PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES 647
Shri Kamath: Then delete that even.
Dr. Ambedkar: That would be further reducing the available resources for appointing the Tribunal.
Shri Shiv Charan Lal (Uttar Pradesh) : I think, Sir, the contingency which Mr. Kamath thinks might arise was already there. Previously also, when two persons were to be appointed, one a Chairman and the other an advocate, both could be advocates. Sub-clause (a) says “a Chairman who shall be either a person who is or has been a judge of a High Court.” You know, Sir, that at least half of the Judges of the High Court are appointed from the advocates of the High Court. Suppose a man who was an advocate last year has been appointed a Judge of the High Court and he was appointed Chairman ? In that case both would be advocates.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Once he is appointed a judge he sheds his colour of an advocate.
Shri Shiv Charan Lal: He might have been appointed a High Court Judge only a month before.
Shri J. R. Kapoor: The only apprehension that is troubling the minds of some of my hon. friends is that there is a possibility that the two members of the Tribunal other than the Chairman, may be advocates. To remove that apprehension. I would suggest a slight amendment.
Dr. Ambedkar: I have asked my hon. friend Pandit Munishwar Datt Upadhyay to move an amendment.
Shri J. R. Kapoor: I suggest that part (b) of sub-clause
(3) of clause 85 be amended in the following manner, that for the present words the following words be substituted:
“(6) two other members selected by the Election Commission either from the list maintained by it under part (a) of subsection (2), or one from each of the list maintained by it under sub-section (2).”
It means that both the non-Chairman members may be from the list maintained under part (a) of sub-section ( 2 )……. This is my amendment and if I have your permission I might move it.