z:\ ambedkar\vol-02\vol2-10.indd MK SJ+YS 21-9-2013/YS-8-11-2013 790
790 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES
that would appear to permit discussions that we think would be harmful to the area ; that is what it comes to.
Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: I was only suggesting that the Governor’s power would be adequate protection against that That is all I ask.
†13,923. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Might I ask one question on that point ? As I understand it in the concurrent field there will be an appeal to the Privy Council from the decisions of the High Court ?
Sir Samuel Hoare: Yes.
13,924. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: What I do not understand is this, if there can be an appeal to the Privy Council in an issue arising out of an interpretation of the concurrent law in the concurrent field, what difficulty can there be in allowing such an appeal to the Federal Court ?
Sir Samuel Hoare: One of our reasons anyhow is that we do not want to flood the Federal Court with an enormous amount of work and the demand for a very large number of Judges at the beginning.
‡14,373. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Secretary of State, I just want to ask one question about paragraph 155. This para 155 relates to exclusive original jurisdiction of the Federal Court. I do not understand the distinction that seems to be made there. I find on reading paragraph 155 that you make a distinction in the matter of the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Federal Court on the basis that where the parties to the dispute are as there mentioned in sub-clauses ( a ) and ( b ), the exclusive original jurisdiction is given to the Federal Court, but the Federal Court cannot have an exclusive original jurisdiction if the parties are private individuals. Now the question I would like to ask is this. The issue in both cases is the same, namely, the constitution issue involving the interpretation of the Constitution Act. What I do not understand is this. Why there should be this distinction in the matter of an exclusive original jurisdiction of the Federal Court based on parties when the issue is the same ?
Sir Samuel Hoare: I think this is what usually happens with Federal Courts that the original jurisdiction is jurisdiction between units, and it is in the appellate jurisdiction that the individual comes into it as of right
14,374. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: I mean, if the intention is that where, for instance, the interpretation of the Constitution Act is involved, the matter should at once go to the Federal Court, then I think there can be no distinction made whether the parties are parties which are units of the Federation or of individuals ?
Sir Samuel Hoare: I would have thought that this was one of the necessary working conditions of a Federal Court. I think if it had original jurisdiction in individual cases as well it would be entirely swamped with cases.
† Minutes of Evidence, Vol. II-B, 19th October 1933, p. 1247.
‡ Ibid., dated 20th October 1933, p. 1292.