DRAFT CONSTITUTION 883
to pick out a part of the legal profession and to put it here so as to make any legislation with regard to legal profession in so far as it relates to practice of persons before High Courts an exclusive subject for legislation by the Centre, and the reason why we did it was because of the hard cases referred to by my friend Mr. Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar and I may repeat one of them. Probably you have not heard what he said. Supposing, for instance, a lawyer or a barrister from Madras appears in a case in the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court instead of deciding the case remanded the case to Bombay High Court. What happens ? The Bombay Government or Bombay law if enacted under entry 17 may not permit a person from Madras to appear in the Bombay High Court, with the result that one Madras, Lawyer who appeared in the Supreme Court conducted the whole case but if the case is remitted back to the High Court of Bombay, that High Court may by law prevent him from appearing before it. I think it will be agreed that is a great hardship. In order therefore to have a uniform position with regard to persons practising in different High Courts what this entry proposes to do is to cut it from entry 17 dealing with professions and to put it here so that the practice of persons appearing in the High Court may be regulted by uniform law. There is nothing revolutionary and there is nothing surreptitious in entry 52 as is proposed by the Drafting Committee.
Mr. President : I will now put the amendments to vote.
(All amendments except that of Dr. Ambedkar as given before, were rejected.)
[Entry 52 as amended was added to the Union List]
ENTRY 53
*The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar (Bombay : General) : Sir, I move :
“That in Entry 53 of List I, the words and the figure ‘except the States for the time being specified in Part III of the First Schedule’ be omitted.”
This is because we propose to make no distinction between a State in Part I and Part III.
Shri H. V. Kamath (C.P. & Berar : General) : There is a little amendment of mine, No. 198. Sir, I move :
“That with reference to amendment No. 25 of List I (Sixth Week), in entry 53 of List I, for the words and exclusion of the jurisdiction of any such High Court from, the words ‘ and exclusion from the jurisdiction of any such High Court of be substituted.”
*CAD, Vol. IX, 31st August 1949, pp. 783-784.