378 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES
is something abnormal and something that is new that has been thrown upon the Law Ministry. There has been no expansion of the staff to cope with this new work. That is one point which I think the House will remember when criticising the Law Ministry for not completing the work of adaptation.
The work of adaptation obviously fails into two categories. There are adaptations which are merely of a formal character. For instance, in the existing laws, the expression used is ‘Provincial Government’. Today, the expression that is used for the corresponding, purpose is “State Government”. These are formal amendments. These amendments have already been carried out and I do not think any part of that work remains. But, the other part of the adaptation work, namely, making substantial modifications in the existing laws in order to bring them into conformity with the provisions of the Constitution is a totally different business from the formal kind of adaptation to which I have referred.
Now, let us consider how it is possible to proceed methodically with regard to making modifications of a substantial character in the existing laws of the country, in order that they may be brought into conformity with the provisions of the Constitution. Obviously there must be some officer somewhere at the Centre whose duty it would be to, what we call, note on the Acts in the various States and Acts made by the Centre, in order to ascertain for himself whether there is anything in any of the existing laws—whether they are made by the Centre or by the Provinces—which he thinks at the initial stage requires consideration from the point of view of adaptation. After that work is done, the matter may come to the Law Ministry for further examination whether there is any substance in the note made by that particular officer. There again the matter cannot end. Obviously, there must be further correspondence between the Law Ministry and the Law officers in the States in order to find out whether they agree with the view that certain of their laws are inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution. If they agree, well and good; action may be taken. But, if they do not agree, then, obviously, the matter has to be referred to the Advocate