DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL 251
They speak of having considered the Bill and not the revised draft. But further they say as follows :—
“The Draft Hindu Code, as introduced in the Legislature did not receive any departmental scrutiny prior to its introduction and the Ministry of Law have now produced a revised draft, which, in our opinion, is more satisfactory in several respects. This revised draft does not make any substantial changes in the body of the original Bill, but within the framework of the original Bill, it has recast it so as to be in the form in which Bills are usually presented to the Legislature.”
So it will be clear that the Select Committee had applied their mind to the original Bill and had come to the conclusion that there was revision thereof, not in substance but in respect of the form only.
They also mention the reasons why they considered the revised draft as better than the original one, and then they say:
“Consequently we decided to confine our deliberations to the revised draft of the Bill.”
The word “consequently” is important. Having seen the substantive provisions of the original Bill and the revised draft, it was natural and more appropriate to deliberate on the revised draft, which was nothing else than the substance of the original Bill in an improved form. The Select Committee further say :
“References are given in the margin to each section indicating the corresponding section in the original Bill.”
This is a further cogent proof that, though their deliberations were confined to the revised draft for finalising their conclusions, they had before them the view of each and every clause of the original Bill. This is made further very clear in the notes on clauses in which they deal with various parts and clauses of the Bill and state with reference to each part or clause the corresponding part or clause of the original Bill.
The joint minute of dissent of Dr. Bakshi Tek Chand and Pandit Balkrishna Sharma says, in passing at one place, that what the Select Committee considered was the revised draft and not the original Bill. This has to be interpreted in the light of what has been said above. The place where they make a mention of the revised draft being considered, the point of their contention is that the changes suggested by the revised draft were not merely changes of form, but related to matters of substance. It may be remembered that, in their detailed and able minute, they did not make any point that the original Bill was not considered by the Select Committee. Whether the changes suggested by the revised draft are good or otherwise, is the point they are making in their minute of dissent.