Sir, I
have never seen anywhere a judiciary that is elected. The only country
where we know that the judiciary is elected is America, and you know
that it has brought judges into disrepute in all the American
Commonwealth. I am sure my honourable friend does not want us
to have that experiment tried on us. In view of this, I must say at once
that I cannot accept the principle embodied in the second part of the Bill,
that judicial powers, both civil and criminal, should be handed over to
a panchayat, which, in substance, is an elective judiciary. As I have been
watching the affairs that are going on in this presidency and especially
what is happening to120 the depressed classes, I am bound to
say that so far as we are concerned, we can never consent to140
judicial affairs being administered by a panchayat. Ours is a very
peculiar and, if I may say so, a very160 pitiable position. We
are a small body of people, occupying a corner of a village. We are never
looked upon as part and parcel of the village community. Although living
in the village, we are all the same an alien body, whose progress is looked
upon with great jealousy by the rest of the community. My honourable friend
shakes his head, and therefore, I think I must read to him from the report of
the State Committee, which I did240 not want to do. In paragraph 102
of that Committee’s report, the condition of the depressed classes in the
village is described at great length. That is our position. I cannot
consent to so much judicial power, both civil and280 criminal, to be
handed over to a people who are perpetually in an organized conspiracy to
defect our aims and objects.
I perfectly sympathize with the honourable
Minister’s underlying purpose. If I have understood him correctly, all
that he wants320 is that the villagers should get justice
cheaply, and it should be more easily accessible to them. I believe that
is the underlying motive he has for the judicial provisions he has made in
his Bill. If that is so, 360 then I think that there is a
better method of doing that. It is not necessary to give the
judicial powers to the village panchayats. We have already in existence what
are called honorary bench magistrates in towns. It should be perfectly possible
to extend that system whereby we can divide each district into judicial
circles, and for the Government420 to nominate three or more persons to
discharge the judicial functions in that circle. These three gentlemen would on
one day sit as magistrates to deal with criminal cases and on another
day, they will sit as civil judges to try civil cases. By this method, you
will not only secure easy justice, but at the same time you will480
secure a judiciary that will be independent of local influence, a
judiciary that will be free from the disadvantages of an elective
system. I think this ought to satisfy the requirements of the case. At
any rate, I have to make it plain that if the honourable Minister insists that
the Bill be put through as it is with all the provisions in it,
especially those provisions which he regards as matters of principles, I
must say that I shall560 oppose this Bill.
Mr. President,
I must congratulate the honourable Minister in charge of
this Bill for having brought this amendment which seeks to do some justice to
the two great minorities of this province. I feel I must support the600
amendment of my honourable friend. I do not know what has passed
on the floor of this House before I came in between the honourable
Minister for Local Self-Government and my honourable friends who are sitting on
the front640
Opposition bench. But I understand that they have no objection to the
amendment as worded by the honourable Minister for Local Self-Government
that if the amendment stood in the terms in which he had proposed it, the Opposition,
without much lament would accept it. If that is the position, then I
do not understand what difficulty can the honourable Members700
of the Opposition have in order to accept the amendment proposed by my
honourable friend. Sir, as I understand the720 position of the honourable
Minister and my honourable friend, the difference seems to me to be of a very
minor character. The honourable Minister for Local Self-Government has stated
his amendment in general terms. He wants to impose an obligation upon the
Collector in the matter of exercising his discretion in making provision
for the appointment to the village bench of members of minority communities.
That obligation he chooses to state in the general terms in the name of
minorities800
whoever they may be. My honourable friend has gone a step further and
stated that in doing so, the Collector should specifically bear in mind
the Muslims and the depressed classes. Sir, I do not understand why the honourable
Members840
who accept the amendment in general terms should object to the particularization
of that amendment. Do they think or do they not think there are minorities in
this province, and the honourable Minister’s proviso is intended to
safeguard the interests of these minorities? If the minorities are there,
then what is the harm if those minorities are specifically named in a clause?
If the general amendment is accepted that the minorities ought to be protected
and if we know that in every village if there are no other
minorities, there are certainly the depressed classes and the Muslims, I do not
quite understand what objection there can be if these particular
minorities were mentioned in the clause itself. Either let960
us be honest and say that we do not see why any such clause giving special
rights and special protection980 is necessary, or admit that there are
communities which need special protection, and if we mean business, let us
specify the community that needs protection.
Sir, the last speaker has urged two propositions. First of all, he said that in accepting the amendment proposed by my honourable friend, we shall be disfiguring the statute. I would like to remind my honourable friend that this is a cry which is too late. We shall have a constitution not for this province, nor for that province, but a constitution for every province, a constitution for the whole of India, which will have1080 recognized this principle in as clear terms as we can think of. The plea which has been urged by my honourable friend in this House is a plea which has been urged by many stalwarts in the Round Table Conference,1120 and we know that they all came to grief, not only they came to grief but they almost ended in wrecking the constitution. If I may speak from personal experience, if there is anything that brought disaster on the Round Table Conference, it is the academic attitude of these stalwarts. Sir, India is not Europe. England is not India. England does not know the caste system. Consequently, the political arrangement that may suit England can never suit us. Let us1200 recognize that fact, and I would go one step further in saying that, whatever other students of Indian politics may say, I maintain the proposition that if there is any good in the Indian Constitution that is going to come, it is the recognition of the principle of communal representation. I am not ashamed of what I am saying. 1260 I know, and I am saying, that it is going to be one of the best parts of the Indian Constitution. 1280 I do not want the mere right to go to the ballot box and not knowing who is my representative, or if there is going to be any representative to represent me at all. I want a system in which not only I will have a right to go to the ballot box, but I will have a right to have a body of people belonging to my own class who will be inside the House, not only to discuss matters but to take part in deciding issues. I say, therefore, that communal representation is not a vicious thing, it is not a poison; it is the best arrangement that can be made for the safety and security1400 of the different classes in this country. I do not call it a disfiguring of the Constitution. Then my honourable friend asks whether we should admit this principle in the judiciary. Well, if my honourable friend can assure me that the existing1440 judiciary is not without its communal bias, I would be inclined to consider his proposition favourably. But I know what sort of judiciary we have. If my honourable friend and if this House had the patience, I could reel off heaps of stories where I know to my knowledge that the judiciary has abused and prostituted its position. We want this provision because we are not certain that the village folk, who are bound together by ties of blood, by ties of kith and kin, will not make a conspiracy to utilize the political and judicial power that they will get to put down the other classes. Sir, I have no doubt at all that this is one of the best provisions that we can have in the Constitution, and I wholeheartedly support the amendment of my honourable friend.1580
