566 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES
The point is that in this Bill, unlike many other Acts, separate Chapter No. has been given in each part. That would lead to inconvenience in the matter of reference, e.g., whenever we refer to a Chapter, we shall have to say, Chapter so and so of Part so and so. In all other Acts, except of course in the Constitution, namely, the Civil Procedure Code, the Criminal Procedure Code, the Transfer of Property Act and in all other Acts, although there are parts, the Chapter Nos. are not separate with regard to each Part. The result is tremendous convenience. When we refer to a Chapter, we need not refer to the Part. That will lead to the avoidance of a lot of mental botheration. I suggest it as a matter of convenience only.
Dr. Ambedkar: I do not agree with that argument. If dividing the Bill into Parts and Chapters we had also given separate numbers to clauses, that would have created a certain amount of difficulty. But in view of the fact that the number of the clauses is continuous I do not think any difficulty such as the one anticipated by my friend can be really apprehended.
Shri Naziruddin Ahmad : But this is the uniform practice in all the Acts.
Dr. Ambedkar: Never mind uniformity. It depends upon how big the matter is. If the matter is so big that it requires to be divided and sub-divided under appropriate heads I do not see what other method one can follow than giving Parts for broader heads and Chapters for smaller heads which come under those Parts and many other smaller heads which come under those Chapters.
Shri Naziruddin Ahmad: The Hon. Minister says that there should be Parts, Chapters and sub-divisions and further sub-divisions. I do not object to that at all. All that I want is that the Chapter numbers from beginning to end should bear a continuous numbering and that is in accordance with the practice of all Acts.
Dr. Ambedkar: That means that the parts must be omitted, otherwise it would have no meaning.