Supreme court access in India

The battle over whether military cases should have a clear shot at review by the Supreme Court of India, instead of having to identify of an important point of law, continues to rage. Here's the latest, from The Business Standard:

[The father of a deceased Indian Air Force flying officer] goes on: "Even if an appeal was provided as a matter of right to the Supreme Court from each case of the AFT, can you expect defence personnel or their families from the lower socio-economic strata to approach the Supreme Court? Can they afford litigation or even travel to the highest court of India?"

This question is especially relevant, given that the defence ministry's well-established legal strategy is to appeal at every level against every court decision that goes against the government, regardless of the merits of the case. That obliges the litigant, most often a poor villager living on his pension, to pay travel and lawyer fees that he cannot possibly afford. Meanwhile, the defence ministry uses taxpayer money to hire high-priced lawyers with the mandate to drag on cases endlessly until the litigant either dies or runs out of money. 

Ironically, misinformed sections of the military welcomed the Supreme Court ruling, which they viewed as "quicker justice", stemming from the removal of one level of appeal. Says prominent military lawyer, Navdeep Singh: "Thankfully people are now realising that this judgment snatches away the precious fundamental right to approach the high court, which is available to every citizen. Under the guise of 'quicker justice', soldiers and veterans had been placed without a remedy against a tribunal's judgment. I am glad that the Supreme Court is revisiting the matter." 

Even so, unless and until the apex court reconsiders its earlier judgment, Mr [Gurbax Singh] Dhindsa is left without recourse. His letter rhetorically asks: "When a civilian employee or his family member aggrieved by order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) has a fundamental right to approach the high court and then the Supreme Court, why should the same right be denied to me?" 

"When a civilian employee or his family member has a right to a three tier judicial approach, why do I only have one tier? Do we lose our rights just because of joining the defence services rather than civilian jobs?" 

"Which court should I approach against order of the AFT when my case (like 99.99% cases) does not involve any 'point of law of general public importance'?"