CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY OF INDIA- VOLUME X


Monday, the 10th October 1949

Sir, my purpose in moving these amendments is to give full effect to the provisions that we have already passed, vide article 8. Now, these existing laws can easily be divided into two kinds of laws-laws relating to fundamental, guaranteed rights, and the laws with regard to other matters. I want to make a distinction between these two, and as would appear from the amendments I have proposed, some of them relate only to the guaranteed rights and the other relate to the other laws in force. Now, I take very serious exception to the words-"any such adaptation or modification shall not be questioned in any court of law." And that is why I have proposed these amendments, so that such words may be taken away and such other words substituted as would make the meaning absolutely clear. I am almost despaired of getting the objectionable provision of this section cleared out and I have therefore even proposed that the entire cause (2) be deleted. Sir, I feel full thought has not been given to this matter, I mean as much thought as should have been given to it. If the proposition is accepted as it is, if the proposal of Shri Krishna. machari is carried, the result will be this. Not the legislature, but the Government through its department of law, not the law Member, but the Secretary or clerks will make these adaptations and , modifications and all these adaptations and modifications will never come before any Assembly or Legislature. The substantive law of the land will, ipso facto, by the Executive fiat, be adapted or modified and become the law of the land. The law shall stand modified or adapted and after that, that law becomes so immutable that the courts will not be able to question them. My submission is, we have passed article 8 already which says:

"All laws in force immediately before the commencement of this Constitution in the territory of India, in so far as they are inconsistent with the provisions of this Part, shall to the extent of such inconsistency be void."

Now, all those laws which the Courts are today empowered to declare void are sought to be sanctified and made "pucca" by these adaptations. And it is not in accordance with clause (2) of article 8, which says:

"The State shall not make any law which takes away or abridges the rights conferred by this Part and any law made in contravention of this clause shall, to the extent of the contravention, be void."

What would happen it a modification or adaptation is made which is really in contravention of the clause? That law cannot be questioned, no court will be able to question it, which means in plain English, that what we give by virtue of article 8(2) and 8(1) is being taken away by this back-door method. I do not say that is the desire of those who have framed this proposal, but my humble submission is, that that is the result, that it will result in a situation like that.

Let me just illustrate this point. Take article 13. We have practically changed the definition of sedition, by the provisions made under this article. Under article 13(3) we have put in "reasonable" before "restrictions on the exercise of the right........ and thereby we have given the courts of the country the opportunity to find if the particular laws which are harsh and onerous should be void or not. They come within the purview of the courts' jurisdiction and any court can declare that such and such law is against the letter and the spirit of article 13 and therefore, void. But as soon as the adaptation is made and it will not be something enacted by the legislature, but something done by the Executive.-and if the adaptation fails to carry out the purpose, if it is not in consonance with article 8, no court will have the power or the authority to declare such adaptation to be wrong, which means that we give such power to the Executive as we have not entrusted to the legislature even. If this Parliament, after 26th January, 1950, passes any law in respect of these fundamental rights which abridges the liberty of the people, that can be questioned in a court of law, and

any court of law can say that Parliament was wrong in so far as it contravened the provisions relating to the fundamental rights. If the adaptation is made in such a manner that it does not carry out the full purpose, then we are absolutely helpless. It is said that there is provision that any legislature can take such action as it deems necessary and repeal the law. Quite right. This is so. May I ask if this right is not completely illusory? Where is the Provincial Legislature which will come to the conclusion that the adaptation or modification made by the President is wrong and sit as a court of appeal on the decision of the President, and go ahead to frame the laws afresh? Where is the individual Member who will be given the facilities to bring in the necessary new provisions? We all know how many obstacles there are in the way of those who want to enact a law. My submission is that when once these adaptations or modifications are made, it will be very difficult to change them. Government will not change them. The local legislatures will not change them, and no private member will have the chance of changing them. It means in plain English that these adaptations or modifications will be there for all time, whether they are in accord with the Constitution or not. Who makes the law of the land? The legislature and not the executive or Secretary or Clerk in the office of the law Member. Even if the President were to pass any Ordinance, that Ordinance Will again be placed before the legislature within two months, but so far as these adaptations or modifications are concerned, they will never be placed before the Legislature. Therefore, my submission is that these adaptations will be defective in more ways than one. They will not receive the seal of the Legislature and the courts will not be competent to question those modifications.

Now, Sir, it is said that the first sentence "For the purpose of bringing the provision of any law in force in the territory of India into accord with the provisions of this Constitution" is sufficient guarantee. My submission is that this is no guarantee. My point is that the purpose is there, but what if the purpose is not carried out, if the adaptations or modifications are not good or do not go to the same extent that the Fundamental Rights do? The courts have no power to interfere. If you say, "necessary or expedient" are there, and the courts can go into the question of whether the adaptations are necessary or expedient, my submission is, what is the sense in having these words "shall not be questioned in any court of law"? I understood Mr. Krishnamachari to say that minor things should not be questioned but that only the purpose should be seen. The adaptations can say that for such and such purpose the adaptations are made, but that is not sufficient. The courts will not be able to go into the question of the purpose also. The purpose is there, but there is no guarantee that the adaptations will carry out the purpose. It may be said that such a provision in the shape of section 293 existed in the old Government of India Act of 1935. No doubt that section was there in the Government of India Act; but then the purpose is absolutely different. Here in this Constitution the main change that we have made is that we have given certain Fundamental Rights. In the Act of 1935 there were no Fundamental Rights. I would not care if you make adaptations to the ordinary laws of this country provided you do not touch the rights of the people. You may bring all the laws of the land in accord with the Constitution, but when you go and touch the very delicate rights of the people in general and touch their fundamental rights, then my submission is that the matter becomes of very great importance. In section 293 even these words 'shall not be questioned by any court' do not appear. In the old section 293 you will find that the powers of the courts were not taken away. There the laws were subject to the jurisdiction of the court as before. Now these words have been specifically added that the adaptations

or modifications shall not be called in question in any court of law. My main objection is to these words.

It is a secondary objection, though of equal import, that the executive should not be given the right to adapt these laws. I propose that in regard to these Fundamental Rights, a Committee of Experts should be appointed to go into the question. This will be an important Committee and the best heads of the country should be on it. They will go into all the laws and make a report to the President that he may be pleased to see that such and such Acts are enacted, because the law-making power is that of the Legislature and we cannot delegate this power to any President or any other set of people. After the Committee has reported, the Government will take steps to see that such inconsistent laws are repealed. In this I beg to submit that the authority of the court will not be taken away. It is the essence of these Fundamental Rights that the courts are the ultimate authority and possess ultimate sanctions and jurisdiction. After all, if the courts will not safeguard these rights, what chances are there that the executive will do it ? Really, you are putting the cart before the horse. In section 293 of the Government of India Act such rights were not touched at all. Only the existing laws were taken into consideration; there was no reference to Fundamental Rights and therefore also no taking away of the jurisdiction of the courts. It is possible that the rights guaranteed by article 13 may be so tampered with in the way of adaptations that we will not be able to change them for years to come.

Therefore it seems to me, Sir, that you have only trumpeted to the whole world that you have given these Fundamental Rights. I do not say that the, Law Minister will behave in this manner. I think he will not behave in this manner but he might ask someone in his chamber to go into this matter. I cannot possibly agree to delegate this power to any authority, even including the President or the Law Minister. Let the legislature go into these laws and find out whether adaptations are necessary or not. The executive should not change the law of the land in this manner. Mr. Krishnamachari said that these words are not important. All right, take them away,-and my main objection would go away. Sir, in 1947 we had a Bill before the Assembly in which many old laws were sought to be repealed by the legislature. Why cannot you bring in a Repealing Bill before the Assembly again? In regard to these Fundamental Rights, people will go to court and the court will be able to hold that such and such law is not in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution. Why not give this power to the Courts? If you want to benefit the people, benefit them in a direct manner. As it is, you may abuse your position and bring disaster to the people.

Shri Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar (Madras: General): Mr. President, Sir, a great deal of the criticism of the amendment moved by my Friend, Mr. Krishnamachari, proceeds on an entire misapprehension. It is necessary to have in view what exactly is the object of this clause. Our Constitution has made certain fundamental changes in the structure of the Constitution, in the distribution of powers, in the powers vested in particular authorities, in the relation between the Unit Legislatures and the Central Legislature. At the same time, it is not our object to start afresh our career in legislation, but to take over all the enactments under the previous Constitution subject only to the prohibitions and to any special provisions in the present Constitution. It is necessary to have an idea of the number of Statutes, Ordinances, Acts, subordinate Acts, and rules there have been made in all these twenty years after the first adaptation in the year 1935. If every Act, every rule, and every order, is to be subject to the scrutiny of courts and this adaptation is to be canvassed from court to court, it will no doubt afford plenty of opportunities for lawyers and litigants, but it will not be in the larger interests of

the country. Therefore, in taking over the whole body of legislation to the new Constitution you first provide that that legislation shall continue-to operate unless it is repugnant to the principles of the Constitution.

That is the first principle and having laid that down, it becomes necessary to provide for adaptation. If that adaptation is to be made within the two years when Parliament is overloaded with work in regard to various matters consequent upon the new Constitution, to trouble Parliament with the work of adaptation will be an unwise task. Under those circumstances, what is provided is there will be adaptation by the Government. You need not proceed on the footing that the Governor-General or the President sitting at Delhi is going to make all the adaptations. The Government will be assisted by an expert body. The advisory bodies which my friend suggested may, be utilised for the purpose of making the adaptation, provided they do not become unwieldy and hamper the work of adaptation. 'the adaptation will have to be done quickly in addition to other work which the Constituent Assembly may have to take upon itself soon after the passing of the Constitution in order to bring the Constitution into effect.

Before I make my comment upon the article as put forward before the House, it is necessary to have in mind what exactly section 293 of the Government of India Act which has been adapted in this article 283 provides. Under the section 293, His Majesty was given the power of adaptation. No limit of time was imposed. The President of the Drafting Committee who was responsible for putting the limitation of these two years thought that a power for an indefinite length of time should not be vested in the President. It must be expedited and the adaptation must be finished within two years. Therefore the limit of two years was placed. Under section 293, the question came up before the Federa Court in the very first case after the new Constitution of 1935 whether an adaptation can be questioned in a court of law. Sir Maurice Gwyer, the then Chief Justice, delivering the judgment in the U.P. Cantonment Case stated that adaptation could not be questioned at all. We put a limitation in the present article in the opening words, "for the purpose of bringing the provisions of any law enforced in the territory of India in accord with the provisions of this Constitution." It is only for that purpose that this power is to be exercised by the President. This is a very necessary, wholesome, and salutary provision. With my experience in courts in regard to other provisions and bye-laws, I am bold enough to state that there is a general tendency to attack every rule and every Act, and I can say that this provision is most wholesome and salutary. Instead of leaving it to the Supreme Court or Federal Court again to deal with the point whether Sir Maurice Gwyer's decision is to be followed or not or whether some dissenting opinion expressed in the Lahore High Court is to be followed, the position is made clear that the adaptation shall not be questioned in a court of law. It was advisedly, deliberately put in in order to prevent frivolous, immaterial objections being taken. But if the adaptation is so alien to the main provisions of the Constitution to the very purpose of the Constitution, then the court will have the necessary jurisdiction to hold the adaptation invalid. It does not mean that every bye-law, every clause, every sub-clause, every expression, has to be canvassed in the court of law. If the main purpose is kept in view and if the adaptation is not alien to the purpose, it shall not be questioned in a court.

After all, the adaptation is not immutable. It is subject to the intervention of the legislature. If the legislature is vigilant, and sensitive to public opinion as to scrutinise every adaptation, I think there is nothing to prevent it from passing a law when an adaptation is not in accordance with the spirit of the Constitution. We are proceeding on the assumption that the legislature is quite alive to its

duty, it is very vigilant, very capable, hard- working, and with the host of lawyers in the country who will surely canvass every bye-law and with a large public who are likely to be affected by it, there is no danger of its not being noticed by the vigilant public or equally vigilant lawyers or equally vigilant legislators. The legislators will be on the watch. The lawyers will be on the watch and the courts are sure to find any lacuna in legislation. Under these circumstances, I submit this is the most salutary provision. Already there is great criti cism that the Constitution itself is intended for the benefit of lawyers. The provision in the Constitution that adaptation of the Constitution shall not be questioned in court is a most wholesome one.

Regarding the power of the legislature to intervene, it can do so at any moment. The provision does not stand in the way of the President constituting. a body of able advisers like my Friend, Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava who certainly will have the public spirit to assist the President in making the necessary modification and at the same time, as a temporary phase it enables the President to make the necessary adaptation. Unless the President is mad or his Cabinet is mad, they will not violate Fundamental Rights. Of course, here and. there in respect of a particular clause, it is possible that the legislature may take a different view, but if there is a tenable ground, the legislature can look after it and it will be competent for the Government or the parties concerned to ,alter that provision. Under these circumstances, I am sorry that this provision should be taken exception to,

Mr. President: It is suggested that we should meet in the afternoon, so that we might make more progress. So we shall sit again at 4 o'clock.

The Assembly then adjourned for lunch till 4 P.M.

The Assembly re-assembled after lunch at 4 P.M., Mr. President (The Honourable Dr. Rajendra Prasad) in the Chair.

Shri Biswanath Dag (Orissa: General). Sir, the proposed amendmentfollows very closely the Government of India Act of 1935. If at all there isany difference, it is on the side of stringency. In the Act of 1935, as adapted,this section-I mean section 293-was omitted. We have naturally a right to expect an explanation why this omission was made and why a departure has now been felt necessary in this regard.

Sir, my honourable Friend, Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava, has clearly stated his objections. Most of those are our objections. My honourable Friend, Shri Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar, representing the Drafting Committee, treated us to some homilies. He stated that the power of the Legislature has not been taken away by this amendment. I want to ask him whether it is necessary that an eminent lawyer like him to explain these elementary principles to us, as it' the Members of the Assembly do not know that tinder a system of responsible Government the 'President' means the Cabinet or the Prime Minister himself. Then again he stated that it is in consonance with the spirit of section 293 that the Orders in Council were being issued by the British Cabinet. When you were trusting the British Government, why cannot you trust your own Government? If at all there is any element of' distrust, I say that the boot is on tile other leg. So, it is unfair and unfortunate to state that we want a change in the section merely because we do not trust the Ministry. It is not a question of our trusting the Ministry. What has been proposed in this article is that the Honourable Dr. Ambedkar, the Chairman of the Drafting Committee, will transfer all the powers of the Legislature to the Honourable Dr. Ambedkar, the Law Minister of India. Here again we would not probably have so much bother, it' lie or his Cabinet handled the whole question themselves. Sir, it is a well known fact that Cabinet Ministers are busy-bodies. It is not possible for them to go closely through all the Acts that have to be adapted in this regard.

While discussing this question we have to keep two or three things in view. The first thing

is that you have in the Constitution the Fundamental Rights which, were never contemplated; nor were they conceived in the Act of 1935 and much less thought of by the British Government or the British Cabinet. Secondly you have barred the Jurisdiction of' the courts by a specific provision in the Constitution. A point has been made out by our Friend, Shri Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar, that it is the judicial pronouncement of the highest court. I must tell him again-as I have already suited that my confidence in the pronouncements of the British judiciary under a system of imperial administration is not as it would be under the pronouncement of a free judiciary in a free India. Until that is done I must plead with him and with the honourable Members of this House that my confidence in the judiciary will be within its limitations.

Sir, a period of limitation of two years has been laid down-I do not known, for what reason. The enormous powers that ire vested in the Executive are not at all desirable. When my honourable Friend Shri Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar was thrusting his homilies on us to trust the executive, it took my breath away. I hardly expected that an eminent jurist and lawyer as he would teach me about our confidence in our Executive. I would plead with him to carry his logic further. By all means have all confidence. Why then have any law? Leave everything to the administration. Have no laws at all. Have no constitution; no Fundamental Rights are called for because we have it responsible Government and a popular Ministry. This is hardly expected of a very wise and sound jurist of his eminence.

Sir, I must complain in this connection that the Government have not placed all their cards before us. I do realise the fact that the Government is not represented here and the Members of Government are here in their capacity as Members of the House. But it is no doubt a fact that Dr. Ambedkar is also the Law Minister of India, and it is his responsibility and duty to explain to us what steps he has taken tip till now in this regard. This is, a very big order that he wants to be given to him. There ire thousands of laws, Central and Provincial in operation, including the Regulations passed by the British Government. All these have to continue in operation. Is it possible for ordinary Members, I ask, to undertake the private legislation to modify all these? What has been done by the Ministry of Law? I plead again with the Drafting Committee that the position they have taken so far, as also the action taken by the Law Ministry so far in this regard has not been helpful. My Honourable Friends have made various suggestions.

Mr. President: What is the kind of action which you expect from the Law Ministry on this subject?

Shri Biswanath Das: I am coming to it. In fact I will be failing in my duty if I do not state it and I will iterate. The British Government, before any adaptations were undertaken asked the Government of India and the Law Department of the Government of India to examine all the necessary Statutes. The Government of India were suggesting adaptations and the adaptations suggested by the Law Ministry, then, the Law Department of the Government of India, were being approved and published as the adaptations of the British Government in an Order-in-Council. My complaint in this regard is that neither the Law Department nor the office of tile Constituent Assembly have moved an inch in this regard. I expect that they should have kept ready the adaptations and examined the laws in operation.

Mr. President: Without knowing what the Constitution is going to be'.

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar (Bombay: General): My Friend is thoroughly misinformed. He does not know what is being done.

Shri Biswanath Das: I will be glad if I am misinformed and I will be glad If all this has been done. In which case, my Honourable Friend ought to have placed the whole thing at least by this time-as I said and I repeat-all the cards on the table, and said "I have got them ready, give me the order and I will publish." I do

not agree with those who think that consultations with Chief Justice will improve the matter nor do I agree with those honourable friends who feel that reactions are to be placed before Parliament . The adaptations under the Indian Independence Act were placed before Parliament. but to what effect? Where has the legislature time for private Members to undertake this stupendous task? Under these circumstances, placing of adaptations for the reactions of Parliament will not help.

Another proposal has been placed before honourable Members and that is an Expert Committee. That would be certainly useful and helpful. But I would suggest that we are giving a big order and placing very responsible power and authority with the Executive. Therefore, I think it will be fair to the Legislature also if some of the eminent jurists, who happen to be Members of the Legislature, are constituted into a Committee to place recommendations before the Law Ministry so that the Ministry gives them merely legal shape. It should be the responsibility of the Law Ministry to put them into legal form. I am not inclined to place all other powers, importance and responsibility as they are, in the hands of the Executive. In this view of the question, for myself[ will be fully satisfied if the Honourable the Law Minister or the Drafting Committee say that they are willing and anxious to have an Expert Committee of the Constituent Assembly and the Legislature examines all the laws, and if necessary, asks the Provincial Governments to undertake examination of all the laws and all the adaptations to be put together. It would be unthinkable after responsible Government in a free India to have laws irresponsible in themselves and most of which are out of date and at antediluvian and which do not suit the present-day needs of the people to co-exist and operate. In these circumstances, I plead with the Drafting Committee and also with the honourable Members of the Constituent Assembly to consider this important question.

An Honourable Member: The question may now be put.

Shri Rohini Kumar Chaudhuri: Sir, after listening to this debate carefully, I am inclined to support the view expressed by my honourable Friend, Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava. It seems rather preposterous that if a Legislature passes any provision which is inconsistent with the Constitution then any one aggrieved by that would be entitled to bring that fact to the notice of the Court and the Court will not be precluded from considering that question. Supposing any legislation was passed which was inconsistent with any of the Fundamental Rights of the Constitution, then it was up to anybody to move the Court to have that legislation declared illegal and void. It seems rather strange when a similar order or provision was made by the President by virtue of the power of his adaptation and modification-which was inconsistent with the Constitution, we could have no remedy in a court of law. I thought, Sir, there it was not necessary to abrogate this new provision because so long as the adaptation order was inconsistent with any provision of the Constitution, the lower court would have full jurisdiction. But my honourable Friend, Shri Alladi says that in a recent ruling the Federal Court has held that any suit brought to set aside or to declare an adaptation invalid would be out of court. Therefore, Sir, I consider it would be safe and in the interests of all concerned that an amendment of the nature which has been proposed by Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava should be accepted.

I would also like to say that the period of two years prescribed by this article' is rather too long. If such a period is there, in some instances the President or his advisers may not taken steps as early as they should. In my opinion, immediate action would be necessary after the passing of the Constitution so far as administration of justice in the tribal areas is concerned. It will be within the recollection of the House that in paragraph 5 of Schedule VI, certain provisions have been laid down on the strength of

which the Code of Civil Procedure and the Code of Criminal Procedure could be made enforceable in the tribal areas.

But honourable Members will be surprised to learn that even though there may be a litigation between persons who do not belong to the tribal community, in areas which are not inhabited by tribal people at all, but are within the juris diction of the hill area, the Code of Civil Procedure and the Code of Criminal Procedure are not in force, For instance, there any Assistant to Deputy Com- missioner who may not have any legal academical qualifications is competent to punish an accused with any sentence up to seven years; and under the present rules if the sentence is more than three years then only an appeal can be field.

Otherwise, there is no right of appeal. I regard to other matters also, the Civil Procedure Code or the Criminal Procedure Code is not in force. It has been laid down that the courts will be guided by the spirit of the Code of Civil Procedure or the spirit of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This spirit, Sir, it has been very difficult to find at all. Sometimes, the spirit of the Criminal Procedure Code is interpreted in not following the Criminal Procedure at all; sometimes it is interpreted in following the Criminal Procedure Code strictly. Even if my honourable Friend. Dr. Ambedkar of Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar had been practising in these bills, they would have found it difficult to see where the spirit of the Civil Procedure Code or the spirit of the Criminal Procedure Code lay. Under this paragraph, it is within the competence of the Governor to declare that the Criminal Procedure Code will be enforced in respect of the trial of offences which involve a sentence of imprisonment of five years or more, or transportation or capital sentence. But, unless the law is adapted immediately, this provision of the Constitution will remain merely as a dead letter. This is a very small mercy. Just for a moment, fancy that anybody living in Delhi or Ajmer Merwara being tried, convicted and sentenced to death also without the Criminal Procedure Code being followed. I could have quite this law was applicable in those cases where the indigenous or the tribal people were the parties. But it is not so. Even if it is a case purely between non-tribals or between a tribal and a non-tribal the Criminal procedure Code is not applicable and in that case no legal procedure is followed; at any rate the right of appeal will not be allowed.

I submit that in order to bring the present law in line with those provisions which have given a small mercy in that the Governor may declare certain provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code to be enforced in a particular area in respect of certain cases, steps should be' taken by an amendment or modification of that law so that that law may come into force at an early date. Therefore, I welcome this article which allows an alteration or modification of the existing law so as to bring it in line with the provisions of the Constitution. At the same time, we must be safeguarded against the application of these provisions for adaptation or modification in such a way as may interfere with the fundamental rights given by this Constitution. In such cases of interference, it should be made clear that we should have the right to go to the court, in order to have that adaptation declared invalid. Otherwise, if you leave it at that, in view of the ruling that has been cited, we shall be absolutely powerless to take any step when the President would be pleased to make such an adaptation as would be inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution.

Mr. President: Closure has already been moved. The question is:

That the question be now put."

The motion was adopted.

Shri T. T. Krishnamachari: Mr. President, let me, at the outset apologise to my honourable Friend, Mr. Kamath, who is not here I see, who took objection to a slip of the tongue on my part when I referred to those honourable Members who moved amendments as people who moved amendments.

The House may

recollect that I had tried to anticipate the amendments that were being moved and answer those amendments in advance. The bulk of them, at any rate so far as the amendments moved by my honourable Friends, Mr. Kamath, Mr. Muniswami Pillai, and Prof. Shbibban Lal Saksena, I have attempted to answer in advance. I think that so far as the wording of clause (2) as it now stands is concerned, It is so clear that no mischief can possibly arise out of the wording appearing at the end of that clause, namely, that such modifications and adaptations shall not be questioned in a court of law. Ample pro vision has been made by the opening words which specifically state that the that the adaptation should be made only for the purpose of bringing the provisions of the law in force in the territory of India into accord with the provisions of this Constitution.

It is only this group of amendments which were tabled by my honourable Friend, Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava which probably require some reply. In his amendment No. 188, in which he seeks to substitute clause (2) by another clause, he has failed to understand the purport of clause (2). The purport of' clause (2) is that in so far as it is possible, the machinery at the disposal of the Government would prepare the necessary amount of material for adaptations to be made which will, in all probability, be published as an Order by the Pressident immediately after the Constitution is promulgated. That would be necessary 'because there will be a number of details, minor in some cases, of a different character in certain other cases which will have to be dealt with in order to bring the laws in force in tune with the provisions of the Constitution.

In the amendment proposed by my honourable Friend, he suggests that a committee should be appointed and that that committee should report within a period of eight months, and that action should be taken later on. What is to happen in the period between the time of the promulgation of the Constitution and the eight months that will naturally elapse until the committee reports? It is obviously impossible that any such thing could possibly be done, if actually the laws that are in force are to be brought in tune with the provisions of this Constitution. As I said in my remarks at the time of moving these amendments, there is nothing to prevent the Government, to prevent the Parliament, from passing a resolution, or prevent the Government from taking the initiative in this matter and appointing a Committee to review the law structure in this country and modernise it and bring it in tune with the principles that are adumbrated in this Constitution. I think my honourable Friend, Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava must wait until the new Constitution is promulgated and either by means of a Bill or by means of a Resolution get the Government to move in the matter, on the lines that he has suggested.

So far as his amendment to clause (3) is concerned, the amendment is such that it takes away the guarantee that is provided in clause (3) of the amendment moved by me. What he has done is merely he has sought to incorporate in his suggested amendment to clause (3) what he had originally thought of moving as a separate article 307-A. The idea that he had when he framed the amendment that he wanted to move as a new article 307-A has been incorporated in clause (3), namely, that something must be done in regard to the fundamental rights, and the question of relating the laws of this country in tune with the fundamental rights.

I therefore feel that my honourable Friend, Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava who is known to this House as a lawyer of considerable eminence and who puts in a lot of hard work in helping this Constitution to be framed has, in this particular instance, allowed his enthusiasm to outrun his usual discretion and tabled an amendment which does not fit in with the particular amendment before the House. It may fit into something else; it may go in as an independent proposition-, but it does not fit in this particular amendment. Because, his amendment No.

188, does not fulfil the purpose of clause (2) of the amendment that I have proposed and his amendment No. 189 does not fulfil the purpose of clause (3), that......

Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava: So far as the amendment relating to the proposed clause (3) is concerned. it is a separate thing altogether It is not an amendment to clause (2)

Shri T. T. Krishnamachari: Actually, his amendment No. 189 says---

"That in amendment No.2 for the proposed clause(3) the following be substituted."

I feel that it is not a substitution because it bears no relation whatever to the provisions of clause (3) as I have moved it, and I think there is no mystery about it because the wording of clause (3) is very clear. The wording seeks to empower the President to make adaptations only for a period of two years.

Pandit Thakur Das Bhargaya: It is an amendment to the original article.

Shri T. T. Krishnamachari: Then I stand corrected. If my honourable Friend has brought an amendment at 9-35 A.M. today which is something apart from the amendment, which is on the Order Paper, I am afraid that I must withdraw all the remarks that I have made and merely plead that since the thing bears no relation to the amendment 'hat I have moved, I am unable to furnish a reply and the proper authority probably to give a reply will have to be the Honourable Minister for Law of the Government of India or the Law Minister of the Government of India as it is to be after the 26th January. I feel that the article 307 as amended by the amendments proposed by me fulfils a definite purpose which has been amply justified by the learned arguments furnished by my honourable Friend and colleague, Mr. Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar, and the House would therefore do well to accept his argument in support of this proposal and I would therefore request the House to accept my amendment and pass article 307 as amended by my amendment.

Shri Amiyo Kumar Ghosh (Bihar: General): I want a clarification of what is really intended to be meant by the words-

" and any such adaptation or modification shall not be questioned in any court of law."

Because if the President amends or modifies any existing law in accordance with what we have passed in the Constitution then his actions ire intra vires and no question of raising the matter in any court of law arises. But if the President does anything which is against the spirit of clause (2), i.e., if he amends, modifies or repeals any existing law which is it variance with or repugnant to the provisions laid down in the Constitution then his action is ultra vires and certainly it can be questioned in a court of law. What class of cases are really contemplated to come within the limitation provided in the last two lines. Clearly, the cases in which the Presidentacts precisely within his power conferred by this article do not come under those two lines mentioned above so there is only one class of cases thatare likely to be governed by the said lines are in Which the President acts in contravention to what is laid down in this article because you have not laid down any procedure or rules for the President to act in matters of amending or modifying the existing laws and so no question of' irregular exercise of Power arises.

Shri T. T. Krishnamachari: My honourable friend his not followed perhaps my imperfect explanation of the provisions. I wanted him to consider the opening words. The opening words justify the interference by a court to see whether the adaptation has been made in accordance with the opening words i.e., for the purpose of bringing the provisions of any law in force. If it is felt by a Court that it is not for that purpose, undoubtedly the adaptation will be ultra vires. If on the other hand it is a matter of merely a question of a different point of view in regard to wording of the adaptation, etc., then it certainly is a matter which we feel ought not to be questioned in any court of law. In any event. nothing would prevent any court from going into the question whether the adaptation was for the purpose

intended by this clause viz., for the purpose of bring ing the provisions of any law in force.We cannot really state in a Constitution what particular matter is to be ultra Vires or intra vires. The purpose has been clearly indicated and I do not think we can go beyond the words contained in this clause.

Shri Amiyo Kumar Ghosh: If the cases of irregular exercise of jurisdiction and the cases in which the President's action is in accordance with this provision do not come under these two-last lines, then certainly there is always a danger of interpreting it so as to include the cases in which the President acts without jurisdiction.

Mr. President: I will now put the amendments to vote. The question is:

"That in amendment No. 2 of List I (Second Week), in the proposed clause (2) of article 307. after the words 'President may' the words 'in consultation with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and the Chief Justices of the High Courts of Bombay, Madras and Bengal' be inserted. "

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. President: No. 134.

The question is:

"That in amendment No. 2 of List I (Second Week), in the proposed clause (2) of article 307, for the words 'repeal or amendment' the words 'alteration or repeal or amendment' be substituted."

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. President: No. 135.

Shri V. 1. Muniswamy Pillay: Sir, I would ask for leave to withdraw my amendment.

The Amendment was by leave of the Assembly withdrawn.

Mr. President: 136. 1 will put the two parts separately.

The question is:

"That in amendment No. 2 of List I in the proposed clause (3) of article 307-

"(i) in sub-clause (a), for the words 'after the expiration of two years from the commencement of this Constitution the words 'after the constitution of the Ministries of the Government of India or of the States as the case may be, after the first general election under this Constitution. be substituted.' "

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. President: The question is:

"That in sub-clause (b), the words 'or other competent authority' be deleted."

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. President: The question is:

"That in amendment No. 2 of List I in sub-caluse (b) of the proposed caluse (3) of article 307 for the words 'repeal or amend' the words 'alter or repeal or amend' be substituted.

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. President: The question is:

"That in amendment No. 2 of List I in the proposed clause (2) of article 307, the word,.'and any such adaptation or modification shall not be questioned in any court of law' be deleted."

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. President: The question is:

"That in amendment No.2 of List I (Second Week), the proposed clause (2) and (3) of article 307 be deleted."

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. President: The question is:

"That in amendment No.2 of List I (Second Week), the proposed clause (2) of article 307, the following be substituted:--

"The President shall, as soon as may be after the commencement of this Constitution, by order, appoint a Committee of experts to examine all the laws in force in the territories of India by whichsoever authority enacted and to report to him within a period of 8 months if any or any portion of the laws in force is inconsistent with the provisions of this Constitution and what adaptations and modifications are necessary to bring into accord the inconsistent portions with the provisions of this Constitution and what adaptations and modifications are necessary to bring into accord the inconsistent portions with the provisions of this Constitution. The Government shall forthwith take steps to repeal or amend such laws or portions of them as are not in accord with the provisions of this Constitution and unless such laws or portions of laws are repealed or amended by being brought within a further period of one year and four months from the date of report in accord with the provisions of this Constitution, they shall cease to be in force unless they are repealed or amended earlier by any competent authority or

declared void by the courts."

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. President: The question is:

"That in amendment No.2 of List I (Second Week), the proposed clause (2) of article 307, the following be substituted:--

(3) For the purpose of bringing the provisions of the laws in force in the territory of India relating to fundamental rights guaranteed by this constitution into accord with the provisions of this Constitution, the President shall, after the commencement of this constitution, appoint, as soon as may be, a Committee of experts to examine the laws in force in the territory of India with instructions to fundamental rights and what adaptations and modifications are necessary to bring such inconsistent laws or portions of laws in accord with the provision of this Constitution. The Government shall, on the receipt of the report forthwith take steps to avoid repeal or amend such laws or portions of them as are not in accord with the guaranteed fundamental rights Such laws or portions of them as are reported to be inconsistent and not in accord with the guaranteed fundamental right shall cease to be in force after one year of the commencement of this Constitution if they are not avoided, repealed or amended earlier."

The amendment was negatived

Mr. President: The question is:

" That in amendment No.2 of List I (Second Week), in the proposed clause (2) of article 307. for the words `made and any such adaptation or modification shall not be questioned in any court of law' the word `made' be substituted."

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. President: The question is:

"That in amendment No. 2 of List I (Second Week), in the proposed clause (2) of article 307, for the words `and any such adaptation or modification shall not be questioned in any court of law' the words `except in so far as they are inconsistent with the provisions of this Constitution' be substituted."

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. President: The question is:

"That in amendment No. 2 of List I (Second Week), in clause (2) of article 307, the words `except on the ground that the law so adapted or modified is not in accord with the provisions of this Constitution' be added at the end."

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. President: The question is:

"That for clause (2) of article 307, the following clauses be substituted:--

(2) For the purpose of bringing the provisions of any law in force in the territory of India into accord with the provisions of this Constitution, the President may by order make such adaptations and modifications of such law, whether by way of repeal or amendment as may be necessary or expedient, and provide that the law shall, as from such date as may be specified in the order, have effect subject to the adaptations and modifications so made, and any such adaptation or modification shall not be questioned in any court of law.

(3) Nothing in clause (2) of this article shall be deemed

(a) to empower the President to make any adaption or modification of any law after the expiration of two years from the commencement of this Constitution; or (b) to prevent any competent legislature or other competent authority to repeal or amend any law adapted or modified by the President under the said clause."

3. That in Explanation I to article 307, the words ` but shall not include an Ordnance promulgated under Section 88 of the Government of India Act, 1935' be added at the end.

4. That in Explanation 11 to article 307, for the word `has' the word `had' be substituted and after the words `continue to have' the word `such' be inserted.

5. That for Explanation III to article 307, the following be substituted:--

Explanation III.- Nothing in this article shall be construed as continuing any temporary law in force beyond the date fixed for its expiration, or the date on which it would have expired if this Constitution had not come into force."

The amendment was adopted.

Mr. President: The question is:

'That article 307, as amended, stand part of the Constitution."

The motion

was adopted.

Article 307, as amended, was added to the Constitution.

Article 308

Mr. President: We go to article 308. Dr. Ambedkar.

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar" Sir, I move:

"That for clause (3) of article 308 the following clause be substituted:

(3) Nothing in this Constitution shall operate to invalidate the exercise of jurisdiction by His Majesty in Council to dispose of appeals and petitions for, or in respect of, any judgment, decree or order of any court within the territory of India in so afar as the exercise of such jurisdiction is authorised by law, and any order of His Majesty in Council made on any such appeal or petition after the commencement of this Constitution shall for all purposes have effect us if it were an order or decree made by the Supreme Court in the exercise of the jurisdiction conferred on such court by this constitution.'"

Also:

"That after clause(3) of article 308, the following new clause be inserted.

'(3a) On and from the date of commencement of this Constitution the jurisdiction of the authority functioning as the Privy Council in a State for the time being specified in Part III of the First Schedule to entertain and dispose of appeals and petitions from or in respect of any judgment, decree or order of any court within that State shall cease, and all appeals and other proceedings pending before the said authority on the said date shall be transferred to, and disposed of, by the Supreme Court.' "

Sir, the purpose of the first amendment is merely to continue the authority of the Privy Council to dispose of certain appeals which might be pending before it under the law which the Constituent Assembly very recently passed- section 4--in case they are not finally disposed of before the 26th January, assuming that to be the date on which this Constitution comes into existence. The important words are--"to dispose of the appeal". There is no power to entertain an appeal. And the other important words are--"such jurisdiction authorised by law", that is to say, references to the recent Act that was passed. The Privy Council will have no other jurisdiction no more jurisdiction than what we have conferred. It has been so arranged by consultation that in all probability, on the date on which this Constitution comes into existence the Privy Council would have disposed of all the cases which had been left to them for disposal under that particular enactment. But it might be that either a case remains part-heard, or case has been disposed of in the sense that the hearing has been closed, but the decree has not been drawn, and in that sense it is pending before them. It was felt that rather than to provide for a transfer of undisposed or part-heard cases to the Supreme Court which would cause a great deal of hardship to litigants, it was desirable, to make an exception to our general rule, that the jurisdiction of the Privy Council will end on the date on which the Constitution comes into existence. That is the main purpose of amendment No. 6.

With regard to amendment No. 7, it is well-known that in some of the India States there are Privy Councils which supervise the judgments of their High Courts, for the reason that they did not recognise the jurisdiction of the Privy Council or rather, the Privy Council of His Majesty in England. They, therefore, had their own Privy Council. Now it is felt that in view of the provision in the Constitution that there should be direct relationship between the Supreme Court and the High Courts in the different States, both in Part III and in Part I, this intermediary institution of a Privy Council of an Indian State in Part III should be statutorily put an end to, so that on the 26th January, all appeals in any State from a High Court in a State in Part III will automatically come up to be disposed of by the Supreme Court.

I am told that these Privy Councils are called by different names in the different States. If that is so, the Drafting Committee proposes to get over that difficulty by having a definition of Privy Council

in our article 306 so as to cover the different nomenclature and variations of these institutions.

Mr. President: Amendments Nos. 138 and 139- Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad.

Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad: Mr. President, Sir, I need not move No. 138 because that means opposition to this clause. With regard to No. 139, it is an amendment of a verbal nature and I shall leave it to the discretion of the Drafting committee.

With regard to clause (3), empowering His Majesty in Council to dispose of appeals and petitions, even after the 26th January, 1950--the date when the Constitution comes into operation--it seem to be some to be somewhat startling. Only the other day we passed an Act in this House transferring all appeals and petitions pending before the Judicial Committee to the Federal Court. There were, however, however certain exceptions. One exception was petition for leave. It was provided that if there was any petition for leave, fixed for hearing during the Michaelmas term which begins form today, in the Privy Council, they may merely grant or refuse leave. So the effect of this was that if the Privy Council did not give any leave, the matter was absolutely concluded and final. But if any leave was given, the Privy Council would not be entitled to hear it further. The further hearing will be held in the Federal Court and later on in the Supreme Court when the Federal Court is converted into the Supreme Court. Then there are certain other matters which may also be taken into consideration by the Privy Council, namely, appeals which have been heard, in which the Judicial Committee has pronounced its judgment, but its final] acceptance by His Majesty has not yet been communicated. In those cases His Majesty would be entitled to accept the recommendations of the Privy Council even after that date.

At the time when the Act was being considered in the House, we were given to understand that there was no appeal which would be pending before the Privy Council from India. The 'only pending matters would be applications for leave, and if the applications are granted, then of course, the matter will be further heard in India. The only petition pending relates to Godse appeals. No other petition is pending. With regard to appeals', there would be nothing pending, except the acceptance of the recommendations of the Judicial Committee by His Majesty himself. But this acceptance by His Majesty is automatic and is never delayed. So there is no need, for clause (C) which is expressed in a needlessly 'wide form. This House has repeatedly asserted that all appeals must henceforth be heard by the Federal Court, but still this old idea seems to linger on in one shape or other, and clause (3) perpetuates that old idea which has been definitely given up by the House. During the arguments Dr. Ambedkar has referred to Section 4 of the recently passed Act. Section 4 of the recently passed Act runs thus:

"Nothing contained in Section 2 shall affect the jurisdiction of His Majesty in Council to dispose of- (a)any Indian appeal or petition on which the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council has before the appointed date delivered judgement, or as the case may be, reported to His Majesty, but which has not been determined by an order in Council of His Majesty;

The appointed day is today, i. e., the 10th October. If any Judgement has been passed before today, i. e., up to yesterday, but His Majesty has not signified his assent thereto the assent may be given. Then we come to clause (b):

"any Indian appeal or petition on which the Judicial Committee has, after hearing he parties, reserved judgment or oder;"

and(c).

"any Indian appeal which has been entered before the appointed day in the list of business of the Judicial Committee for the Michaelmas sittings of the year 1949 and which afterthat day is not directed to be removed therefrom by or under the authority of theJudicial Committee."

So, if any appeal is pending for the present term in the Privy Counciltoday this will be disposed of unless it is directed to be heard in India,

but byvirtue of the Act we have passed, the Privy Council will be bound to direct thetransfer of these appeals to India. But it is well known that no Indian mitters, other than the Godse matter, has been entered in the list. Then we come to clause (d).

"any Indian petition which has been lodged before the appointed day in the Registry of the Privy Council."

That is, petition for leave and other things, will also be merely heard, and special leave may be given or refused. If it is refused, there is an end of the matter. If it is allowed, then also there is an end of the matter, because the matter returns to India.

I submit, therefore, that clause (3) is absolutely too wide and embraces imaginary cases which do not exist. We should have a precise knowledge of what cases are pending before their Lordships of the Privy Council, flow many there are, how many would be automatically transferred after the appointed day, the 10 October, that is, today and if any case would remain. We should have a clear picture of what matters there may possibly be which may be pending before them and which may be disposed of under clause (3) even after the 26th January, 1950, the provisional date on which this Constitution will come into operation. We should really have a clear picture of the existing state of affairs instead of enacting a broad section dealing with all sorts of imaginary and hypothetical cases. I think after the final Independence of India on the 26th January, for these powers to linger in the Judicial Committee would be somewhat extraordinary in view of the Constitution that we have so far adopted and in view of our shedding our Dominion status, and acquiring an Independent status. In these circumstances, Sir, I submit that clause (3) should be deleted and not accepted. The matter should be clearly analysed and the House should be informed as to what are the matters which really might fall within the purview of clause (3). 1 therefore oppose clause (3)until the matter is clarified.

Mr. President: Dr. Deshmukh:

Dr. P. S. Deshmukh: I am not moving my amendment, Sir.

Mr. President: Mr. Shibban Lal Saksena's amendment is for deleting it. You can speak on it after the other amendments have been moved.

Mr. Mahavir Tyagi.

Shri Mahavir Tyagi : I am not moving my amendment, Sir.

Mr. President: Mr. Shibban Lal Saksena, you can speak on it.

Prof. Sibban Lal Saksena: Sir, I beg to move:

"That in amendments, Nos. 6 and 7 of List I (Second Week), the proposed clause (3) be deleted, and the proposed new clause 3(a) be re-numbered as (3)."

Mr. President: It is not necessary to move it. You can speak on it.

Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena: This amendment is for the deletion of a clause only, not of an article. Sir, my objection to this clause (3) is that after the 26th January, I do not want that His Majesty in Council should have anything to do with this country. We shall become a completely free Republic on that day and the provision of this article which contemplates that His Majesty in Council shall be authorised to hear appeals pending on that day is, I think, derogatory to our independence. Objection may be raised that some appeals may be pending and that the litigants concerned will be put to great difficulty, but I want to draw the attention of this House to the footnote on page 153 of the Draft Constitution. In fact, the Drafting Committee themselves had originally under clause (3) of article 308 contemplated that the jurisdiction of the Privy Council shall cease on that date. "On and from the date of commencement of this Constitution the jurisdiction of His Majesty in Council to entertain and dispose of appeals and petitions from or in respect of any decree or order of any court within the territory of India including the jurisdiction in respect of criminal matters exercisable by His Majesty by virtue of His Majesty's prerogative shall cease, and all appeals and other proceedings pending before His Majesty in Council on the said date shall be transferred to, and disposed of, by the Supreme Court."

So in the original article they had themselves contemplated that the jurisdiction of the Privy Council shall cease on the date on which this Constitution will come into force. The footnote says-

"The Committee thinks that all appeals and other proceedings pending before His Majesty in Council shall be finally disposed of by the time the Constitution comes into operation. If, however,some appeals or other proceedings remain pending before His Majesty in Council at the time of the commencement of the Constitution and any difficulty is experienced 'with regard to their transfer to, or disposal by the Supreme Court, the President may pass necessary orders under the 'removal of difficulties' (article 313)."

This is what the Drafting Committee have said in the footnote to the original article 308. 1 do not see that in view of the fact that we have passed article 313, there is any need for this new clause (3) which contemplates that the jurisdiction of the Privy Council may continue even after the 26th January when we will be a free and independent country. I think that we should not disfigure the Constitution by providing for the intervention of the Privy Council even after we have attained full independence. I think there has been some mistake here, because, article 313 is quite sufficient and there is no need for this clause (3) in article 308. Our Constitution should not be disfigured by this clause.

Mr. President: Dr. Ambedkar, would you like to say anything ?

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Sir, I do not think that anything that has been urged in favour of the amendments that have been moved raises any matter of substance. It is a more a matter of sentiment, and I think from the point of view of convenience it is much better that we should have this clause and not feel in any way humiliated in doing it, because even if the Privy Council were to continue to exercise jurisdiction, within the limited terms mentioned in clause (3), it should not be forgotten, and I think my friends who have moved the amendments do seem to have forgotten the fact, that that jurisdiction is not the inherent jurisdiction of the Privy Council but the jurisdiction which this Assembly has conferred upon them. The Privy Council as a matter of fact would be acting as the agent of this Assembly to do a certain amount of necessary and important work. 1, therefore, do not think there is. any cause for feeling any humiliation or that we are really bartering away our independence.

With regard to the point raised by my Friend Prof. Saksena in which he referred to the footnote to article 308. 1 am quite free to confess that on a better consideration, it was found by the Drafting Committee that the removal of difficulties clause may not be properly used for this purpose. In order to remove all doubt, we thought it was better to have a separate clause like this to confer jurisdiction by the Constitution itself.

Mr. President: Then I will put the amendments to vote. There is only one moved by Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena No. 177. The question is :

"That in amendment Nos. 6 and 7 of List I (Second Week), the proposed clause (3) deleted and the proposed new clause (3a) be renumbered as (3)."

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. President : Then I put the amendment moved by Dr. Ambedkar. The question is:

"That for clause (3) of article 308, the following clause be substituted:-

(3) Nothing in this Constitution shall operate to invalidate the exercise of jurisdiction by His Majesty in Council to dispose of appeals and petitions from, or in respect of ; any judgment, decree or order of any court within the territory of India in so far as the exercise of such jurisdiction is authorised by law, and any order of His Majesty in Council made oil any such appeal or petition after the commencement of this Constitution shall for all purposes have effect as if it were an order or decree made by the Supreme Court in the exercise of the jurisdiction conferred on such court by this Constitution'.

The amendment was adopted.

Mr. President: Then

I put amendment No. 7. The question is: "That after clause (3) of article 308, the following new clause be inserted:-

1(3a) On and from the date of commencement of this Constitution the jurisdiction of the authority functioning as the Privy Council in a State for the time being specified in Part III of the First Schedule to entertain and dispose of appeals and petitions from or in respect of any judgment, decree or order of any court within that State shall cease, and all appeals and other proceedings pending before the said authority on the said date shall be transferred to, and disposed of, by the Supreme Court."

The amendment was adopted.

Mr. President : The question is: "That article 308, as amended stand part of the Constitution.'

The motion was adopted.

Article 308, as amended, was added to the Constitution.

Article 310

Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Sir, I move:- "That for article 310, the following be substituted:-

310.(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in clause (2) of article-. 193 of this Constitution, the judges of a High Court in any Province holding office immediately before the date of commencement of this Constitution shall, unless they have elected otherwise, become on that date the judges of the High Court in the corresponding State, and shall thereupon be entitled to such salaries and allowances and to such rights in respect of leave and pensions as are provided for under article 197 of this Constitution in respect of the judges of such High Court.

(2)The judges of a High Court in any Indian State corresponding to any State for the time being specified in Part III of the First Schedule holding office immediately before the date of commencement of this Constitution shall. unless they have elected otherwise, become on that date the judges of the High Court in the State so specified and shall, notwithstanding anything contained in clauses (1) and (2) of article 193 of this Constitution but subject to the proviso to clause (1) of that article, continue to hold office until the expiration of such period as the President may by order determine.

(3)In this article the expression 'judge' does not include an acting judge or an additional judge..,

this article is merely what we used to call a "carry over article" merely carrying over the incumbents to the new offices in the new High Courts if they choose to elect to be appointed.

Mr. President : Amendment No. 88.

Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad: I am not moving 88. 1 shall move 141.

Shri R. K. Sidhva: Mr. President, I move :

"That in amendment No. 87 above, in clause (1) of the proposed article 310, after the word and figure 'article 197' the words 'and Second Schedule' be inserted."

My amendment is a merely verbal one. My object in moving it is this. Reference has been made to article 197 in connection with the salary of the High Court Judges. The salary of the High Court Judges features in Second Schedule and I thought it advisable to mention it along with the article 197. Schedule is an important part of the Constitution, particularly in reference to this article wherein the salaries, allowances and other subjects relating to pensions will be mentioned. Therefore, in order to make it quite clear I have moved that the words "and Second Schedule" may be added to the words "article 197".

Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad: Sir, I move:

"That in amendment No. 8 of List I (Second Week), in clause (1) of the proposed article, 310, for the words 'as are provided for under article 197 of this Constitution in respect of the judges of such High Court' the words as they were entitled to immediately before the said commencement' be substituted."

Clause (1) of this article provides that the Judges of a High Court would on the date on which the Constitution comes into force (provisionally on the 26th of January 1950), shall continue to be Judges of the same High Court.

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : May I draw attention to the fact that this Amendment anticipates Schedule 11 ? This matter is to be dealt with under Schedule 11

and the proper time would be when Schedule 11 is before the House.

Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad: I have carefully considered that also, but the matter would not be fully covered. There the scale of salary of the Judges after the commencement of the Constitution will be provided, but here the matter is entirely different. My amendment says that the pay which they were receiving immediately before the commencement of this Constitution, i.e. on the 25th of January 1950,---they will receive the same pay and enjoy the same conditions from 26th January also. The Schedule deals with the new scale of pay. That is an entirely different matter.

I submit there is no need for clause (1). The only need for this clause so far as I can see, is to justify the reduction of the pay of the existing Judges in an indirect manner. In fact, on the 26th of January, it is clear that even apart from this clause (1) of' article 310, those Judges will continue to be the Judges of the High Court because the same High Court continues. We have not provided for similar continuance in the case of other public servants. Every one who is a public servant on the 25th of January will certainly continue to be the same servant on the 26th of January unless he is meanwhile dismissed or has resigned or' is discharged or is dead. The continuance of his service as a Judge of a High Court from the 25th to the 26th January is automatic and no authority was needed as it is attempted to be given under clause (1). I submit that clause (1) from that point of view is absolutely unnecessary. But it introduces another idea, namely, it is an indirect attempt to reduce the pay of the existing Judges. In fact, so far as the existing Judges are concerned, they have a fixed scale of pay under existing conditions. Even if there was not this clause, they would have been receiving the same pay on and from the 26th January. The real purpose of the clause is to reduce the pay of the existing Judges. I submit that their pay should not be reduced, because they are receiving a particular pay on a contract on which they were appointed. Judges of the High Court are appointed from very good lawers who must be supposed to have been earning a very decent incomes. There were only two conditions attached to the appointment of the High Court Judges, namely, they were to continue in the usual course till they attained the age of sixty, and secondly, they would not be allowed thereafter to practise in the High Court in which they were Judges and courts subordinate thereto. But today we are enacting conditions that their pay would be reduced and, further, on the attainment of the sixtieth year every High Court Judge would be precluded from practising not only 'in the High Court to which he is attached, or the subordinate Courts thereto, but in all other Courts, even outside the purview of that High Court, namely in the High Courts of other States and also in the Supreme Court. This would be breach of contract with them in two respects.

Dr. Bakhshi Tek Chand (East Punjab: General): May I make a suggestion ? Will it not be proper to consider this matter when the Second Schedule is being considered ? Amendment No. 11 to the Second Schedule (which stands in the name of Dr. Ambedkar) covers the case of salaries of the Judges who were appointed on or before the 31st day of October 1948. Instead of dealing with this matter piecemeal, will it not be more convenient to deal with this, amendment when the Second Schedule is taken up? As will be seen from amendment No. 11, it does not deal merely with the salaries of Judges who will be appointed under the New Constitution but also has reference to the salary of judges who had been appointed before that date and will be working in the High Courts on the date of the commencement of this Constitution. If this amendment of Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad is lost, this might affect the amendments to the Schedule.

Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad: If it is proposed to consider this amendment along with amendments to Schedule IV I have no objection. But this is the proper time to

raise the point. As to the contention that if this amendment is lost, the other amendment will also be considered as lost. I do not agree. This is an amendment to save the pay of existing Judges, irrespective of the fact that they were appointed before a certain date. But the loss of this amendment will not mean the loss of the other amendment. As to the suggestion of Dr. Bakhshi Tek Chand that I should move this as an amendment to amendment No. 11, I await your instructions in this matter.

Mr. President: I do not think that the passing of this clause as it is win in any way affect the Schedule. It will not come in the way of the Schedule. In any case, I shall not rule that out on that ground.

Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad: That amendment is that the pay of the Judges who were appointed before a certain date would be saved. But my point was that the pay of Judges as they were on the 25th of January 1950 should be saved. There is a slight difference between this and that amendment of Dr. Ambedkar. I submit that the amendment of Dr. Ambedkar has been sent in after my amendment was circulated. It is really an attempt to remedy the situation to a certain extent, but it does not go far enough, to the extent I wish it to go. Sir, I shall certainly abide by your ruling.

Mr. President : If you like you may table another amendment to cover the point which you have now raised. Does anyone wish to say anything about this ?

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : There is no question of principle here.

Mr. President : There is one amendment moved by Mr. Sidhva; that also is of a verbal character. Shall I put it to vote ?

Shri R. K. Sidhva: I leave it to the Drafting Committee. Mr. President: The question is:

"That for article 310. the following be substituted;-

'310. Provisions as to Judges of High Court (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in clause (2) of article 193 of this Constitution, the judges of a High Court in any Province holding office immediately before the date of commencement of this Constitution shall, unless they have elected otherwise, become ,on that date the judges of the High Court in the corresponding State, and shall thereupon be entitled to such salaries and allowances and to Such rights in respect of leave and pensions as are provided for under article 197 of this Constitution in respect of the judges of such High Court.

(2)The judges of a High Court in any Indian State corresponding to any State for the time being specified in Part III of the First Schedule holding office immediately before the date of commencement of this Constitution shall, 'unless they have elected otherwise, become on that date the judges of the High Court in the State so specified and shall notwithstanding anything contained in clauses (1) and (2) of article 193 of this Constitution but subject to the .proviso to clause (1) of that article, continue to hold office until the expiration of such period as the President may by order determine.

(3)In this article the expression 'judge' does not include an acting judge or an additional Judge."' The motion was adopted.

Article 310 was added to the Constitution.

Article 311

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Sir, I move:

"That for article 31 1, the following article be substituted:-

'311. Provisions as to provisional Parliament of the Union and the Speaker and Deputy Speaker thereof. (1) Until both Houses of Parliament have been duly constituted and summoned to meet for the first session under the provisions of this Constitution, the body functioning as the Constituent Assembly of the Dominion of India immediately before the commencement of this Constitution shall exercise all the powers and perform all the duties conferred by the provisions of this Constitution on Parliament.

Explanation.-For the purposes of this clause, the Constituent Assembly of the Dominion India includes-

(i)the members chosen to represent any State or other territory for which representation is provided under clause (2) of this article, and

(ii)the members chosen to fill casual

vacancies in the said Assembly.

(2)The President may by rules provide for- (a)the representation in the provisional Parliament functioning under clause (1) of this article of any State or other territory which was not represented in the Constituent Assembly of the Dominion of India immediately before the com mencement of this Constitution, (b)the manner in which the representatives of such States or other territories in the provisional Parliament shall be chosen, and (c)the qualifications to be possessed by such representatives.

(3)If a member of the Constituent Assembly of the Dominion of India was on the sixth day of October, 1949, also a member of a House of the Legislature of a Governor's Province or an Indian State, then, as from the date of commencement of this Constitution that person's seat in the said Assembly shall, unless he has ceased to be a member thereof earlier, become vacant, and every such vacancy shall be deemed to be a casual vacancy.

(4) Any person holding office immediately before the commencement of this Constitution as Speaker or Deputy Speaker of the Constituent Assembly when functioning as the Dominion Legislature under the Government of India Act, 1935, shall continue to be the Speaker or, as the case may be, the Deputy Speaker of the provisional Parliament functioning under clause (1) of this article.

Sir, I move:

"That in amendment No. 9 of List I (Second Week), for clause (3) of the proposed article 31 1, the following be substituted:-

(3)If a member of the Constituent Assembly of the Dominion of India was on the sixth day of October, 1949, or thereafter becomes at any time before the commencement of this Constitution a member of a House of the Legislature of a Governor's Province or an Indian State corresponding to any State for the time being specified in Part III of the First Schedule or a minister for any such State, then as from the date of commencement of this Constitution the scat of such member in the Constituent Assembly shall, unless he has ceased to be a member of that Assembly earlier, become vacant and every such vacancy shall be deemed to be a casual vacancy'."

Sir, I move:

"That in amendment No. 9 of List I (Second Week), after clause (3) of the proposed article 31 1, the following new clause be inserted:-

'(3a) Not withstanding that any such vacancy in the Constituent Assembly of the Dominion of India as is mentioned in clause (3) of this article has not occurred under that clause, steps may be taken before the commencement of this Constitution for the filling of such vacancy, but any person chosen before such commencement to fill the vacancy shall not be entitled to take his seat in the said Assembly until after the vacancy has so occurred'."

The object of this clause is that when constituting a provisional Parliament, It is proposed to dispense with what is called double membership.

The other provisions arc merely ancillary.

Shri H. V. Kamath: Sir, I move:

"That in amendment No. 9 of List I (Second Week), in clause (1) of the proposed article 31 1, after the word 'Until' the words 'such time' be inserted. '

Sir, I move:

"That in amendment No. 9 of List I (Second Week). in clause (1) of the proposed article 31 1, the words 'the body functioning as' be deleted."

Sir, I move :

"That in amendment No. 9 of List I (Second Week). in the proposed article.311, for the words 'Constituent Assembly of the Dominion of India' wherever they occur, the words Constituent Assembly of India' be substituted,"

Sir, I move:

"That in amendment No. 9 of List I (Second Week), in clause (1) of the proposed article 31 1, for the words 'immediately before the commencement of this Constitution shall' the words 'shall itself' be substituted."

I shall not move amendment No. 147.

Sir, I move:

"That in amendment No. 9 of List I (Second Week), in clause (2) of the proposed article 31 1, after the word 'rules' the words which shall as far as practicable, conform to those ,adopted by the Constituent Assembly' be inserted."

Sir, I move:

"That in amendment No. 9 of List I (Second Week), in clause (3) of the proposed article 311, after the words 'an Indian State' the words 'or Union of States' be inserted."

Sir, I move:

"That in amendment No. 9 of List I (Second Week), in clause (4) of the proposed article 31 1, the words 'or Deputy Speaker' be deleted."

Sir, I move:

"That in amendment No. 9 of List I (Second Week), in clause (4) of the proposed article 31 1, the words 'or, as the case may be the Deputy Speaker' be deleted."

If the amendments to clause (1), which appear in List 3, Second Week, are acceptable to the House, then this clause would read as follows:

"Until such time as both Houses of Parliament have been duly constituted and summoned to meet for the first session under the provisions of this Constitution', the Constituent Assembly of India shall itself exercise all the powers and perform all the duties conferred by the provisions of this Constitution on Parliament."

The first amendment is a purely verbal one, in that it introduces a change in the phraseology so as to be more in conformity with constitutional language. I feel it is better to say "until such time as both Houses are summoned" instead of saying "until". However, I leave that to the collective wisdom of the Drafting Committee to deal with at the proper stage.

With regard to amendment No. 143, this is partly substantial and partly verbal. I fail to see why this Assembly should be described in this cumbrous fashion-"the body functioning as the Constituent Assembly of the Dominion of India immediately before the commencement of this Constitution. . .-. " The draft of this article as it originally stood was much simpler. In regard to the words "the Constituent Assembly of the Dominion of India", I feel that even here the word "Dominion" could be usefully and rightly omitted. If my honourable Colleagues in this House would turn for a moment to the cover of this book-The Draft Constitution-they will see that the Assembly is described as the "Constituent Assembly of India" and not of the "Dominion of India" I do not know why some honourable Members are fond of using this word 'Dominion' in season and out of season. Where it is of course necessary in legislation it may be used. I have no quarrel with that. Where it can be omitted without detriment to the meaning of a clause or article, I fail to see why we should go on harping on this word Dominion, Dominion, Dominion. The Constituent Assembly, really speaking is that of a free country. Unfortunately or accidentally, circumstances have so conspired in our country that we had to convene a Constituent Assembly before India became completely free. Historically speaking it is only when a country his shaken itself free of foreign yoke that a Constituent Assembly is convened. We have ourselves in the rules made in this House-rules of procedure and standing orders-referred to the Constituent Assembly of India, and the very first rule says : "In these rules, unless the context otherwise requires, the Assembly means the Constituent Assembly of India". So there is no justification or necessity for using the word "dominion" in this context and it may be very reasonably and wisely dropped entirely without detriment to the meaning that the clause is intended to convey.

Then, Sir, the next objection is to the cumbrous verbiage that appears in this clause : "body functioning as the Constituent Assembly of the Dominion of India immediately before the commencement of this Constitution". I do not know why this has been introduced, changing the draft as it stood originally. If my honourable Colleagues turn to article 311, clause (1) as it stood originally, they will see that its description is "the Constituent Assembly of the Dominion of India". I have already stated that the word 'Dominion' should be dropped. Now, I say that this could be more simply described as the Constituent Assembly of India. If the Drafting Committee feels that just because a little more than a hundred seats are going to be declared vacant, this change in the

description of the body is necessary, I feel that they are labouring under a mis apprehension. So long as the body is not dissolved, it continues to be the Constituent Assembly of India. Even if a very large majority of the members resign from the Assembly and whether their places are filled up or not, it is the same old Assembly which has always been called the Constituent Assembly of India. So long as it is not dissolved, it continues to be called in constitutional parlance the Constituent Assembly of India. Therefore, if there is any misapprehension that on the score of the resignation of more than one hundred members, this body must be described in this fashion and not simply as the Constituent Assembly of India, that misapprehension is not at all justified, and we will not be describing the body wrongly if we refer to it merely as the Constituent Assembly of India. Whether a hundred members resign or even more do so, until the commencement of the Constitution, the body continues to be called the Constituent Assembly of India. Therefore by means of amendments 143, 144, and 145 which go together, I seek to simplify the wording and the expression employed in this article in clause (1), so that we will provide for the Constituent Assembly of India itself exercising all the powers and performing all the duties conferred by the provisions of this Constitution on Parliament. Once the Constitution comes into force, then, of course, under tile Constitution, this Assembly will be called the provisional Parliament. Till then, it is not necessary to say "the body functioning as such and such". It is enough for our purposes to say "the Constituent Assembly of India". I hope those members of the Drafting Committee who are fond of using the word "dominion". and of using more words than are necessary for our purpose, will see the force of these amendments of mine and simplify the wording of this clause.

Now, I come to clause (2). I do not propose to move amendment No. 147. 1 shall move only amendment 148:

'That in amendment No. 9 of List I (Second Week), in clause (2) of the proposed article 311, after the word 'rules' the words 'which shall, as far as practicable, conform to those adopted by the Constituent Assembly' be inserted."

Clause (2) refers to certain rules which the President may make for representation in this provisional Parliament, that is to say, when this Assembly is converted into or reconstituted into our provisional Parliament. This clause provides for the representation in the provisional Parliament, of those States or other territories ofIndia so far not represented. The House is aware that the representative fromBhopal has not yet taken his seat in this Assembly though the firman hasgone forth that he should come here as soon as possible. We hope that he or she will be with us during the Third Reading of the Constitution. Hyderabad is still not represented. We do not know whether the steps that have far been taken will fructify so as to enable us to welcome our friends from Hyderabad in this Assembly during the Third Reading. Of course, when this Assembly resolves itself or converts itself into the provisional Parliament, I am sure, the President by Rules will provide for the representation of Hyderabad also in this Assembly. So also, there is the Union of States called Vindhya Pradesh; still unrepresented in this Assembly. During the last session, you, Sir, were good enough to tell us that the Rajpramukh of Vindhya Pradesh and his Chief Minister or Regional Commissioner have been asked by the Secretariat of the Constituent Assembly to take necessary steps for the proper representation of Vindhya Pradesh in this Assembly. I do not know what progress that course of action has made so far as Vindhya Pradesh is concerned. We hope that they will be with us during the next session, the final session of this Assembly. At any rate, I am sure that they will take their places here when the provisional Parliament meets next year. So far, Sir, as regards the States not represented.

Now, this clause (2)

provides for rule-making by the President. The House is very well aware that this Assembly has adopted certain rules with regard to the representation of States and other Units in this Assembly. refer to rule 51 of the Rules of this Assembly which we have adopted, I believe, some time last year. Under Rule 51, we have also adopted a Schedule. That Schedule provides or lays down certain rules in regard to representation of States in this Assembly. My amendment No. 148 refers to the rules made by us and incorporated in this little booklet which has been supplied to all Members by the Secretariat,-the Rules of Procedure and Standing Orders. There are certain rules which have been made, as I said, for the representation of States in this Assembly. My amendment seeks to lay down that as far as possible, as far as practicable, the President's rules shall conform to the rules that this Assembly has already adopted during the last year. It may be, certain circumstances may arise in certain States which may stand in the way of the President conforming to the rules already adopted. 'That is why I have introduced the phrase 'as far as practicable' I hope the Dr. Ambedkar the Drafting Committee and my honourable Colleagues in this House will see their way to accept this amendment because, after all, it pertains to a matter which has already been decided by the House, and I see no reason why, where it is practicable, the President should depart from the Rules which this Assembly has already adopted.

I now come to No. 155 which is more or less a verbal amendment. I think the Drafting Committee has slightly overlooked this part of the subject. In clause (3) reference is made to a Governor's province or in Indian State. The House is aware that we have not merely Indian States but also what are called Union of States. I seek by this amendment of mine to introduce this phrase also so that it would read as follows:-

"Legislature of a Governor's province or Indian State or Union of States."

Madhyabharat and Rajasthan are Unions of States, not merely Indian States. I feel that to be quite correct we must have in addition to 'Indian State' this phrase also 'the Union of States' as well.

Then as regards the draft which reached us this morning of this clause (3)I had no time to send in amendments, but I would like to draw attention ofthe Drafting Committee and the House to the point I raised the day before yesterday in connection with the description of Ministers. In an article which we adopted two days ago Ministers were referred to as Ministers for the Dominion of India. I thought it was an inaccurate and incorrect expression and following that very argument I feel it would be more correct to describe the Minister here as 'Minister of any Indian State' not 'for Indian State

Lastly, in the same clause I would suggest a very minor verbal amendment in the last but one line. The draft reads thus--

"Unless he has ceased to be a member of that Assembly."

I think it would be sufficient to say 'the Assembly' instead of 'that Assembly'. That is purely verbal, and I leave it to the good sense of the Drafting Committee.

Then I come to the last amendments 161 and 162. If these were to be accepted by the House, clause (4) will read as follows:-

Any person holding office immediately before the commencement of this Constitution as Speaker of the Constituent Assembly when functioning as Dominion Legislature under the Government of India Act, 1935, shall continue to be the Speaker of the Provisional Parliament functioning under clause(1) of this article."

I seek to delete the reference to Deputy Speaker. I hope, Sir, that it will not be taken in a personal light or as a personal reflection upon any member of this House. The other day when Dr. Ambedkar introduced new articles with regard to the State Legislatures, one of the clauses of those articles referred to only the Speaker of the Legislature. In that connection I had occasion to point out the omission of the Deputy Speaker. That article referredto merely the Speaker of the

Assembly and the Chairman of the Upper House. I then pointed out the absence of any reference to Deputy Speaker of theLower House and the Deputy Chairman of the Upper House though they are definitely mentioned in the Constitution in the Chapter relating to the State Legislature. Apart from that, even today in several provinces we have got a Deputy Speaker. That is why I sought to insert a reference to Deputy Speaker as well, but Dr. Ambedkar, perched on his high pedestal or in his ivory tower or perhaps because he had a closed mind on the subject-I do not know why-Dr. Ambedkar did not care even to reply to the point raised. But today I find that he has accepted the point raised by me and on the principle of better late than never, I would have gladly agreed to that but the difficulty today is that you have already passed an article two days ago where so far as the interim State Legislatures are concerned only the Speaker is mentioned but not the Deputy Speaker, and to-day an article regarding Parliament comesup and we have reference there in to both the Speaker and Deputy Speaker. If Dr. Ambedkar and the Drafting Committee undertake to revise the articleregarding the transitional State Legislatures so as to mention the Deputy Speaker as well and for the continuance of the Deputy Speaker and the Deputy Chairman for the transitional period, then of course consistency demands that this article also should be passed as it is. But, Dr. Ambedkar is not always very particular about consistency, and he may say that so far as Parliament is concerned he would like to have the Deputy Speaker mentioned because perhaps lie is one of us. But so far as the State Legislature is concerned, 'out of sight out of mind' on that basis he may not be very particular about mentioning the Deputy Speaker of the State Legislature. Any how let us, as far as possible be consistent in whatever we do. If we have Deputy Speaker mentioned here let us mention him in the State Legislature as well and if we do not do so then delete him from this article also. Let us for God's sake, or at least for this House's sake-let us be consistent in these little things. We may not be, so in the bigger things of life. There is no difficulty in being consistent so far as little things are concerned, and therefore I hope that these amendments of mine will commend themselves to the House including Dr. Ambedkar.

The Assembly then adjourned till Ten of the clock on Tuesday,the 11th October 1949.