Vol. 15 · pages 786–790

767PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES of fact there is need for the measure. I am grateful to Dr. Ambekar for having accepted this motion of mine, though for reasons which according to him are based on various other considerations. But according to me, it was accepted because the arguments are very convincing. Dr. Ambedkar: The only request I would make of the hon. Member is to change the date to some day after the 5th of September, because I will be out of station for two or three days. Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava: Any date suitable to the Hon. Minister, I am willing to accept. Dr. Deshmukh: Sir ............ Dr. Ambedkar: Why make any speech now ? Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is a sort of technical subject and it is better it goes to the Select Committee straightaway. Dr. Deshmukh: But I gave notice of the motion and I will take not more than two minutes. Mr. Deputy Speaker: Shall we keep the date as ...... Dr. Ambedkar: I suggest the 7th of September. Mr. Deputy Speaker: Amendment moved: “That the Bill be referred to a Select Committee consisting of Dr. Bakshi Tek Chand, Dr. Punjabrao Shamrao Deshmukh, Shri Deshbandhu Gupta, Shri Gokulbhai Daulatram Bhatt, Pandit Mukut Bihari Lal Bhargava, Shri Prabhu Dayal Himatsingka, Shri Arun Chandraguha, Shri Rohini Kumar Chaudhuri, Shri Banarsi Prasad Jhunjhunwala, Shri R. K. Sidhva, Shri C. Subramaniam, and the Mover, with instructions to report before the 7th September 1951.” Dr. Deshmukh is a member of the Select Committee and following the previous rule, he will try to throw light on the Bill in the Select Committee and not speak here. Therefore I put the question straight to the House now. The motion was adopted.

768 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES (38) * RESOLUTION REGARDING NECESSITY FOR AN ALL INDIA BAR Shri Syamnandan Sahaya (Bihar): May I make a submission. Sir ? The next Resolution stands in the name of Pandit M. B. Bhargava, but there is another motion in my name—I do not propose to take more than five minutes ......... Some Hon. Members: No, no. Shri Syamnandan Sahaya (Bihar): ......and I think the Hon. Minister also is not likely to take more than five minutes. So we might take it first and dispose it of. The Minister of Law (Dr. Ambedkar): I can dispose of this motion in one minute which you cannot do. Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is for the House to consider. The Hon. Minister wants to say that effect has been given to the substantive portion of the Resolution. The Resolution is already there next in priority. There is nothing more to be done about it than merely making a statement on either side. Dr. Ambedkar: With regard to the other Resolution my position is the same. I have practically taken steps to appoint a Committee and I was going to tell my hon. Friend that it would be a waste of time for the House and for him to discuss that matter, if I am allowed to make a statement. I think he need not make a statement at all; he may just say, “I move”. Mr. Deputy Speaker: Yes, Pandit M. B. Bhargava may formally move his Resolution. *P. D., Vol. 14, Part II, 18th August 1951, pp. 1205-09.

769PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES Pandit M. B. Bhargava (Ajmer): I beg to move: “This House is of opinion that an independent and autonomous Bar on an all India basis is necessary in the interest of the public and legal profession, and that Government should undertake legislation on the subject at an early date.” There is an amendment by Shri S. N. Das. Shri S. N. Das (Bihar): I would like to hear the statement of the hon. Minister before I move my amendment, Sir. Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Hon. Minister will make a statement with respect both to the Resolution and the amendment. Therefore the amendment may be moved. Shri S. N. Das: I beg to move: For the original Resolution, substitute the following: “This House is of opinion that the time has now come when the Government of India should appoint a Committee to inquire into the working of laws pertaining to legal profession, in force in different States, with a view to ascertain the necessity, desirability and feasibility of an independent and autonomous Bar on an all India basis.” Mr. Deputy Speaker: Amendment moved : “This House is of opinion that the time has now come when the Government of India should appoint a Committee to inquire into the working of laws pertaining to legal profession, in force in different States, with a view to ascertain the necessity, desirability and feasibility of an independent and automomous Bar on an all India basis.” Dr. Ambedkar: It has been the desire of Members of Parliament who represent the legal profession to this House to have, as they call it an independent, autonomous and all India Bar. Personally I have not had a complete and an adequate idea of what exactly Members mean when they say that they want an independent and an autonomous Bar. But I do not think it is necessary at this moment to enter into any discussion as to what an independent and an autonomous Bar may be, and I am therefore of opinion that it is desirable, in order that this matter may be considered once and for all, to appoint a Committee to investigate into this matter.

770 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES Having considered this matter, I have come to the conclusion that there are probably six questions that require to be considered so far as the Bar in India is concerned. One is the desirability and feasibility of a completely unified Bar for the whole of India, secondly, the continuance or abolition of the dual system of counsel and solicitor or agent which obtains in the Supreme Court and in the High Courts at Bombay and Calcutta; thirdly, the continuance or abolition of different classes of legal practitioners like advocates of the Supreme Court, advocates of the various High Courts, district court pleaders, mukhtars entitled to practice in criminal courts only, revenue agents, incom-tax practitioners etc.; fourthly, the desirability and feasibility of establishing a single Bar Council either for the whole of India or for each State separately; fifthly, the establishment of a separate Bar Council for the Supreme Court; and, last, the consolidation and revision of the various enactments, Central as well as State, relating to the legal practitioners. I believe I have exhausted all the questions that have to be considered in order to give effect to the purport of the motion which my friend, Mr. Mukut Beharilal has moved just now. As I said, I had already decided to appoint a Committee and I have been in correspondence with the Supreme Court in order to ascertain whether the Supreme Court would be prepared to spare the services of one of their Judges to act as the Chairman of this Committee. Unfortunately, as hon. Members know, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is out of India for the moment and it has not been possible for me to get his final reply. He will be coming, I am told, some time early next month, and as soon as he comes and as soon as he lets me know as to which particular Judge he would be in a position to spare to act as the Chairman of this Committee, the Committee will be appointed and will begin to function. I also propose to appoint the Attorney-General, the AdvocateGeneral of one major State, a retired High Court Judge, and one or two Members of Parliament who have been taking keen interest in the subject to constitute this Committee.

771PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES Shri Kamath (Madhya Pradesh): Which major State ? Dr. Ambedkar: Any of the major States—I have not decided which. By major State I mean a Part A State. I also propose, although I have not decided as yet, that we should have one member drawn from what we call Part B State, particularly Rajasthan and that area where the system that is operating is not quite familiar to us, at any rate it is not quite familiar to me, and I would therefore like to have one representative from that area to be on the Committee to give us information as to how exactly the bar functions in that area. I would request the Committee to make a report with about three or four months so that after the report is received and considered Parliament will have a point of legislation brought before it for a consideration. I hope this will satisfy my hon. friend and he will withdraw the Resolution. Shri Sidhva (Madhya Pradesh) : I would suggest three Members of Parliament with judicial knowledge. Dr. Ambedkar: I am prepared to include Mr. Sidhva if he likes. He should have a non-legal Member also because he would bring in common sense. Pandit M.B. Bhargava : Will it be open to this Committee to specify the powers, functions and constitution of these Bar Councils and their relation inter se with the Supreme Court and the High Courts ? Dr. Ambedkar: Yes. Pandit M. B. Bhargava: May I know whether the disciplinary jurisdiction will vest in these Councils or only in the High Courts ? Dr. Ambedkar : I have already laid before the House what I regard as special problems which create difficulties for the moment. Incidental questions will undoubtedly be considered. An Hon. Member: The Committee will give its suggestions. Mr. Deputy Speaker: I believe an informal Committee also sat on this question and made some recommendations to the hon. Minister.