Sir, with regard to the idea behind this amendment, I have nothing to say. I also support the idea. But I do consider that the Judges of the High Court and of the Supreme court should be outside these tests–not that I desire that they should be illiterate or be incapable of expressing themselves in English or in the national language, or that they should have been connected of offences involving moral turpitude or that they need not have any provable fitness–far from it. But I do submit that in this very Draft Constitution itself we have provided certain standards by which the Judges of the High court and of the Supreme Court are to be appointed. In clause (2) of article 193 we have clearly provided that a person can be appointed a Judge of the High Court only if he has been a judicial officer or an Advocate of a certain standing, and under clause (3) of article 103, no person can be appointed a Judge of the Supreme Court unless he has been a Judge of the High Court or an Advocate for a period. I believe that Advocates are at least expected to be, for any length of time that we can now foresee, literate or be capable of expressing themselves in English. At present we have a galaxy of lawyers in the House—Dr. Ambedkar, Mr. K. M. Munshi, Mr. Ananthasayanam Ayyangar and a lot of others, Alladi Krishnaswamy Ayyar And yourself) of course my humble self. There are a lot of Advocates in the country and I believe that they will, at least for a long time to come, be literate.
