658 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES
The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar (Bombay : General) Sir, I would like to move an amendment to article 204, I mentioned that I would have to consider the position; I have since considered it and I would like to move the amendment. Sir, with your permission I move :
“That with reference to amendment No. 2674 of the List of Amendments, for article 204 the following article be substituted :
‘204. If the High Court is satisfied that a case
pending in a court subordinate to it involves a Transfer of certain substantial question of law as to the interpretation cases to High of this Constitution the determination of which Court. is necessary for the disposal of the case, it shall
withdraw the case and may—
(a) either dispose of the case itself, or
(b) determine the said question of law and return the case to the court from which the case has been so withdrawn together with a copy of its judgement on such question, and the said court shall on receipt thereof proceed to dispose of the case in conformity with such judgment’.”
That is the amendment. If you like, Sir, I will speak something about it now. But I would rather reserve my remarks to the end to save time instead of speaking twice.
Mr. President : Just as you please.
*The Honourble Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Sir, I do not think any very long discussion is necessary to come to a decision on the amendment I have moved. The House will remember when we were dealing yesterday with article 204 my Friend Mr. Bharathi raised a question which related to the last sentence in article 204, viz., that the High Court shall withdraw the case to itself and dispose of the same. The question which Mr. Bharathi put, which I thought was a very relevant one, was this. Why should the High Court be required to withdraw the whole case and dispose of it, when all that the main part of article 204 required was that it should deal with a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution ? His position was that in a suit many questions might be involved. One of them might be a question involving a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of this Constitution. The other questions may be questions as to the interpretation of ordinary law made by Parliament. If there was a case of this sort which was a mixed case, containing an issue relating to the interpretation of the Constitution and other issues relating to the interpretation of the ordinary law while it may be right for the High Court to possess the power to decide and pronounce upon the question relating to the interpretation of law, why should the High Court be required to withdraw the whole case and decide not merely upon the issue relating
*CAD, Vol. VIII, 8th June 1949, pp. 716-19.