82 vote which carried the Bill. Nor is it reasonable to assume that the minds of all those legislator were in accord” or, as it more tersely pot in an American case-‘those who did not speak may not have agreed with those who did; and those who spoke might differ from each other”. (Trav-Cochin V. Bombay Co. Ltd., 1952(SCR) 1112). Accordingly, in Kesavananda, it was observed that it is not necessary to refer to judgments which have relied upon speeches made in the Constituent Assembly they without were Constitution. considering admissible In that for case the question whether interpreting Sikri, CJ. the Hedge, Mukherjea and Chandrachud,JJ. held that speeches were not admissible extrinsic aids to the interpretation of the constitution. Keeping the above principles on the genesis of the constitutional law, let us look at the findings of the High Court Division. The High Court Division upon analysing the views taken in the Exparte Sidebotham, (1880) 14 Ch. W. 458; Tariq Transport Company V. Sargotha Bhera Bus