Then my honourable Friend Shri Thirumala Rao had a jibe against the lawyers. It was entirely unwarranted for the reason that there are lawyers who think in a larger terms of society and there are laymen who are more legalistic than lawyers. I notice on the other hand that there is a tendency among the lay elements to rely upon legalism rather than in the lawyer who thinks in larger terms of society and advanced thought in the world. Therefore that speech was unnecessary. The reason why unfortunately we had to mention article 111 is this: A simple reference could have been made to the jurisdiction of the Federal Court or the jurisdiction exercised by the Privy Council without mentioning the details as to the condition of appeal and then that might be made subject to the intervention of parliament. But the House knows the sort of discussion that cropped up when reference was made to parliamentary privileges. If you refer to the jurisdiction the Privy Council was exercising up till now under the various Statues, both Indian and English, there may be a feeling that this is derogatory to the dignity of the House. There has been a serious controversy in the press and on the platform as to whether it is at all justifiable to refer to the jurisdiction and powers and privileges of Parliament when enacting our Indian Constitution. That might be a good reason. But I do not see for a moment how these could be made simpler. Reference may be made in article 111 to the existing state of things and provision may be made that that state of things might be modified, remedial or changed by the intervention of Parliament. These are the reasons which induced me to accept the amendment of Dr. Ambedkar though I wish he was able to go further and state that all these provisions shall be subject to the intervention of Parliament.
