Vol. 15 · pages 46–50

29PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES I should like to tell the House in very concrete terms what this Bill does and what it does not do. I have told the House what this Bill does. I will tell the House now what this Bill does not do. In the first place, it does not abolish appeals to the Privy Council in criminal matters. Criminal matters can still be entertained by the Privy Council from the Judgments of the High Courts. Secondly, it does not abolish appeals to the Privy Council from courts which are not high courts, that is to say, the courts of the Judicial Commissioner of Ajmer-Merwara or of Coorg. Thirdly, it does not abolish appeals to the Privy Council from the judgment of the Federal Court. The House would probably like to know why these deficiencies have been retained in the Bill and why we have not been in a position to provide in this Bill for the complete transfer in all cases, criminal or civil, from the High Court to the Federal Court and From the Federal Court to the Privy Council. The reasons are to be found in certain limitations from which the Dominion Legislature, i.e., the Constituent Assembly (Legislative) suffers. As members of the Assembly would realise we are exercising the powers for enlarging the jurisdiction of the Federal Court, which are given to us by Section 206 of the Government of India Act. If Honourable Members would refer to Section 206 they will see that it is a sort of section which gives constituent powers to this Assembly enabling it to alter the provisions of section 205 of the Government of India Act, 1935. Section 206 says : “(1) The Dominion Legislature may by Act provide that in such civil cases as may be specified in the Act an appeal shall lie to the Federal Court from a judgment, decree or final order of a High Court without any such certificate as aforesaid. (2) If the Dominion Legislature makes such provision as is mentioned in the last preceding sub-section consequential provision may also be made by Act of the Dominion Legislature for the abolition in whole or in part of direct appeals in civil cases from High Courts to His Majesty in Council, either with or without special leave.” Sub-section (3) requires the sanction of the GovernorGeneral.

30 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES Anybody who reads section 206 will find that although the power to amend and enlarge the jurisdiction of the Federal Court is given to this Assembly, it is limited in certain particulars. It is limited to civil cases. Therefore no provision can be made for the abolition of direct appeals in criminal matters. Secondly, it refers to direct appeals, that is to say appeals from the High Court to the Privy Council. The reason why we are not able to abolish appeals from the Federal Court to the Privy Council is because of the existence of Section 208 in the Government of India Act. Section 208 says: (a) that an appeal will lie to His Majesty in council from a decision of the Federal Court, from any judgment of the Federal Court given in the exercise of its original jurisdiction in any dispute which concerns the interpretation of this Act and (b) in any other case, by leave of the Federal Court or of His Majesty in Council. What I wanted to tell the House was that if it was desirable to abolish all appeals to the Privy Council and to enlarge the jurisdiction of the Federal Court in as complete a manner as we want to do for that purpose we would have been required to hold a session of the Constituent Assembly and ask the Constituent Assembly to pass a Bill, which it can do, notwithstanding any limitation in the Government of India Act 1935, for the simple reason that the Constituent Assembly is a sovereign body and is not bound by the provisions of the Government of India Act, 1935. The position of this Legislature which is spoken of as the Dominion Legislature is very different. It is Governed by the Government of India Act of 1935 and therefore it must conform in anything that it wants to do to such provisions of the Act which permit it to do what it wants to do. As I said, the only permissive section which we have in the Government of India Act is Section 206 and we have taken the fullest liberty of this section to enlarge the jurisdiction of the Federal Court to the fullest extent possible. The deficiencies in the Bill I do not think need worry any Members of the Legislature for the simple reason that this Act will be in operation only for a very short time. As soon as our constitution is framed and a passed by the Constituent Assembly, we shall then be in a position to make the amplest provision for the jurisdiction of the Federal Court and to abolish appeals to the Privy Council. For the moment I think the house must be satisfied with what is done under Section 206. Sir, I move.

31PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES Mr. Speaker : Motion moved : “That the Bill to provide for the enlargement of the appellate jurisdiction of the Federal Court in civil cases be taken into consideration.” * The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Sir, I am grateful to the House for having expressed its general satisfaction with this Bill. I will, therefore, deal only with certain points of criticism which have been raised by certain Honourable Members who have taken part in this debate. The first point of criticism relates to what I might call a timidity for my not going the whole hog and abolishing appeals to the Privy Council and conferring the fullest jurisdiction on the Federal Court. I am told that I am making a sort of artificial distinction between this Legislature and the Constituent Assembly and that I am for no reason limiting the powers of this House. I am sure that that is criticism which, to put it mildly, is certainly far from valid. I cannot accept the proposition that this legislature as distinguished from the Constituent Assembly is a completely sovereign body, as complete as the Constituent Assembly itself. It is true that the same members who sit in this House sit in the Constituent Assembly, so that in regard to the personnel there is no distinction. But I have not the slightest doubt in my mind that so far as functions are concerned the two Assemblies are quite different. The function of the Constituent Assembly is to make the constitution and in making that constitution it is bound by nothing except by its own vote. So far as this Assembly is concerned, it is bound by the Government of India Act, 1935 ; that is the constitution which is binding upon this legislature. Except the British Parliament which has both sorts of powers, namely, ordinary legislative powers as well as constituent powers, I do not know of any Assembly anywhere which has got a written constitution which possesses powers to override a constitution which has created that particular legislature. I therefore submit that I am on perfectly strong and stable footing when I say that in carrying * C. A. (Leg.) D., Vol. III, 11th December 1947, pp. 1719-22.

32 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES out the provisions of this Bill we must be bound by the limitations that have been imposed upon this legislature by the Government of India Act, 1935 as adapted. I will now turn to the other criticism expression to which was given by my Honourable Friend Shri Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar. With regard to his amendment I do not want to say that I regret that the amendment is something which I could not accept. All that I want to say is that according to my reading of the situation that amendment is probably unnecessary, and I will explain to him why I take that point of view. The ground that he urged for the amendment was that the Privy Council in a certain case decided in 1940 ( as reported in the Punjab Co-operative Bank versus Commissioner of IncomeTax) stated, according to him, that they would not entertain any point relating to the consideration of the constitution of the High Court had not given a certificate ; therefore the Privy Council said that they would have to send that case back to the High Court for a certificate. His argument was that the decision of the Privy council in this case may also be accepted by the Federal court as binding upon itself; and therefore, wherever there was no certificate given and the matter came up before the Privy Council—and as a matter of fact it was found that a question relating to the constitution did arise—the Privy. Council would find itself unable to deal with that appeal. I think that was the sum and substance of his argument. Now what I would like to point out is that I think he has read a little more into the judgment of the Privy Council than it really says. I will read a few lines from the judgment. They have laid down three propositions which they say would arise in the consideration of section 205. the second proposition is the only one which is relevant to our purpose. “Secondly, if in the absence of a certificate it appears to the Board on an appeal that there is ground for thinking that that is a matter for the consideration of the High Court and that they ought to have given or ought to have withheld the certificate, the Board ought to decline to hear an appeal until the High Court had an opportunity of doing one or the other.”

33PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES That is what the Privy Council have laid down, Now my submission is that this matter was as matter of fact considered by the department when this Bill was drafted, and it was felt that after all in the observations made by the Privy Council they have not said that they do not possess jurisdiction in a case of this kind. All that they have done is to lay down a sort of rule of prudence that if a case came in for which there was no certificate they would not deal with it directly—not they had no power to deal with it—but would send the case back to the High Court. Therefore, it does not mean that the Federal Court which under our Bill would be inhearing the jurisdiction of the Privy Council would have no jurisdiction because the Privy Council has laid down no such rule at all. My second submission is that assuming that the Privy Council’s dictum does go to the question of jurisdiction, is it necessary for us to presume that the Federal Court in exercising a new jurisdiction which we are giving to it would accept what has been laid down by the Privy Council ? The Federal Court would be free to give its own interpretation. It may say that notwithstanding that that certificate was not given, we shall entertain the question and decide it. Thirdly, the Privy Council has also got the power to give special leave and they may give special leave and get over the difficulty. What I am trying to do is to explain to the House that we did not incorporate the sort of provision which my Honourable friend Mr. Alladi Krishnaswami has tabled in his amendment. But if eminent lawyers in this House think that we ought not to leave this question in doubt, and I find that he is supported by my friend, Bakshi Tek Chand, I myself would raise no objection to the amendment if they insist that the amendment should be introduced in the Bill. Then the question was raised with regard to the Courts of the judicial Commissioners of Ajmer-Merwara and Coorg. It is quite true that it would be very anomalous that we should stop direct appeals from the High Court to the Privy Council and allow appeals from Judicial Commissioners to go to the Privy Council without the intervention of the Federal Court. The anomaly is patent and nobody can deny it. But the question is this : that unless and until we declare the Courts of the Judicial Commissioners as High Courts, we could not make this Bill binding upon them. Now I am told that the