Vol. 15 · pages 311–315

294 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES a recommendation is obtained, that would meet the requirements of clause (3) of Article 117. But while that is so, I think there is one practical point which must be considered. The House must not readily assume that the President will give his assent or recommendation whenever it is asked. If a financial liability is involved, the President will have to consider the matter in detail and find out whether the financial condition of the country is such as he could agree to take more financial liability. It is possible that the President may refuse his recommendation, in which case the labour spent by the House would be wasted. I think, therefore, there is no harm in adopting or suggesting the rule that whenever there is any bill projected before the house which involves or is likely to involve expenditure from the Consolidated Fund, the House should insist that immediately, before the consideration stage begins, the Member in-charge should produce a recommendation from the President so that the House may be engaged in labours which may ultimately not turn out to be fruitless. Mr. Deputy Speaker: We have heard this point in extenso. I entirely agree with the Hon. the Law Minister in coming to the conclusion that ‘appropriation’ as used in Article 110, Sub-clause (1) (d) is only a term of art and it applies only to cases which are referred to in Article 114. Therefore the provisions do not militate against the provisions of Article 117 (1). Of course, it involves expenditure from the Consolidated Fund and therefore comes within the purview of sub-clause (3) of Article 117. *Mr. Chairman : So far as the word “mechanical” goes it appears the defect must be something relating to the machine. So far as the word “construction” used by Mr. Sidhva goes, it does not look quite opposite. The word “structural” better explains the meaning. At the same time, if both the words are taken away the wording will be merely “defective” which perhaps will be more vague than now. So * P. D., Vol 10, Part II, 18th April 1951, pp. 7006-8.

295PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES far as the powers given in clause 19 are concerned, the wording is, “prescribe the power, duties and functions of the registering authority and the local limits of their jurisdiction.” If a rule can be made that it will be the duty of the registering authority to look into the structure of the ship also, then I think this lacuna may be covered. But I leave that to the House to decide. If the hon. Minister wants to change the wording. I will certainly permit an amendment at this stage. Shri S. C. Samanta (West Bengal): May I suggest that we say, “mechanically or otherwise defective”? Shri Santhanam: You are making it more vague. Pandit Munishwar Datt Upadhyay (Uttar Pradesh): If the word “mechanical” is dropped and only “ defective” remains, then all sorts of defects can be covered by the rules. The Minister of Law (Dr. Ambedkar): May I say a word as it strikes me? I have not seen the Bill and therefore I am speaking from such impression as I have formed. The main object of the Bill is to secure safety. Now, safety depends, so far as I understand it, upon the mechanical structure of the ship and not upon structure in the sense of its shape or size. Therefore a distinction, I think requires to be made between the two, the structural defect which has nothing to do with the ship, and the mechanical defect which has something, in fact greatly, to do with the safety of the ship. The object of the Bill is to secure safety and therefore emphasis must necessarily be laid upon the mechanical side of the ship and not so much upon the structural side. A man may have, for instance, an oblong ship; a ship may be something whose bottom may be very different from the others. Shri Sidhva: That is a defect. Dr. Ambedkar: What I want to know is, what is a structural defect? One man may say, “ From my point of view it is a structural defect. It ought to have been in some other shape.” Another man may say, “ It ought to be of some other shape.” The submission I am going to make is this, that the Bill aims at securing the safety of the passengers; the safety of the passengers essentially, mainly, fundamentally depends

296 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES upon the mechanism of the ship, and therefore what is necessary in the matter of giving a certificate by the surveyor is that he should see whether there is any mechanical defect. That is my submission. Shri Venkataraman: May I ask the Law Minister…… Dr. Ambedkar: This is no question of law. I am only speaking as one of the Members of the House. Shri Hussain Imam: Sometimes structural defects may endanger the safety of passengers. For instance, the railings on the deck may be so low that passengers may fall into the water. Again, if the blades are not properly screened passengers may fall on them and get crushed. Similarly, if the engine room is not properly protected you may have accidents. The word “structural” does not imply any defect in size and shape but should be included for the same purpose on which the Law Minister insists, namely, that it is the safety of passengers that we look to. We must trust our authority to so interpret the statute as not to make it inoperative. I consider “structural” is very essential. Shri Sidhva: My friend Mr. Santhanam said that though my wording did cover the intention still there is vagueness in it, and my Hon. friend Dr. Ambedkar has stated that what we aim at is the safety of passengers. I am also for safety, but he has mixed up shape with safety. My hon. friend. Mr. Hussain Imam has come out with the correct instances. I can tell Mr. Santhanam that some of these shipowners deliberately put the railings very low and as a result many accidents have occurred. An hon. Member: Why put it “deliberately” low? Shri Sidhva: Because it cuts down the costs. The deck Passengers Committee has made structures on this practice. There are many other structural points, for instance, use of bad wood in construction. Those who have experience in this field have spoken in favour of my suggestion. Unfortunately, my friend Dr. Ambedkar…….. Dr. Ambedkar: I have travelled very much……

297PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (29) SUPREME COURT ADVOCATES (PRACTICE IN HIGH COURTS) BILL * The Minister of Law (Dr. Ambedkar): I beg to move : “ That the Bill to authorise advocates of the Supreme Court to practise as of right in any High Court, be taken into consideration.” The Bill is a very simple Bill. The House will realise that we have now in India two different courts—the High Courts and the Supreme Court. The High Courts and the Supreme Court have independent jurisdictions in the matter of enrolling persons who as of right may practise before them. The High courts have their own rules for enrolment—of persons appearing in their courts. The Supreme Court has recently made its rules which are published in the Gazette according to which it is said that a person shall not be entitled to be enrolled as an advocate unless he possesses : (1) (a) a degree in law of an Indian University, or (b) is a member of the English Bar, (2) has been for not less than ten years in the case of a senior advocate or seven years in the case of any other advocate, enrolled as an advocate in a High Court or a Judicial Commissioner’s court in the territory of India. We have, therefore, to-day two different sets of lawyers— one who are enrolled on the roll of the Supreme Court and another set who are enrolled on the roll of the High Courts. But the difficulty is this that those who are enrolled on the roll of the Supreme Court are not entitled to practise in the High Courts unless they are also enrolled on the various High Courts. It is felt that this causes a great deal of difficulty for clients. Let me illustrate the difficulty by a simple example. There is an appeal which comes, say for instance, from the * P. D., Vol 10, Part II, 20th April 1951, pp. 7120-25.

298 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES Madras High Court to the Supreme Court. The client instead of employing a Madras advocate wishes to employ an advocate from U.P. which he is perfectly entitled to do provided of course that the U. P. counsel is enrolled in the Supreme Court. It may however, happen that the matter is not finally disposed of by the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court sends the case back to the original High Court from which it came up, for further evidence, or for the trial of some issues or for taking evidence or something like that. Now, the U. P. lawyer, who was originally engaged in the Supreme Court in the matter which came from Madras, while he can appear in the Supreme Court and conduct the case, argue the case and so on, he cannot be engaged when the case is remitted back to the High Court of Madras, as he is not an advocate of Madras, he is an advocate of U. P. Now this difficulty, it is felt, must be resolved, because it is in the interest of justice not merely in the interest of the client that a lawyer who has spent a large part of his time and energy in studying the case and understanding it should also be in a position to deal with it when it is remitted back to the original court. Well, this difficulty could be solved in two different ways. One way to solve it would be to say that any particular lawyer who has been engaged in a particular case, when that case goes back, that particular lawyer would be entitled to appear in that case. The other is to have a general rule saying that all lawyers and advocates who have been enrolled by the Supreme court shall as of right be entitled to practise in any court. The original idea on which we were proceeding was the limited one. But subsequently on further consideration it was felt that it would be desirable to have a general rule permitting all advocates who are enrolled in the Supreme Court as of right to practise before any High Court, without any further procedure to be undergone. That is what this bill proposes to do. This as I said, is the general principle which the Bill embodies. To this principle, the Bill attaches two exceptions. One exception is this. A lawyer who is enrolled in the Supreme Court shall not automatically be entitled to practise in a High Court on the original side. He may practice on the appellate side without any further enrolment but not on the original