306 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES
Mr. Chairman : The question is:
“ That the bill to authorise advocates of the Supreme Court to practise as of right in any High Court be taken into consideration.”
The motion was adopted.
Clause 2. — (Right to practise in any High Court)
Mr. Chairman: May I know whether the Hon Minister, is accepting any of the amendments?
Dr. Ambedkar: I am not accepting any amendment except No. 7 by Shri Ahmed Meeran to delete part (a) of the Proviso. But of course my friend will realise that some little redrafting will be necessary because if (a) goes (b) will have to be renumbered.
- Mr. Chairman : I think the Hon. Minister wishes to reply so far as this part of the question is concerned.
Dr. Ambedkar: My hon. Friend has really explained the position and I do not think I have very much to add : but to make it simpler than he has done, the position is this. Article
220 of the Constitution applies to future Judges who have taken the position of High Court Judges after the commencement of the Constitution. Their going to practise either before the Supreme Court or before any Court, whether a High Court or subordinate court, cannot arise at all.
Dr. Tek Chand: In India.
Dr. Ambedkar: Yes, in India. Because, article 220 specifically says so. We are really dealing with the case of High Court Judges who were Judges before the Constitution came into existence. As my hon. friend pointed out, those Judges of the High Court before the commencement of the Constitution may be divided for the purpose of argument, into two classes: those who had given an undertaking that they will not practise in their Court and those who had not given an underaking. All that this proviso seeks to do is to bind down those High
- P. D., Vol. 10, Part II, 20th April 1951, pp. 7147-49.