Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Then I come to the amendment moved by my friend, Mr. Himatsingka. I should like to say that he and I have the same case in mind and I have the greatest sympathy for the case he has in mind. But what he wants to do. is to ask me to accept a general proposition, that is to say, a proposition saying ..any judge appointed in any territory mentioned in Part I". I think it is not desirable to introduce in these clauses an amendment in general terms, for the simple reason that after the 31st October 1948, having regard to the provisions of our Constitution, there can be no distinction in the salary of judges on a provincial basis. All judges have been placed on the same basis irrespective of the High Court of the area within which that High Court is situated. Therefore, a general provision to remove any anomaly is not necessary because such an anomaly is not likely to recur. The anomaly exists . because in the Government of India Act certain provisions with regard to the salary of judges did make a distinction between province and province. What I would like to tell my Friend is this; that the Drafting Committee hopes that this particular case will be provided for in another manner. If that happened there would be no necessity of adopting this particular amendment and the individual affected thereby would also be benefited. But if the Drafting Committee finds that' that does not happen, then the Drafting Committee will reserve to itself the right of bringing in a specific amendment to remove the grievance of the specific individual we have in mind.

I also move:

"That in amendment No. 217 of List VII (Second Week),-
(i)in item (3) of the proposed article 211 A, for the words 'shall be omitted' the words `shall not apply to this part' be substituted;
(ii)in item (4) of the proposed article 21 ]A, in paragraph (a), after the words in clause(1) the words 'for the time being specified in the First Schedule' be omitted and be inserted"

I also move 254 as consequential amendment to the acceptance of Part II of amendment 238. I move :

"That in clause (1) of article 135, the words 'for the time being specified in the First Schedule be deleted."

(Amendment No. 239, List VIII, Second Week was not moved.) Mr. President : Amendment No. 240-Mr. Sidhva.

Shri R. K. Sidhva : Sir, I move : "That in amendment No. 217 of List VII (Second Week), in item (4) of the proposed article 211A, in paragraph (b), the words land such allowance shall be a charge on the revenues of the State' be added at the end of the proposed clause (3)."

And there is a similar amendment, No. 241.

Sir, I move : "That in amendment No. 217 of List VII (Second Week), in item 10 of the proposed article 211A, in paragraph (a) the words land such expenditure shall be a charge on the revenues o the State' be added at the end of the proposed sub-clause (a)."

Shri Raj Bahadur (United States of Matsya ) : In view of the statement made by Shri K. Santhanam I do not move amendment No. 277.

Mr. President : These are all the amendments. The article as well as the amendments are open to discussion.

The Honourable Sardar Vallabhbhai J. Patel (Bombay : General) : Sir, I have prepared a speech which I thought I would not be able to deliver because of the strain that it would cause me and I have requested Mr. Munshi to read it on my behalf. It gives a general resume of the origin of the amendments which have been proposed by Dr. Ambedkar. There are a large number of them about which it is necessary to explain how they came to be introduced. It is also necessary to give a general idea of the background of all these things. Therefore, if you will permit, I shall ask Mr. Munshi to read it.