650 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES
“That with reference to amendment No. 2614 of the List of the amendments, in sub-clause (b) of Explanation I to clause (2) of article 193, for the words ‘in a State for the time being specified in Part I or Part II of the First Schedule’ the words ‘in the territory of India’ be substituted.”
“That with reference to amendment No. 2614 of the List of Amendments, in clause ( h ) of Explanation I to clause (2) of article 193 for the words ‘British India’ the word ‘India’ be substituted.”
“That with reference to amendment no. 2622…………”
Mr. President : Before moving that, you may formally move amendment No. 2622.
The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Sir, I formally move:
“Thai for Explanation II lo clause (2) of article 193, the following be substituted :—
‘Explanation II.—In sub-clauses ( a ) and ( b ) of this clause, the expression ‘High Court’ with reference to a State for the lime being specified in Part HI of the first Schedule means a Court which the President has under article 123 declared to be a High Court for the purposes of articles 103 and 106 of this constitution.’”
Sir, I move :
“That with reference to amendment No. 2622 of the List of amendments, Explanation II to clause (2) of article 193 be omitted.”
The object of all these amendments 196 to 200 is to remove all distinctions between British India and the Indian States. Some of the amendments particularly amendments 199 and 200 are merely consequential upon the main amendment.
*Mr. President : Dr. Ambedkar, do you wish to speak on this ?
The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : No, Sir. I do not think that any reply is called for.
[Only 4 amendments were adopted. Rest were rejected. Article 193, as amended, was added to the Constitution.]
ARTICLE 193-A
†Mr. President : Dr. Ambedkar, do you wish to say anything about Prof. Shah’s motion ?
The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Mr. President, Sir, I regret that I cannot accept this amendment by Prof. Shah. Ill understood Prof. Shah correctly, he said that the underlying object of his amendment was to secure or rather give effect to the theory of separation between the judiciary and the executive. I do not think there is any dispute that there should be separation between the Executive and the Judiciary and in fact all the articles relating to the High Court as well as the Supreme
*CAD, Vol. VIII, 7th June 1949, p. 674.
† Ibid., pp. 678-79.