DRAFT CONSTITUTION 647
are similar provisions in the rules, for instance, regarding the regulation of fees. It is again a matter of public revenue. It could not be left to the Supreme Court. Therefore, my submission is that the provisions contained in article 121 that the rules should be subject to the approval of the President is the proper procedure to follow. Because, a matter like this which imposes a burden upon the public revenues and which burden must be financed by the legislature and the Executive by the imposition of taxation could not be taken away out of the purview of the Executive.
I may also point out that the provisions contained in article 121 are the same as the provisions contained in article 214 of the Government of India Act, 1935 relating to the Federal Court and article 224 relating to the High Courts. Therefore, there is really no departure from the position as it exists today. With regard to the comments made by my Honourable Friend, Mr. Santhanam relating to amendment No.
42 moved by Honourable Friend. Mr. T. T. Krishnamachari, I am afraid, I have not been able to grasp exactly the point that he was making. All that, therefore, I can say is this, that this matter willl be looked into by the Drafting Committee when it sits to revise the Constitution, and if any new phraseology is suggested, which is consistent with the provisions in the article which we have passed conferring power of review by the Supreme Court, no doubt it will be considered.
There is one other point to which I would like to refer and that is amendment No. 43. In amendment No. 43, which has been moved by my Honourable Friend, Shri Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar, and to winch I accord my wholehearted support, there is a proviso which says that if a question about the interpretation of the Constitution arises in a matter other than the one provided in article 110, the appeal shall be referred to a Bench of live judges and if the question is disposed of it will be referred back again to the original bench. In the proviso as enacted, a reference is made to article 111, but I quite see that if the House at a later stage decides to confer jurisdiction to entertain criminal appeals, this proviso will have to be extended so as to permit the Supreme Court to entertain an appeal of this sort even in a matter arising in a criminal case. I, therefore, submit that this proviso also will have to be extended in case the House follows the suggestion that has been made in various quarters that the Supreme Court should have criminal jurisdiction.
[5 amendments including 2 of Dr. Ambedkar were adopted. One was negatived. Article 121 as amended was added to the Constitution.]