Coming to amendment No. 145, which seeks to substitute a tribunal for an arbitrator, I must at the very outset confess my partial if not total ignorance of civil law and ancillary legislation. Whether in constitutional law or in civil law there is an essential distinction between an arbitrator and a tribunal, I am not competent to have the last word on. But, from the meagre tit bits that I have gathered during my experience in several fields, I feel that a tribunal has got a greater constitutional importance or sanctity than an ad hoc arbitrator that may be appointed for a particular case. According to this article, if adopted as moved before the House by Dr. Ambedkar, it is conceivable that it is very likely that several cases may arise where under the visions of this article there may not be agreement between the parties concerned. There may not be just one or two cases; it is very probable that we may be inundated with scores if not hundreds of cases, because not merely the Union is involved, but various other States are also involved. Do we, by adopting this article, contemplate the appointment of an ad hoc arbitrator whenever a case arises? That will mean that we will have several arbitrators appointed on several occasions. Or is it, our intention that to dispose of all cases of, this type, where agreement is not secured, to have a body of men, competent men, experts in their own line, to examine and decide all these cases and when they may arise? If that be our intention, then in my humble judgment, not an arbitrator, but a tribunal is called for. The wording of this article also, I believe is not quite happy. It is said here that there will be an arbitrator…….. that means to say one; I am sure we do not want to quarrel on the point that ‘an’ means one; I am happy that the Chief Justice of India has been empowered in this regard. But to say that he will appoint ‘an arbitrator’ and no more or no less I am sorry, no less cannot arise be, cause less than one is zero–no more than one, is to fetter the judgment of the Chief Justice unduly. He may think that a particular case before him is either so complicated or the cases are so numerous or so varied that one, man cannot dispose of all these cases, and he might think that a tribunal will be more competent to decide these cases than arbitrator. I believe, so far as an arbitrator is concerned, both the parties have to signify beforehand their agreement to abide by the decision of the arbitrator. But if a tribunal is appointed and if we provide in the Constitution that the decisions of the tribunal will not be subject to any appeal and they will be final, we will be following a far wiser course than approving of this provision for a mere arbitrator. When this Constitution comes into force and this article comes into effect several cases of this type may arise and one arbitrator will not then be able to dispose of the cases with promptitude and alacrity and I make bold to say, with sufficient impartiality and justice. A tribunal or a high order is called for to dispose of these matters and so I move that instead of ‘arbitrator’ proposed in this article the Chief Justice of India should be vested with powers to appoint a full-fledged tribunal to dispose of these cases as and when they arise. I therefore move Nos. 142, 143, 144 and 145 and commend them for the consideration of the House.
