PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES 313
Clause 2 .— (Amendment of Act V of 1908.)
Shri Shiv Charan Lal: I have an amendment to this clause which I shall move, in case the Hon. Law Minister is willing to accept it. Otherwise I will not move it.
Dr. Ambedkar: No, it is not the intention to accept it.
Shri K. Vaidya: Sir, Rule 2 of Order XLVI and Rule 5 of the same Order seem to be inconsistent and I would like to have some clarification of the position from the Hon. Law Minister. I am referring to my amendments Nos. 2 and 3 of List No. 3. Amendment No, 1 I am not moving. I had already raised this point before and I would like to hear what the Hon. Law Minister has to say.
Dr. Ambedkar: I am not prepared to accept the amendments proposed by my hon. friend because I do not think it is right and proper that all the proceedings in a case should be stayed.
Mr. Speaker: But Mr. Vaidya is not moving his amendment No. 1 asking for that.
Dr. Ambedkar: Yes, Sir, but the other amendments he refers to are consequential to his amendment
4-00 p M No. 1. If that is not moved then there is no substance in the other amendments.
Shri K. Vaidya : They are not consequential because…….
Mr. Speaker: Let him explain the position first.
Dr. Ambedkar: As I understand it, the position is this. It is suggested that when a reference is made by the subordinate court to the High Court, all further proceedings in the matter should stay. That is the fundamental point of the hon. Member. That Court should do nothing until the High Court returns the papers with its interpretation. With that position I entirely disagree for this reason that a case might involve one issue of a constitutional nature and many other issues which may have nothing to do with the Constitution. And I do not understand why a magistrate who is required under this Bill to make a reference to the High Court on one of the many points which are involved in the case should be