PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES 303
proviso militates against the very object of the Bill. I was trying to show how……..
The Minister of Law (Dr. Ambedkar): To cut short the proceedings, I may say I am prepared to accept the amendment, subject of course, to other understandings.
Shri Venkataraman: I am very grateful to the hon. Law Minister for accepting the suggestion and so I whole-heartedly support the Bill without clause (a) in the proviso.
Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava (Punjab) : I rise to support the Bill………
……With regard to proviso (b) I have a point to submit. Proviso (b) is to the effect:
“(b) to practise in a High Court of which he was at any time a Judge, if he had given an undertaking not to practise therein after ceasing to hold office as such Judge.”
I submit that the prohibition to practise in the High Court by a man who is an ex-Judge of that High Court should not depend on any undertaking. Public policy requires that an ex-Judge of a high Court should not practise in that Court, but the proviso makes it conditional upon an undertaking having been given. There are many High Courts where no undertakings have been taken. Therefore, if ex-Judges are to be prohibited from practising in the particular Court, it should be independent of any undertaking given. There is an Article in the Constitution prohibiting all ex-Judges from practising in any Court—not merely in the Court where he was a Judge but in all other Courts. I submit proviso (b) militates against that. This proviso would allow an ex-Judge to practise in a High Court if he has not given an undertaking. The Constitution, however, says that all ex-Judges are prohibited from practising in any High Court.
Dr. Tek Chand (Punjab) : Judges appointed after the coming into force of the Constitution.
Dr. Ambedkar: Yes, that is the rule.