That it is desirable and expedient to confer criminal appellate jurisdiction on the Supreme Court in the following cases:-

(1) Where a sentence of death is passed or con-firmed by the High Court, whether on appeal by the convicted person or on appeal by the Provincial Government from an order of acquittal (Section 417, Cr.P.C.).

(ii) Where an acquittal on a charge punishable with death is set aside by the High Court on appeal or revision and a retrial is ordered.

NOTE:– In this connection it may be pointed out that in England the Crown has no right to appeal against a finding of acquittal while in this country an appeal against acquittal is provided in Section 417 and a revision is in Section 4[unclear]39 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In all such cases justice requires that the accused person or convict as the case may be should be given a further right of appeal.
The sentence of death is an irrevocable penalty and there is a large body of opinion all over the world against it. Even though it may not be expedient to abolish death penalty, it is very essential that the condemned person should be allowed a right of appeal to the highest Court of the land.The only argument urged against the suggested reform is that it will increase the work of the Supreme Court and will require the appointment of more judges; but this is a consideration which should not weigh with the nation when the question of life or death of a human being is involved.To an individual, his life is of far greater value than any amount of money or property or worldly possessions. The general provision in clause 112 of the D[unclear]raft Code for an appeal by special leave is not enough and appeal as a matter of right should be provided in the above-mentioned cases.

(iii) Where a sentence of transportation for life is passed or maintained by the High Court.

(Notes: 
1.Certain content in the document was unclear or incompletely written. The same has been marked as [unclear].
2.Typographical errors in the original document have been retained to ensure authentic reproduction of the original document.)