On 16^th September 1949, Dr. B. R. Ambedkar and Pandit Thakurdas Bhargava exchanged following views at the Constituent Assembly; 

Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: The provisions which occur in several provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code taking it obligatory upon the Magistrate to record his reasons in writing enable the High Court to consider whether the discretion left in the Magistrate has been judicial exercise. I quite agree that is a very salutary position, but I really want my Friend to consider whether in  matter of this kind where what is involved is remand to custody for a further period, the Magistrate will not have authority to consider whether the charge framed against the Accused by the Police is  prima facie borne out.

Pandit Thakurdas Bhargava: At present also under Section 167 [3] – old – these words are there, it is today incumbent upon every Magistrate to whom a person is taken, to record the reason if he allows the detention to continue.

Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: That is quite true they are there but are they very necessary?

Pandit Thakurdas Bhargava: Absolutely necessary.

Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Personally I do not think they are necessary. Let us take a worst case a Magistrate in order to please the Police so to say get into the habit of granting constant remands, one after the other thereby enabling the Police to keep the Accused in custody. Is it the case that there is no remedy open to the Accused? I think Accused has a remedy to go High Court for revision and say that the procedure of the Court is being abused.

Pandit Thakurdas Bhargava: How can a poor person go to High Court?

Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: I do not want to close my mind on it if there is a necessity I think the Drafting Committee may be left to consider this matter at a later stage whether the introduction of these words are necessary as a present advise we think those words are not necessary.

Comment: It is a matter of grave concern, neither the law nor the spirit of the law remain unchanged even after elapse of many decades if a Magistrate passes an order of remand unjustly the aggrieved person as a remedy to move the High Court – travel all the way from Magistrate to the Highest Court of the State. Which reminds of the speech made by an eminent speaker at the Assembly Mr. Nazeeruddin Ahmed who stated how we expect a poor, illiterate villager to go to High Court or the Supreme to enforce his fundamental right invoking the Writ Jurisdiction [Article 226 and 32 and 139 – the present Articles]. The present legislator would be kind enough to bestow the esteemed thought and enlightened speech on this matter.