Report No. 87
5.10. Question of separate legislation.-
We also considered the third1 alternative, namely, enactment of separate legislation to deal with the matter. However, if this device is adopted, the advantages to be gained by amending the Act of 1920, to which we have already made a reference above2, would be lost. The separate law to be newly enacted would have to provide for several incidental matters, thus leading to duplication. We would, therefore, adhere to our preference for amending the Act of 1920 as the most convenient device for dealing with the point raised3 in the judgment of the Supreme Court.
A separate Act would have to provide for a number of matters of detail. The provisions to be inserted would, having regard to the methods of legislative drafting in India and its traditions, have to follow closely the wording of the Act of 1920. Such a course should, if possible, be avoided, since it would needlessly encumber the statute book and duplicate certain propositions. Thus, even for the limited purpose of effecting a reform on that point, amendment of the Act of 1920 is the most convenient course. In fact, the point is analogous to section 5.
1. Para. 5.7, supra.
2. Para. 5.9, supra.
3. Para. 5.7, supra.