PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES 177
Mr. Speaker : The question is :
“That the Bill to amend the Dentists Act, 1948, be taken into consideration.”
The motion was adopted.
Clause 2 was added to the Bill.
Clause 3 (Amendment of section 46 and section 49, Act XVI of 1948)
Shri Kamath : I beg to move :
“In clause 3, in the proposed amendment to sub-section (3) of section 46 and sub-section (1) of section 49 of the Dentists Act,
1948, for ‘three years’, substitute ‘two years and six months’.”
The present clause has been inserted so as to enable State Governments to complete their registers of dentists under sections 46 and 49 of the Act. This is a retroactive piece of legislation in as much as the words used in the clause are “and shall be deemed always to have been substituted.” I for one cannot see why for registering a few hundred dentists such a long period is necessary. I do not know how many dentists there are in all the States ………..
Dr. Ambedkar : This is a matter of opinion. My friend Mr. Kamath with his abundant energy and administrative experience no doubt thinks that six months would be more than enough for completing the register. That as I just now told the House, even a Government as efficient as the Government of Bombay asked for two years. I personally myself think that in view of the fact that the obligation of preparing the register rests upon the Provincial Governments, it is desirable that this House should follow what the Provincial Governments think is feasible in this matter. As a matter of fact we have curtailed the period to one year instead of the two years asked for by the Bombay Government. We have stuck to one year, which was the original proposal by the Government of Madras. I do not think it is possible for us with safety to curtail the period provided in this Bill.
Shri Kamath : I take it that the Hon. Minister has no figures with him.