Sir, article 196 has now been brought in an amended form before the House by the Chairman of the Drafting Committee. To my mind even the amended article imposes too sweeping a restriction on persons who have held office as judges of high courts. We had visualized that a person could be appointed as a high court judge either for a long tenure or a very short tenure too. I suppose the amendment that has been moved by Dr. Ambedkar does not do away with the possibility of a person acting or holding office as a high court judge for a few months. Suppose a person has held office as a high court judge for a few months, six or nine months, do we seek to impose a restriction upon him, a man who has acted as a temporary judge for a short time? Do we seek to debar him from pleading or practising not merely in any court but even before any authority within the territory of India? It passes my comprehension why a person who has sat on the high court bench for a short while should not be allowed to appear before any court or authority within the territory of India? It passes my comprehension why a person who has sat on on the high court bench for a short while should not be allowed to appear before any court or authority within the whole of India. There would have been some meaning, as my Friend Sardar HukamSingh has suggested, if the judge was precluded from appearing either in that High Court where he held office or within the jurisdiction or within that territory of the Indian Union, where the High Court held sway and jurisdiction,-what I mean to say is, in that high court or in courts or authorities subordinate to that High Court in which he held office as a judge. But to my mind this sweeping constitutional prohibition is unwarranted and, may I say, undemocratic. I am inclined to support the amendment of my Friend Sardar Hukam Singh and I hope that it will receive some serious consideration at the hands of the House, and the article amended accordingly.
