Text Practice Mode

ROHIT TYPING CENTER (RTC) CHAKIYA RAJROOPUR PRAYAGRAJ U.P Allahabad High Court RO,ARO, 500 word english contact: 8299289045

created Oct 23rd, 02:08 by rohittyping3



519 words
81 completed
Constituent Assembly Debates
Constituent Assembly Debates On 27 May, 1949 Part Ii
Friday, the 27th May 1949
The Article As It Stands Is In My Humble Judgment, Not Happily Worded.
For The First Time Since We Commenced The Article By Article Consideration
Of The Constitution We Have Come Across An Article Which Lays Down That
A Particular Organ Of The State Shall Meet At A Particular Place. We Have
Passed Already Important And Articles Such As Article 69 Fixing The Venue
Of Meetings Of The House Of Parliament And Article 48(4) Fixing The Official
Residence Of The President. I Am Sure There Are Other Articles Concerning
The Place Where Certain Bodies Or Organs Of State Are Supposed To Meet.
But None Of These Articles Specifies The Mane Of Any Particular Place Where
That Organ Of The State Should Meet. Why, May I Ask Dr, Ambedkar, Does
He Feel It Necessary To Specify In This Article That The Supreme Court
Shall Meet In Delhi? The Entire Constitution Is Silent On The Point Of
India's Capital. There Is Nowhere Any Mention Of The Capital Of Our Country
In The Constitution. There Was Even An Amendment In This House, Which However
Was Not Moved, But I Am Told That My Friends Are Pursuing That Matter In
Another Way. There Have Been Frequent References To The Necessity Of Desirability
Of A Change In The Capital Of India. Anyway, Without Prejudice To That,
Notwithstanding Any Attempt That May Be Made In This Direction, I Propose
To Deal With This Question Here Purely On Merit. When The Whole Constitution
Is Silent On This Point, Why Should We Import This Mention Of The Capital,
Of Delhi, In This Article? It Is Not Far More Desirable Or Happier To Leave
The Choice Of The Venue Of The Supreme Court To The Chief Justice And The
President Of The Indian Union? Certainly They Are Best Fitted To Judge
This Matter And I Am Sure That Under The Constitution Where We Are Going
To Elect A President Of The India 00000000 Union And Have An Eminent Legal And Juristic 01478 01234 01478 0123 0258 03546 .555555,/\., ^&  
Authority For The Chief Justiceship, I See No Reason Why We Should Specify87987  
In The Constitution That The Supreme Court Should Meet At A Particular
Place. There Is No Valid Reason At All For Specifying Delhi In This Article
For That Purpose. It May Be That The Supreme Court Might Meet In Another
Place; Even If Delhi Is To Be The Capital, They May Decide For Various
Reasons That They Should Meet In Another Place, I Therefore Think That
The Mention Of Delhi In This Article Is Unnecessary. °  
 Just Another Point, Sir, The Article As It Stands Reads As Follows:
" The Supreme Court Shall Be A Court Of Record". What The Supreme Court
Will Be And Will Not Be Are Matters Which Have Been Exhaustively Dealt
With In The Preceding And Succeeding Articles. The Term "Court Of Record"
Is A Borrowed Phrase And We Need Not Use It Here. rohit typing center????||||

saving score / loading statistics ...