Question

Higher courts are reluctant to review a lower court's factual findings. Should this be so? Would appeals be fairer if appellate courts reviewed everything?

Answer 1

Reviewing the factual findings of every case shall only result in increasing the activity of the Supreme court, which shall be more often or not, repetitive in nature. There are definite reasons for which this role is given to the lower courts. If the Supreme court is to review lower court’s factual findings in every case, then the significance of the lower courts is completely lost. The lower courts are the sub-bodies of the Supreme court itself and are hence in line with the maintenance of overall legal structure of the Country. While the parties who do not get favorable verdicts in the lower courts can appeal to the higher courts of the Country, reviewing the factual findings of each of these case shall make the entire legal procedure of law and justice highly time-consuming and possibly adding to more chaos on the results of the findings that have been already dealt in detail in the lower courts.

No matter how reluctant the Supreme court is, to review a lower court’s factual findings, it shall still intervene if convinced that the reasonable factual basis did not take place during the trial procedures that must have taken place in the lower court; or in the scenario where the reflection is clear that such findings are improper. Hence, fair chance is certain given to the parties in grievance by the Supreme court on case-to-case basis, when it comes to reviewing of court’s factual findings.