Vol. 15 · pages 51–55

34 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES question of the declaration of the Judicial Commissioners Courts as High Courts would involve certain administrative problems. For instance, all the provisions in the Government of India Act relating to High Courts would have to be applied to the Judicial Commissioners before they become High Courts. It seemed to me that might create complications and that is the principal reason why we did not think it advisable at this stage to extend the provisions of this Act to the Judicial Commissioners. After all, as I said, this Bill will be of a temporary duration. It may not be in operation for more than two or three months, and I do not think that within these two or three months any very large number of appeals from the Courts of the Judicial Commissioners are likely to come to the Privy Council. Therefore, I submit, rather than face the difficulties that may arise out of administrative considerations, it might be better for this House to suffer the anomaly and let the position stand as it is. With regard to the question of criminal appeals that matter has been fairly disposed of by my friend who spoke before me, and therefore I do not think it necessary for me to touch upon that matter at all. Mr. Speaker : I might just state what I was feeling about the amendment. In case the Honourable Law Minister is inclined to accept it, isn’t it likely that an objection might be raised about the competence of this Legislature inasmuch as the amendment uses the words “notwithstanding anything contained in section 205 of the Government of India Act”? The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : That also is a point. Mr. Speaker : So that will also have to be considered. The House will be rising and in the recess the Law Minister may consider this point. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Yes, I will consider it. The Assembly then adjourned for Lunch till Half Past Two of the Clock.

35PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES The Assembly re-assembled after Lunch at half Past a of the Clock, Mr. Speaker (The Honourable Mr. G. V. Mavalankar) in the Chair. Mr. Speaker : The question is : “That the Bill to provide for the enlargement of the appellate jurisdiction of the Federal Court in civil cases be taken into consideration.” The motion was adopted. Clause 2 was added to the Bill. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Sir, with regard to clause 3 I would like to move an amendment. I move: “That in clause 3— (1) The word ‘and’ at the end of sub-clause (a)(ii) be omitted; (2) The following be inserted as sub-clause (b): *(b) in any such appeal as aforesaid, it shall be competent for the Federal Court is consider any question of the nature mentioned in sub-section (1) of section 205 of the Government of India Act, 1935; and (3) The existing sub-clause (b) be re-lettered as s sub-clause (c).” Mr. Speaker : I suppose this is an agreed amendment. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Yes, Sir. Mr. Speaker : Amendment moved. “That in clause 3— (1) The word ‘and’ at the end of sub-clause (a) (ii) be omitted; (2) The following be inserted as sub-clause (b): ‘(b) in any such appeal as aforesaid, it shall be competent for the Federal Court to consider any question of the nature mentioned in sub-section (1) of section 205 of the Government of India Act, 1935’; and (3) The existing sub-clause (b) be re-lettered as sub-clause.(c).” * Mr. Speaker : Amendment moved : “That after clause 5 of the Bill, the following new clause be inserted, namely: ‘5A. After the appointed day, any party to an appeal pending before His Majesty in Council, before that day, may apply to the Federal Court to withdraw the appeal to its own file, if the appeal * C.A. (Leg.) D., Vol. II, 11th December 1947, p. 1725.

36 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES is one which it filed after the appointed day before the Federal Court it could have jurisdiction under this Act to entertain it; and the Federal Court may after notice to the other party to the appeal withdraw the appeal to its own file on such terms and conditions as it may deem fit’ ”. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Sir, I cannot accept this amendment. My honourable Friend has not defined what is a pending appeal. The Bill defines a pending appeal. An appeal where papers have been despatched is deemed to be a pending appeal under the Bill. After the papers have been despatched there is no provision in this Bill for withdrawal for the simple reason that it is presumed that when papers and documents have been despatched, the parties have incurred all liabilities for payment of such costs as may be involved in that appeal, and there is therefore no reason why the appeal should be transferred to the Federal Court with the obligation of a double expenditure once at the Privy Council end and once here: and I, therefore, think that we have to look at it purely from the point of view of the costs to the litigant. If sufficient costs have been incurred, then, I think it is not right that the appeal should be transferred to the Federal Court. No doubt here there is provision that the terms of such transfer and withdrawal may be prescribed by the Federal Court. But I think it would be putting an unnecessary obligation upon the parties which they may not voluntarily accept and I therefore think that the provisions contained in the Bill ought to be regarded as satisfactory at the present stage. Shri M. Ananthasayanam Ayyangar: I do not like to press my amendment. I do not want to divide the House on the matter. I consulted the Law Minister and I thought he consented. Mr. Speaker: Apart from this, I was feeling another difficulty, and that was as to whether the Federal Court could be treated as a court superior to the Privy Council for the purpose of withdrawal of an appeal that has been filed. It would have been another matter if the amendment had sought to compel the litigant himself, but that is a question of phraseology of the section.

37PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES Has the honourable Member leave of the House to withdraw his amendment? The amendment was, by leave of the Assembly, withdrawn. Clauses 6 to 8 were added to the Bill. Clause 1 was added to the Bill. The Title and the Preamble were added to the Bill. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Sir, I move: “That the Bill, as amended, be passed.” Mr. Speaker: Motion moved: “That the Bill, as amended, be passed.”

38 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES (6) * PROVINCIAL INSOLVENCY (AMENDMENT) BILL The Honourable Dr. B.R. Ambedkar (Minister for Law): Sir, I move : “That the Bill further to amend the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920, be continued.” Mr. Speaker : Motion moved : “That the Bill further to amend the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920, be continued ” Shri Raj Krishna Bose (Orissa: General): I would like to know if this Bill also was referred to a Select Committee ? Mr. Speaker: It was only introduced. Shri K. Santhanam (Madras : General): It can be newly introduced. What is meant by ‘continuation’ ? Only if it has gone through the other stages of discussion or Select Committee there is a purpose in having a motion for its continuation. It can as well be newly introduced. Mr. Speaker: I would invite the Honourable Member’s attention to the provisions of sub-clause (2) of section 30 of the Government of India Act, 1935, as adapted : “A Bill which, immediately before the establishment of the Dominion, was pending at the Legislative Assembly of the Indian Legislature may, subject to any provision to the contrary which may be included in rules made by the Dominion Legislature under section 38 of this Act, be continued in the Dominion Legislature as if the proceedings take with reference to the Bill in the said Legislative Assembly had been taken in the Dominion Legislature.” So the time and expenditure incurred in the previous stages—publication etc.—are now dispensed with. That is the point in continuing the Bill. * C.A. (Leg.) D. Vol. I, 17th November 1947, pp. 40-41.