646 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES
ARTICLE 114
Mr. President : Article 114. There is one amendment by Mr. Gupte.
(The amendment was not moved.)
“Does anyone wish to speak ?
*The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : My attention has been drawn by my friend Shri Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar that the articles of this Draft Constitution dealing with powers of the Supreme Court do not expressly provide for appeals in income-tax cases. I wish to say that I am considering the matter and if on examination it is found that none of the articles could be used for the purpose of conferring such an authority upon the Supreme Court, I propose adding a special article dealing with that matter specifically. But this article may go in.
[Article 114 was added to the Constitution.]
ARTICLE 121
† The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Sir, I move :
“That for clause (3) of article 121, the following be substituted : ‘(3) No judgment shall be delivered by the Supreme Court save in open court, and no report shall be made under article 110 of this Constitution save in accordance with an opinion also delivered in open court.’”
Sir, I shall move also amendment No. 1966 :
“That for clause (4) of article 121, the following be substituted :—
‘(4) No judgment and no such opinion shall be delivered by the Supreme Court save with the concurrence of a majority of the judges present at the hearing of the case hut nothing in this clause shall be deemed to prevent a judge who does not concur from delivering a dissenting judgment or opinion. [’]
‡The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Mr. President, I regret very much that I cannot accept the amendment moved by my Honourable Friend Mr. Lari. It seems to me that he has completely misunderstood what is involved in his amendment.
The reason why it is necessary to make the rule-making power of the Supreme Court subject to the approval of the President is because the rules may, if they were left entirely to the Supreme Court, impose a considerable burden upon the revenues of the country. For instance, supposing a rule was made that a certain matter should be heard by two Judges. Thai may be a simple rule made by the Supreme Court. But, undoubtedly, it would involve a burden on public revenues. There
*CAD, Vol. VIII, 6th June 1949, p. 542.
† Ibid., p. 645.
‡ Ibid., pp. 649-50.