There are two points for interpretation. One is about voting and the other is about grouping into Sections. I understand that that question is going to be referred to the Federal Court. As an ex-Judge of the Federal Court and a sitting Member of the Superior Tribunal, namely, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, I recognise the necessity of not saying anything more about the proposed reference to the Federal Court or whether it is right and proper. I will only say that I wish you good luck I congratulate you that you will have on your side the services of one of the ablest constitutional lawyers you can engage for your purpose, namely, my friend, Sir Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar. Beyond that I do not want to say anything about the reference to Federal Court. But it is clear that, although you may go to the Federal Court for getting the interpretation, viz., relating to grouping and voting, you cannot go to the Federal Court on the last point gained by the Muslim League, viz., the provision that if a large section of people is not represented at the constitution-making. His Majesty’s Government will not be willing to force such a constitution upon unwilling parts of the country. That is not a question of interpretation. It is a fresh concession which has been given to the Muslim League by way of addition to the Statement of May 16. I do not think that you can refer that point to the Federal Court. It is a substantive point which has been conceded to the Muslim League viz., that contrary to the Statement of Mr. Attlee, the Prime Minister on 15th March this year in the House of Commons, to the effect that though minorities will be protected, they will not be allowed to veto the progress of the majority. That was the position enunciated by no less a person than the Prime Minister in March 1946. That is gone. Now the position is very different indeed.
