DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL 493
Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : Then the question turns upon this whether these are substantial changes. It may not be very important from the point of view of the law-giver but it may be important to the heir. If you disturb
the order of heirship in the slightest degree, it is a substantial change. Up to this time we had been assured that the changes that were made were only of a drafting character. The report of the Select Committee is that the Department made no substantial changes. The report is so clear and emphatic and they emphasize the points so clearly, that they say no
substantial changes have been made—only renumbering and some merely verbal changes were made and that for this reason that the usual method of indicating the changes by side-lining or under-lining the changes had not been adhered to in the Departmental or the Final Bill.
Now the question of questions at last boils down to this : Whether these are substantial changes ? What is the test for this ? Upsetting of heirs’ lists is not a substantial change ? I submit it is. If it is that I am arguing too much, arguing as if in a Law Court—if any honourble Member thinks it
is so—then it seems that the seriousness of the changes has not been fully appreciated.
Mr. Tajamul Husain : Except by you !
Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : It is very unfortunate that this should be appreciated only by one man ! Of course there is a highly paid department and a highly qualified Law Minister, who is able to appreciate the slightest differences and I am sorry that I have had to undergo all the trouble and
expenditure of time and money to find out and explain all this. It has not been a very easy matter and the difficulty was further enhanced by the fact that the Department which introduced all these changes could not make available to me a copy of their draft Bill. It was after a great deal of searching that I could procure a copy. So the search has been prolonged and
the consideration has been prolonged and it has been for me a very difficult matter. I do not mean to say that any other Member is not capable of appreciating it, but few have the time or the inclination to go through them. And why should they ? Isn’t it the duty and the obvious privilege of every Member—and I say this in defence of Members—to
rely on the Ministry of Law, to rely upon the express guarantee in the Select Committee report that no substantial changes have been made ? I think they would be fully justified and when an honourable Member said that none expect me knew this, I cannot blame him. The blame