359028

But if it is intended that not this Parliament but the Parliament which will come into being after the new elections should deal with the legislation, it means that the whole thing will be kept in abeyance for at least two years. Even when that Parliament comes into existence, it will have many legislations of immediate importance to deal with and its time will be occupied with enacting those more important pieces of legislation. That means that for three or four years to come this whole thing will remain in abeyance. The question arises as to what will be the fate of those unfortunate persons who are condemned to death for the first time by final order of the High Court. My honourable Friend Dr. Ambedkar and others of his way of thinking might perhaps say that we need not bother about the fate of those few unfortunate persons. They might say so callously if they are so inclined. But I hope that Dr. Ambedkar and his other friends who are partners in this business of depriving the Supreme Court of its right of hearing criminal appeals- I mean Mr. T. T. Krishnamachari and Mr. Munshi-none of them would be so callously inclined as to suggest that. I know that Dr. Ambedkar, though he sometimes presents a rough exterior has a very soft and, if I may say so, a loving heart too. As for Mr. Krishnamachari he is all sweetness. And of course Mr. Munshi is all softness. I am sure, therefore, that not one of them would ask us to deal with human life and liberty in such a light-hearted manner. I, therefore, submit that we should make a definite provision here and now in the Constitution conferring on the Supreme Court the right to hear criminal appeals.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *