Vol. 15 · pages 41–45

24 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES which is very much analogous to the provisions contained in clause 6 of this Bill. Section 86 of the Civil Procedure Code relates to a suit against an Indian Prince or a foreign Envoy or any such person occupying the capacity or status of a non-Indian citizen. It is provided by Section 86 of the Civil Procedure Code that no suit against an Indian Prince can proceed unless and until the party suing the Indian Prince secures the consent of the Secretary of State that he may be sued. The object underlying Section 86 is to give the Government of India an opportunity to express an opinion whether they regard the particular Prince who is sued, as entitled to the status of a sovereign Prince. If they think that he is entitled to the status of a sovereign Prince, we issue a certificate that he is a sovereign Prince, and the moment that certificate is issued the matter becomes a political matter and ceases to be justiciable in the ordinary sense and the suit falls through. There is nothing unusual in it. My honourable Friend wants me to state the reason for this somewhat anomalous position which the law recognises not only in this country but in every other country. I could state for his information the reason why this distinction is made. Sir, supposing the Department of a State upon the assumption that a particular Prince is a sovereign Prince deals with him on that basis, and suppose that if the question of his status was left to be decided by an ordinary court of law, where evidence was brought in, and the court came to the conclusion that he was not a Ruling Prince in the sense of a Sovereign Prince, what happens ? We have in a situation like this two conflicting decisions—one decision given by the judiciary and another decision given by the State and both are irreconcilable. In such a situation the execution of a decree becomes absolutely impossible. In England, as my honourable Friend knows, there is no such thing as an Evidence Act, but there is a very well-established rule which the British Judiciary has adopted that in matters of this sort where they are likely to come into conflict with the Political Department

25PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES of the State, they shall not entertain a plea and give a judgment because after all the judgment on a decree of the Judiciary has to be executed by the Department of the State and they do not want themselves to be entangled with the State Department. That, I think, is a very salutary reason why the courts themselves have abnegated the right of exercising any jurisdiction in a matter which is likely to be political. I submit, therefore, that this clause, clause 6, is a very right clause, appropriate, and should remain in the Bill as it is. Mr. Chairman : The question is : “That clause 6 stand part of the Bill.” The motion was adopted. (Clause 6 was added to the Bill.)

26 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES (5) FEDERAL COURT (ENLARGEMENT OF JURISDICTION) BILL * The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar (Minister for Law): Sir, I beg to move for leave to introduce a Bill to provide for the enlargement of the appellate jurisdiction of the Federal Court in Civil cases. Mr. Speaker : The question is : “That leave be granted to introduce a Bill to provide for the enlargement of the appellate jurisdiction of the Federal Court in Civil cases.” The motion was adopted. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Sir, I introduce the Bill. ** FEDERAL COURT (ENLARGEMENT OF JURISDICTION) BILL The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar (Minister for Law): Sir, I move: “That the Bill to provide for the enlargement of the appellate jurisdiction of the Federal court in civil cases be taken into consideration.” The Federal Court as constituted under the Government of India Act as adapted, exercises three kinds of jurisdiction : (a) Original jurisdiction under section 204; (b) Appellate jurisdiction over High Courts under section 205 ; and (c) Advisory jurisdiction under section 213. The present Bill is concerned only with the appellate jurisdiction of the Federal Court. As I said, the appellate * C.A. (Leg.) D., Vol. II, 9th December 1947, p. 1546. ** C.A. (Leg.) D., Vol. II, 11th December 1947, pp. 1708-11.

27PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES jurisdiction of the Federal Court under Section 205 is a very limited jurisdiction. It is confined in the first place only to those cases in which the issue involved is the interpretation of the Constitution, that is to say, the interpretation of the Government of India Act, 1935. Secondly, this limited jurisdiction accrues to the Federal Court, only if the High Court, after deciding a case before it gives a certificate to the effect that a question regarding the interpretation of the Constitution is involved, It is only when these two conditions are satisfied, namely, that there exists an issue relating to the interpretation of the Constitution : and secondly, when the High Court has given a certificate that an appeal can go to the Federal Court under section 205. The result of this limitation is this. All other appeals from the High Court in which questions relating to the interpretation of laws, other than the Constitution or those in which the interpretation of the Constitution is involved but where the High Court has not given a certificate, go directly to the Privy Council without the intervention of the Federal Court. The object of this Bill is to prevent direct passage of appeals from the High Court to the Privy Council. In other words, the aim of the Bill is to make it compulsory that all civil appeals which arise from the judgment or decree of the High Court shall in the first instance go to the Federal Court. The method adopted by the Bill to achieve this object is as follows : What the Bill first does is to fix a day, which is the first of February, and which in the Bill is called “the appointed day”. The next thing that the Bill does is after the appointed day no appeals shall go to the Privy Council directly from the High court unless and until the appeal falls in a category of what is called “a pending appeal”. If an appeal on the first day of February can be described within the terms of this Bill as “a pending appeal” then the appeal shall

28 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES be continued to be heard and decided by the Privy Council. But if on that day the appeal is not “a pending appeal” within the definition of this Bill, then the jurisdiction of the Federal Court extends to such an appeal as the Federal Court gets a right to hear and decide such an appeal. Section 7 of the Bill describes what is “a pending appeal”. Now for this purpose a rough and ready made rule has been adopted in the Bill. The rule is this : that if the records of an appeal are transmitted by the High Court to the Privy Council on the appointed day or before the appointed day, then the appeal is a pending appeal and the Privy Council continues to exercise its jurisdiction to hear such an appeal, although it is a direct appeal. If on the other hand the appeal is in such a state that the records have not been transmitted, then the appeal becomes automatically transferred so to say to the Federal Court and the Federal Court gets the right to hear the appeal. Appeals to the Privy Council go in two different ways. They go under what are called the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code, Sections 109 and 110, which are called appeals by grants or they are appeals where the party have a right to appeal. In addition to that the Privy Council also has got the right to give special leave to appeal and when a party obtains special leave to appeal, such appeals also go to the Privy Council. Appeals which go to the Privy Council directly from the High Court on special leave being granted by the Privy Council, are also dealt with in Section 5 of the Bill. The provision there is this: “Every application to His Majesty in Council for special leave to appeal from a judgment to which this Act applies remaining undisposed of immediately before the appointed day shall on that day stand transferred to the Federal Court by virtue of this Act.” If it is disposed of, that is to say, if it rejected no further question arises. If it is admitted then the Privy Council will be competent to deal with it. But if the Privy Council has not passed any order, then such an appeal shall be deemed to be transferred to the Federal Court and the Federal Court will have the right to dispose of the matter. 12 NOON