Vol. 15 · pages 271–275

255PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (26) * DENTISTS (AMENDMENT) BILL The Minister of Law (Dr. Ambedkar) : As the Hon. the Health Minister is ill, I am asked to take charge of this Bill and I therefore beg to move : “That the Bill to amed the Dentists Act, 1948, be taken into consideration.” The Bill is a very short one and it does not involve any controversial matters. The Dentists Act of 1948 came into force on the 29th of March 1948. It was made applicable to Part A, Part C and Part D States. Under Section 49 of that Act, it is provided that no person shall be entitled to practise dentistry after the 28th March 1950 unless his name appears on a register of dentists which the Act required should be prepared in accordance with the rules contained therein. It was hoped that that register would be ready by the 28th of March 1950. Consequently, the operative portions of this Act were so framed as to come into operation on the 28th March 1950. Unfortunately, this expectation has not been fulfilled. It was reported from various States that the register would not be ready by the 28th March 1950 and consequently it became necessary to extend the period by one year in order to enable the States concerned to prepare the register. As the Parliament was not then sitting, Government issued an Ordinance giving effect to the necessary provision expending the period up to the 28th March 1951. This Bill is intended to convert the Ordinance into law. The main provision therefore is to extend the period for the purpose of preparing the register. Advantage has been taken of the present occasion to amend the law in order to remove some of the difficulties which have been felt in giving effect to the original Act. Firstly, the * P .D. Vol. 4, Part II, 11th August 1950, p. 841.

256 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES original Act contained two provisions. One provision was not to allow any person who was not placed on the register to be employed in Government hospitals. Obviously, it was expected that this provision would become operative after the registers ready. As the registers are not ready, persons who have not been placed on the register by reason-not of their not being qualified, but of the register not being ready would become disabled from holding any office in Government hospitals. Therefore, it has become necessary to extend the period and permit such persons to hold office notwithstanding the fact that they are not placed on the register. Secondly, there is a Dental School in Bengal which used to grant Diplomas in Dentistry. At the time when the Act was passed there was a controversy as to whether the diplomas granted by this Dental School of Bengal should be recognised to enable persons holding diploma to be placed on the register. It was felt that the diplomas granted by the Dental School of Bengal were not sufficiently qualified to place them on the register. There has been considerable agitation by persons holding the diploma granted by the Dental School of Bengal that this disability should be removed. A compromise has been suggested by the Government of West Bengal according to which persons who have received their diploma before the year 1940, subject to certain conditions, may be treated as persons qualified to be entered upon the register. That compromise is also given a place in this Bill. The Bill, therefore, contains three provisions : (1) to extend the period, (2) to permit names of persons holding diplomas of the Dental School of Bengal in certain cirumstances to be placed on the register and (3) to continue the employment of unregistered dentists in the Government hospitals till 1951 until the register is prepared. This is all that the Bill contains and I hope that the House will not find any difficulty in giving its assent to the Bill. Mr. Speaker : motion moved : “That the Bill to amend the Dentists Act, 1948, be taken into consideration.”

257PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES Shri Sidhva (Madhya Pradesh) : First of all I take strong exception to the issue of an ordinance when the House was sitting in the month of March. Dr. Ambedkar : The ordinance was issued some time in May. I wish that the points that were raised by my hon. Friends Mr. Sidhva and Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava had been reserved by them to the time when their amendments were taken up. It becomes somewhat embrassing to reply on matters which would, I have no doubt, be raised again when their amendments are moved. But, I cannot help now having to reply to the points raised by them : I shall do so rather briefly, because I know I shall have to say ………. Mr. Speaker : I do not propose to allow any arguments on the amendments. Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava : I am not going to move any amendment if my hon. friend dose not accept it. Dr. Ambedkar : Mr. Sidhva has raised one or two points. The first point raised was why an Ordinance was made when the House was in session. The answer to that is two-fold. The first is this. The first question that was made to the Government of India in the matter of extension of time for the preparation of the Register came from the Government of Madras, and that too on or about the 15th of March 1950. That mean that only 13 days had been left for the period for the preparation of the roll to expire. That is one reason, the second reason is that after the receipt of this letter from the Government of Madras, informing the Government of India that it was not possible for them to complete the Register, naturally, it was necessary for the Government of India to find out from other States as to whether they were in a position to prepare their list by the date fixed, or whether they too wanted some extension. Naturally, there ensued correspondence between the Government of India and the various other States. That undoubtedly took time, and must take time, with the result that by the time the Government of India had received the replies and was able to assess whether an amendment

258 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES in terms proposed by the Government of Madras was necessary, Parliament had been prorogued. That is the reason why the measure could not be brought up before the recess. The second point raised by my friend Mr. Sidhva was this that he did not see any reason why we should make a statutory provision for the recognition of certain qualifications granted by the Bengal Dental School. According to him that was a matter which by the Act is left to the Dental Council. Now, I think my friend Mr. Sidhva has missed one important point and it is this. The power to grant recognition vested in the Council relates to qualifications or degree granted by schools to existence; but we are dealing with a matter in which degree and diplomas have been granted by a body which has become defunct. Consequently, it is for the Government of the day to decide whether the degree granted by a school giving tuition in dentistry were worthwhile recognition or not. It is not a matter which should be left to the Bengal Council under section 10, sub-clause (2). The word is “grants” which means “is granting at present” and not diplomas which have been granted before. That being so it cannot be a matter which could be left easily to be dealt with by the Dental Council under its power, and if we have to amend the Schedule, then that must be done by the law itself. That is why a legal provision is made in the Bill to cover that particular matter. Now, what I have said with regard to the Bengal Dental School also applies to what my friend Pandit Thakurdas Bhargava said on the very same question. I come now to the points raised by Mr. Kamath. The first point raised by him was more or less of a technical character. If I understood him correctly, he said that the law required that the Register should be ready on the 28th March, 1950, and that if a person was not on the Register, then under the provisions of Section 46 and 49, he incurs certain penalties, while the Ordinance which exempted the person concerned from these penalties came into operation on the 29th May, 1950. There is, therefore, a two months’ period in which a person not being on the Register and continuing to practise or holding office was liable to certain penalties. What