302 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES
Court is also placed on the same footing. The difference between the Bombay and Madras High Courts consists in this : whereas in the High Court of Madras there is no dual system, an advocate need not necessarily be instructed by an attorney or solicitor for appearing on the original side, in the appellate side they have got that system in which the practitioner on the original side must be instructed by a solicitor or an attorney. I can understand solicitors and attorneys insisting on their privileges being preserved for them. So far as their rights are concerned, let them be preserved. Let any practitioner appear but let him be instructed or briefed by an attorney or solicitor. If that is the object it can very well be preserved and achieved by deleting the words “ to plead ”. Any practitioner of the Supreme Court can be prevented from going before the High Court of Bombay or any other High Court on the original side. This Bill as stands with part (a) of the proviso will make it impossible for a practitioner of the Supreme Court to appear on the original side notwithstanding the fact that he had appeared in that particular case itself before the Supreme Court and the case had been remitted to the original side of that court.
An Hon. Member : Let him continue tomorrow. It is five o’clock.
The House then adjourned till a Quarter to Eleven of the Clock on Friday, the 20th April, 1951.
* SUPREME COURT ADVOCATES (PRACTICE IN HIGH COURTS ) BILL —concld.
Mr. Speaker: We will now proceed to legislative business, namely: The further consideration of the motion moved by Dr. Ambedkar yesterday:
“ That the Bill to authorise advocates of the Supreme Court to practise as of right in any High Court, be taken into consideration.”
Shri Venkataraman (Madras) : Yesterday, I was submitting that this Bill is a welcome measure, but that the
- P. D., Vol. 10, Part II, 20th April 1951, pp. 7129-34.