Vol. 15 · pages 21–25

(1) * FOREIGN EXCHANGE REGULATION (AMENDMENT) BILL Mr. Speaker: Motion moved. “That the Bill to amend the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, be taken into consideration.” What has the Law Member to say about the position regarding the expression ‘ British India’? The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar (Minister for Law): I thought I would speak when the amendment was being moved, in reply to it. If you so desire, I shall explain the position. Mr. Speaker: Yes, because it would save time. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Sir, we have got what is called an Existing Laws Adaptation Order in which certain terms are defined. In that order the term ‘British India’ is defined and is defined to mean ‘all the Provinces of British India’. It is therefore open to the House to include in this particular Bill either of the two phrases which under the Adaptation Order mean the same thing. We could either use ‘British India’ or we could use ‘all the provinces of India’ which would mean one and the same thing. The question of these two alternatives and as to which of them we should adopt really has to be determined by the phraseology which has been used in the main Bill to which this Bill is merely an amendment. In the original Bill dealing with foreign exchange regulation, the term used is ‘British India’ and my submission is that if this amendment is to be intelligible it must use common phraseology which is ‘British India’. * Constituted Assembly (Legislative) Debates, hereinafter called C. A. (Leg.) D. Vol. I, 20th November 1947, p. 357.

6 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES There is nothing to be lost, everything to be gained, by using the same phraseology. The amendment which is tabled is purely sentimental in my judgment and wishes to avoid the word ‘British’ from the text of the law. Shri K. Santhanam (Madras : General): Not at all, The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : My submission is that in view of the necessity for uniformity between the main Act and the amending Act we should adopt the same pharaseology which has been used in the main Act. Mr. R. K. Sidhwa (C. P. and Berar : General): May I know whether there is any legal difficulty if the word ‘British’ is omitted? Mr. Speaker: That is exactly what the Law Member has pointed out. Without going into the merits of the case, and looking prima facie into what the Law Member has said, I shall curtail the discussion by saying that I refuse to give my leave to this amendment.

7PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (2) * APPOINTMENT OF STATUTORY LAW REVISION COMMITTEE * The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar (Minister for Law): Mr. Chairman, I may at once say that the object of the Mover is quite laudable and that he has my full sympathy in the Motion that he has made. Sir, there is no doubt that periodical revisions of law in a modern society is an absolute necessity. When a popular Legislature engages itself in the task of legislation, touching every aspect of the society which it governs, there are bound to be created certain problems, which it is necessary for some expert legal body to examine and to rectify. First of all, it happens that a draftsman in order to put an idea in the form of a law suggests certain phraseology, which he thinks is appropriate and complete enough to embody the intention of the Legislature. In a certain stage the Judiciary and the Members of the profession find that the phraseology used by the draftsman is mistaken and does not carry the intent which the Legislature had. That problem therefore becomes a problem which somebody has got to look into and rectify to bring it in consonance with the original intention. It often happens that when a Legislature is engaged in of course of legislation over an extensive period certain inconsistencies unconciously creep in. It is not always possible either for the draftsman or for the legislature to examine every piece of legislation that is brought before it with a view to find out whether that piece of legislation is consistent with other legislation which has preceeded it. Therefore in course of time these inconsistencies accumulate. They trouble lawyers, they trouble judges and they also trouble the litigating public. It also often happens that in modern time when a legislature is so busy that it is unable * C.A. (Leg.) D., Vol. II, 2nd December 1947, p. 1103-05.

8 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES 4-00 p.m. to give the whole of its time to codifying the whole of the law on a particular subject it tries to discharge its responsibilities by undertaking what we call fragmentary and piecemeal legislation. This accumulation of piecemeal and fragmentary legislation again in course of time creates a problem. People cannot understand what the law is and consequently a problem of codifications arises. Therefore, it needs no special pleading to suggest that a Statute Law Revision Committee is necessary. I think the Government of India long ago accepted the necessity of having a Statute Law Revision Committee. In fact as soon as the Montagu-Chelmsford reforms came into operation and when it was found that there was a popular legislature and that popular legislature was more likely to undertake legislation of social reform than the previous legislatur had been likely to do, the Government of India pari passau and simultaneously with the introduction of the Montagu-Chelmsford reforms introduced and established what was called a Statutory Law Revision Committee in 1921. Therefore there is no difficulty in my accepting the underlying purpose which my honourable Friend Sir Hari Singh Gour has in mind, namely, that there should be a Statute Law Revision Committee. The only point of difference between him and me is whether we should forthwith proceed to establish a Statute Law Revision Committee that he has in mind or whether we should leave the matter to Government to think about the most appropriate time and the most appropriate machinery which could carry out the purpose which both he and myself have in mind. In regard to the Statutory Law Revision Committee of the type that was set up in 1921, I should like to inform the House of the work that it did and whether it could not have done something better. The Statute Law Revision Committee was appointed in 1921 and lasted up to 1932, After 1932 it died ; whether it died a natural death or an unnatural death is not a matter which I propose to disquisition about. But I should like to tell the House that during these eleven years that the Committee was in session from time to time, the work that it did was the codification of the Merchant Shipping Act, the Criminal Tribes Act, the Indian Succession Act, the