PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES 271
*** Dr. Ambedkar** : There is not much that calls for a reply.
But as certain points have been made I should like to make my position clear.
The first speaker who took part in this debate said that the provision contained in this Bill with regard to the immunity to be granted to the retinue of a diplomat was not in accord with international opinion. He felt that he was convinced that there was unanimity among the writers dealing with international law that not only the diplomat should get the privilege but also his retinues. I am sorry to differ from him. I have before me several extracts from treatises dealing with international law and I do not wish to weary the House by reading them. I can assure the House that I do not find any such unanimity from the extracts before me. It is on that account that the section has been worded in the way in which it has been worded. My friend will also realise that whatever may be the method of defining the positions, the result will not be in any way different if the clause is allowed to stand as it is. Because whether the immunity is granted by the section itself or whether it is granted by a notification issued under the section, the result cannot be very different.
His second point was that we were not justified in using the word “Ruler”, because there are heads of States who are not called “Rulers”. I should like to draw his attention to the fact that in drafting this clause we have been following practically the same language which has been followed in the existing Civil Procedure Code. I would like to draw his attention to the heading of section 83 of the Civil Procedure Code, also to section 85, sub-clauses (1) and (2) and section 86, where the wording which we have used is also the wording used there. There is therefore no departure from the language that has been adopted in the existing Civil Procedure Code. But in this connection I would like to draw his attention to the definition that we have given of a “Ruler” which is contained in proposed section 87A of the Bill which says :
“Ruler ” in relation to a foreign State, means the person who is for the time being recognised by the Central Government to be the head of that State.”
- P.D., Vol. 8, Part II, 9th February 1951, pp 2646-62.