644 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES
Dr. Ambedkar: There is also the possibility of all the three people being taken from the list mentioned under (a).
Shri Kamath: I agree, but the clause as it stands would have precluded the majority of persons mentioned in part (b) because there were only two members of which one would necessarily be a District Judge, that is from the list under (a) or a High Court Judge, and the other would have been an advocate. And therefore, both of them would not have been advocates ……… I do agree with my friend, Mr. Satish Chandra that either the clause be held over or you waive notice for the amendment which he has given notice of. If you waive notice his amendment will be discussed in the House, otherwise it will be unfair to him and the House if his amendment is not allowed to be moved and the clause is put to the House as amended by the amendment of Mr. Upadhyay.
Shri T. T. Krishnamachari: I think quite a lot is being made about a clause which does not merit so much time.
Shri Kamath: That is in your view.
Shri T. T. Krishnamachari: That is my view and I hope it will be the view of the House.
Shri Kamath: I hope not.
Shri T. T. Krishnamachari: The merit of accepting my hon. friend, Mr. Upadhyay’s amendment is that the elaborate improvision contemplated in clause 103 is done away with and I feel to that extent it is something which is commendable. The other point, as you were good enough to suggest, is whether the operation of clause 104 should continue in view of the fact that the chance of the High Court considering it as a side issue if there is a difference of opinion, is now removed……… Notwithstanding the vehement objection of my hon friend, Mr. Kamath I would allow the whole thing to pass as it is if the House approves.
I commend the amendment for acceptance of the House.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is it not a fact that as the Bill originally stood in case of a difference of opinion between the chairman and the member and the case taken up to the High