133. Appellate jurisdiction of Supreme Court in appeals from High Courts in regard to civil matters
(1)An appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from any judgment, decree or final order in a civil proceeding of a High Court in the territory of India if the High Court certifies under article 134A-(a)that the case involves a substantial question of law of general importance; and(b)that in the opinion of the High Court the said question needs to be decided by the Supreme Court.(2)Notwithstanding anything in article 132, any party appealing to the Supreme Court under clause (1) may urge as one of the grounds in such appeal that a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of this Constitution has been wrongly decided.(3)Notwithstanding anything in this article, no appeal shall, unless Parliament by law otherwise provides, lie to the Supreme Court from the judgment, decree or final order of one Judge of a High Court.[Editorial comment-The Constitution (Thirtieth Amendment) Act, 1972, changed the basis for appeals in civil cases before the Supreme Court of India from a value criterion to one based on important legal issues. It came into effect on June 9, 1972. This amendment modified Article 133 of the Constitution and enabled the Law Commission of India to implement the suggestions provided in its 44th and 45th reports on civil appeals to the Supreme Court regarding certificates of fitness. The purpose of this amendment is to require appeals of civil matters to the Supreme Court to raise a substantial question of law in order to be deemed fit for consideration. This change was based on the Law Commission's recommendations and aims to streamline the process for hearing civil appeals in the Supreme Court.Also Refer](https://blog.examarly.com/upsc/30th-amendment-of-indian-constitution/)][Editorial comment-The Constitution (Forty-Fourth Amendment) Act, 1978, repealed Article 19 (1) (f) and also took out Article 31(1) has been taken out of Part III and made a separate Article 300A in Chapter IV of Part XII. This amendment may have taken away the scope of speedy remedy under Article 32 for the violation of Right to Property because it is no more a Fundamental Right. Making it a legal right under the Constitution serves two purposes: Firstly, it gives emphasis to the value of socialism included in the preamble and secondly, in doing so, it conformed to the doctrine of basic structure of the Constitution. Also Refer]
