Vol. 15 · pages 281–285

264 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES Dr. Ambedkar : That power exists in section 10(2). Shri Tyagi : Sir, I do not move my amendment. Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava : I beg to move : “In clause 4, in the proposed item (2A) of Part I of the Schedule to the Dentists Act, 1948, omit all the words occurring after ‘March, 1940’. Therefore, as you have recognised all others as dentists on the basis of practise the principle of practise should also apply to these eight or ten mens. Therefore, I would request that this amendment may be accepted. Mr. Deputy Speaker : May I know the reason of the Hon. Minister to this amendment ? Dr. Ambedkar : This clause is a clause which really gives effect to the suggestion made by the West Bengal Government. Personally I myself feel, however much sympathy I may have with my friend Mr. Bhargava, it involves the question of the assessment of the qualification of the dentist as distinguished from a person who makes a denture. I thought he was rather eloquent on the man who makes a denture. A person may make a denture without being a dentist. We are talking of a dentist, which is a very different profession. Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava : But he has got a degree of L.D.Sc. Dr. Ambedkar : The point is this. When the Act was passed, this institution was not deemed to be worthy of recognition. Subsequently there has been a considerable degree of agitation and the West Bengal Government decided to examine the position as to whether any of the persons qualified by tuition in this college were worthy of recognition. They came to the conclusion that before 1940 the standard observed by this institution was some thing which could be considered for the purpose of recognition. But there again they said that although there was a standard maintained it was also known that many boys merely attended and filled in certain terms without learning anything. Therefore, the two additional qualifications were introduced that he should not only have obtained his diploma before 1940 but in the course

265PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES of being a student in that college he should have filled in certain terms. It is to make the qualification a real one, worthy of recognition, that these limitations were put in. I am personally prepared to place myself in the hands of the West Bengal Government who know the matter better, rather than substitute my own judgment, however great sympathy I may feel with the dentists themselves. The Minister of Law (Dr. Ambedkar) : The wording of the article is that “the President may, for the purpose of removing any difficulties, particularly ……….. etc.” “Particularly” does not mean that he has not got the general power. Mr. Speaker : As I have understood the point of order of the hon. Member, apart from the words, “any difficulties” and “particularly”, he seems to construe article 392 as empowering the President to make adaptations only for purpose of transition from the provisions of Government of India Act to the provisions of the Constitution. That is substantially the point. Dr. Ambedkar : That cannot be because it is a wrong construction. The point raised by my hon. Friend is that under article 392 the only power which the President possesses is confined to an adaptation of any section of the Government of India Act, 1935, so as to bring it in line with the provisions of the Constitution. My submission is that that is not correct, because the opening words in article 392 are quite general, namely, “The President may, for the purpose of removing any difficulties” and then “particularly etc.” comes in. Suppose you were to drop the words “particularly in relation to the transition from the provisions of the Government of India Act, 1935, to the provisions of this Constitution” the wording would be “The President may, for the purpose of removing any difficulties, by order direct ………… etc.”.

266 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES (27) * CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE (AMENDMENT) BILL The Minister of Law (Dr. Ambedkar) : I beg to move : “That the Bill further to amend the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, be taken into consideration.” The object of this Bill is three-fold. The first one is to make the Civil Procedure Code applicable throughout India, except in certain areas which are specified in clause 2 of the Bill. As the House will remember, while the Civil Procedure Code extends to what are called Part A states, it does not extend to Part B States. Part B States have, each of them, their own Civil Procedure Code which is although more or less the same as the Civil Procedure Code which operates in Part A States yet it constitutes a separate jurisdiction. The result is that there is a great deal of difficulty in the service of summonses and in the execution of decrees passed by courts in Part A States within the areas covered by the courts of Part B States. Since India has become one under the provisions of our Constitution, it is desirable from the point of view of establishing civil jurisdiction in the matter of suits and processes and execution of decrees that there should be one single Civil Procedure Code. That purpose is achieved by clause 2. The second object of the Bill is that there were certain matters which were not covered by the existing Civil Procedure Code even as it operates in Part A States. For instance, there was no provision for the service of foreign summonses from foreign courts. Again, there was no provision for the execution of decrees passed by civil courts in places to which this Code did not apply. Similarly, the execution of decrees passed by revenue courts in places to which this Code did not apply was also a matter not covered. Similarly, the provision for the * P. D., Vol. 8, Part II, 9th February 1951, pp. 2627-32.

267PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES operation of commissions issued by foreign courts is also not provided for by our present Civil Procedure Code. In order to provide for these matters, there are introduced in this amending Bill clauses 6, 8, 9 and 11 which deal with them. They are by themselves so self-explanatory that I do not think that any observations of mine are necessary to make hon. members understand what is the purport of these new clauses. The most important clause, of course, is clause 12 and it is with regard to it that I propose to offer some remarks. As will be observed, clause 12 substitutes sections 83, 85, 86, 87 and 87B. These sections deal with suits by aliens, by or against foreign Rulers, Ambassadors and Envoys. Now, the only sections in which certain changes have been made are 86 and 87B. So far as section 86 is concerned, it is really the old section 86 with some minor changes. The one change that is proposed to be made in section 86 is in sub-clause (2) (d). It deals with the waiving of a privilege given to the foreign Rulers, namely, that they shall be sued only under certain conditions and subject to the satisfaction of certain procedural rules. The question that has been raised is whether any such person covered by the provisions of section 86 can waive this privilege or whether, notwithstanding the fact that he is prepared to waive such privilege, nonetheless the statutory provision should be gone through. Some courts in India have held that this being a statutory privilege of a procedural character, it is not open to the party to waive it and that a person who wants to sue should follow the particular procedure. Now, it does not seem very right or correct that a person who has been given a privilege should be debarred from taking the benefit of that privilege if he thinks that he does not need or does not want the benefit of that privilege. In order, therefore, to set this matter right, this provision has been introduced which expressly says that a person who has been granted this privilege may waive it if he so desires. The second clause in section 86 which makes a change and to which I wish to draw the attention of the House is subclause (4)(b). We have added to the old categories of privileged persons one more category, namely, the category of a High Commissioner stationed in India. The position of a High

268 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES Commissioner was up to now somewhat of an anomalous character. Is he an Ambassador? What is he? Whom does he represent? Does he carry the privileges as the representative of a foreign ruler does? In order, therefore, again to remove this ambiguity, it has been felt that it would be desirable to include the Ambassador in the category of privileged persons. There are, for instance, within our territory representatives of the Commonwealth who have been called High Commissioners and who from a diplomatic point of view occupy the same position as Ambassadors. Consequently, whatever may be the reason for making this distinction in their designation, factually, they do represent the heads of their Governments and it is, therefore, proper that they also should receive the same kind of consideration which an Ambassador does. The other clause which makes a change in the old section 86, is clause 86, sub-clause (4), sub-clause (c). It says that the privilege granted to the heads of the foreign government, or to their Ambassadors and High Commissioners may also be extended to such members of their retinue and their staff as may be notified by the Government of India by public notification. Here again, from the point of view of international law there does not seem to be any unanimity. One set of international lawyers have held that when you once grant immunity or a privilege to the Ambassador as the representative of a foreign State and you do it on the ground that his little colony is a little bit of his country established here, there is no ground, legally speaking, for making any distinction between the man himself and the agents through whom he operates in this country. There are other international lawyers who have said that such privileges need not be extended to everybody, but a state is free to pick and choose as to whom it shall grant these privileges. Now as this matter is not settled in terms of international law, it is felt that the best course would be for the law to give the power to the Central Government to notify whom it shall extend this privilege. It would be possible under this clause for the Foreign Department of the Government of India to make enquiries as to the practice prevalent in other countries and to make