Tuesday, the 30th November 1948

Mr. Vice-President: You are wandering from the point.

Shri Santanu Kumar Dass: *[This also puts the gazettedofficers of the scheduled castes and minor ity community intodifficulty. Seth Damodar Swarup has just said that there isno need for reservations as Public Service Commission wouldsecure impartiality. But in this connection I would like topoint out that though there is a Public Service Commission,and candidates appear at its examination and many of thosewho qualify appear in the lists, yet when there is a chanceof filling posts those who have not even appeared at theexamination are taken in. How does it happen? It happensbecause such people have a strong backing which enables themto get selected. I am afraid the continuation of PublicService Commissions would be of no use for us.

At present there is reservation in the elections and thereby we get a chance to discuss our problems here. But If there was no such reservation it would not be possible forus to come here as we would not be able to win in the


*[] Translation of Hindustani speech.

general elections. I therefore, submit that there should bereservation in services and elections.

There is one thing more: It has been said thatreservation should be kept for ten years. Why only for tenyears? If we get equal rights within two years all would beon the same level after that period and there would be noneed for reservations. With these words I support thearticle.]

Shri Jaspat Roy Kapoor: Sir, may I submit that many ofus do not appreciate the Marshal going to the speaker andasking him to resume his seat?

Mr. Vice-President: I am sorry for what the Marshaldid; but it was not at my request. He is over-zealous.

Shri H. J. Khandekar: (C. P. & Berar: General): Sir,may I request you one thing with reference to the timelimit? The speakers here are mostly Harijan speakers and they require some time to explain the situation. I wouldtherefore request you to increase the time limit so thatthey can explain and support this article very well.

Mr. Vice-President: Yes.

Shri H. J. Khandekar: Mr. Vice President, Sir, I havecome here to support article 10 which is being discussed in the House. Before supporting it I congratulate the friendwho in the Drafting Committee has inserted this word`backward' in article 10 clause (3). If this word `backward'had not been here, the purpose of the scheduled caste wouldnot have been served as it should be. The condition of thescheduled castes has been explained by many friends who madetheir speeches in the House. The condition is so deplorablethat though the candidates of the scheduled castes apply forcertain Government posts, they are not selected for theposts because the people who select the candidates do notbelong to that community or that section. I can give so manyinstances about this because I have got the experience fromall provinces of the country that the scheduled caste peoplethough they are well qualified do not get opportunity andfair treatment in the services. It would have been better If the word `scheduled caste' as has been proposed by anamendment by my friend Mr. Muniswamy Pillay would have beeninserted in this article. Because the term `backward' is sovague that there is no definition of this word anywhere. I do not agree with my friend Mr. Chandrika Ram saying thatthe definition of the word `scheduled caste' and a list of the castes included in the scheduled caste. But I think thefriend who has inserted this word in this article is aimingat the community known as the scheduled caste and when thisConstitution is passed and when the article comes intooperation, I hope that the Executive who will operate thisclause or this Constitution will also aim at the communityknown as scheduled castes. Our revered leader Thakkar Bapais in the House. He has been working for this community forabout sixteen years as the General Secretary of the HarijanSewak Sangh. He knows the difficulties of this

communitysocially, economically, educationally, religiously and evenpolitically. If I may say here leaving aside all theseaspects, and if we consider the aspect politically, thiscommunity is not represented anywhere if no reservation ofseats are given to that community.

Mr. Vice-President: You had better confine yourself to the article under discussion. How does politics enter into the picture at all?

Shri H. J. Khandekar: Therefore, if I leave aside thepolitical aspects of the community and come to the social,educational, economical and religious aspects, the conditionof the scheduled caste in this respect also is moredeplorable than that of any man living in this country. Imay say, that if a candidate of the scheduled caste appliesfor a particular post in the Government of


*[] Translation of Hindustani speech.

India or in the Provincial Governments he is ordinarilyignored. There are commissions for recruiting thesecandidates. There is a Federal Public Service Commission,there are provincial Commissions; and while recruiting--youknow, Sir, we people are educationally backward and wecannot come in competition with the other communities--If the qualifications for the Harijan candidates are notrelaxed, our candidates will not be able to compete with thecandidates of the Brahmin community or the so-called SavarnaHindus. Then if our candidates go to the F.P.S.C. or theProvincial Commissions they will not be successful in theselections as these commissions are not represented by us. Itherefore think that while bringing this clause intooperation, the F.P.S.C. or the Provincial Commissions shouldbe instructed to relax the qualifications in connection with the Harijan candidates or the Scheduled Caste candidates and there should also be Harijan representatives on thesecommissions. Moreover, Sir, I know and the House and youtoo, Sir, know that the Government of India--I mean thepresent Government of India--has issued a circular about theservices for the Scheduled caste. They have said that inhigher services 12 1/2 per cent. of the seats are reservedfor the scheduled caste and in the lower services 16 1/2 percent. are reserved for them.

Sir, if you just see how the recruiting of Scheduled castes candidates is going on in practice, you will findthat not even 1 per cent. of these candidates has beenrecruited in the higher services and in the lower servicesof the Government of India. Look at the ProvincialGovernments that have been run by our popular ministries.Even in those provinces, the scheduled castes have noadequate representation in the services. I, therefore, wouldhave been very glad if after or before the word "backward",the word "scheduled castes" had been inserted, because thisterm `backward' is a vague one and while making theselections, communalism will arise and the commissions, I donot blame them, will be helpless. As was said here bycertain friends of mine, communalism is going on, andprovincialism is going on and other things are also going onand I am afraid if these things are continued, even if thisclause is brought into operation, the scheduled castes willnever get a chance, as the word `backward' would beinterpreted in such a way that we people would get no chancein the services because the people of other castes will alsoclaim to be backward and get the chances on reserved posts.Therefore, Sir, before resuming my seat, I would request youto see that the machinery which will operate this clauseshould be so pure, that no discrimination of any sort shouldbe made between scheduled castes and other people who comeunder the category of backward classes. With these words,Sir, I take my seat.

Mr. Mohamed Ismail Sahib (Madras: Muslim): Mr. Vice-President, Sir, this word `backward' I cannot understand in the context in which it is put here in clause (3) of article10. If one reads the clause without this word, then one canquite clearly and easily understand its meaning. But whenthe word `backward' is inserted, it obscures the meaning agreat deal. The word `backward'

has not been defined at allanywhere in this Constitution. But I may tell you it hasbeen defined in certain places. In Madras it has got adefinite and technical meaning. There are a number of castesand sub-castes called backward communities. The Governmentof Madras have counted and scheduled more than 150 of theseclasses in that province and in that province when you utterthe word `backward', it is one of those 150 and oddcommunities that is meant, and not any community that isgenerally backward. And I may also say that those 150 andodd communities constitute almost the major ity of thepopulation of that Province, and every one of thesecommunities comes from the Hindus--the major ity community.In that list the scheduled castes are not included, and ifyou include the scheduled castes also in the class of thosebackward communities, then all of them put together, willform decidedly the major ity of the whole population of thatprovince. I want to know whether by inserting the word `backward' here you mean the same backward classes asthe Madras Government means, I want to know the meaning of the word. I submit that it should not in any way be taken tomean that the backward classes as those of the minor itycommunities such as Muslims, Christians and the Scheduled caste people are excluded from the purview of this clause.As a matter of fact, there are backward people amongst thenon-major ity people as well. The Christians are backward. Asa matter of fact they are not adequately represented in theservices of the provinces. So also the Muslims, and also theScheduled Castes. If any provision is made, it has to bemade for such really backward people. It may be pointed outthat such a provision is made in article 296 under theminor ities rights. It at there the article does not speak of the reservation for those people in the services as thisclause (3) does. Therefore, it is here, and that in thefundamental rights that such a provision ought to be madefor such minor ities as the Muslims, Christians and theScheduled Castes.

Then Sir, I am opposed to the amendment moved by PanditKunzru. He says that the Government shall have the right oroption of providing for reservation only for a period of tenyears. Sir, the measure or yard-stick in any such mattershould not be the period of time. The backwardness of thepeople is the result of conditions which have beenpersisting and in existence for several centuries and ages,and these will not die off easily. So the measure reallyshould be the steps that are being taken to liquidate thatbackward condition, and it should be the forwardness of thepeople which has resulted as a consequence of those steps.Therefore, when these people advance and have come forwardas much as any other community in the land, then these veryreservations would automatically disappear. I feel that noperiod need be stipulated at all for this purpose. Thatperiod might be less than ten years, or it may be more thanten years, according as the backwardness persists ordisappears. The measure, as I said, should be the effect andresult of the steps that are being taken for removing andeliminating those conditions which go to make thebackwardness. I would now request the mover of the motion toat least remove the word `backward' and make it clear to theHouse that here, when the clause speaks of reservation, itmeans also minor ity communities, who stand in need of suchreservations.

Sir, there is only one more point which I have to touchupon. When we speak of reservations and rights andprivileges, the bogey of communalism is being raised. Sir,communalism does not come in because people want theirrights. When people find that they are not adequatelyrepresented, they rightly feel that they must have duerepresentation and then such a demand comes up. It comesbecause of their non-representation in the services, andbecause of their discontent. When such discontent isremoved, the unity of hearts comes in. It is the unity ofhearts and not any attempt at a physical unity that will dogood to the country and to the people. The differences

willbe there, but there must be harmony and that is what we allreally want, and that harmony can be brought about only bycreating contentment amongst the people. And reservation inservices is one of the measures we can adopt to bring aboutcontentment among the people. You can then say to thepeople, "Look here, you have your proper share in theservices and you have nothing to complain." When peoplethemselves find that they are given as good an opportunityas others, harmony will be there and the so-calledcommunalism will not come in at all. There are countrieswhich have followed the procedure which I am advocating andquite effectively, they have eliminated communalism.Therefore, I say that one of the ways of removing disharmonyand producing harmony, is to make provision for the people'srepresentation in the services and to make them feel thatthey have got a real share and an effective share in thegovernance of the country.

Sardar Hukam Singh (East Punjab : Sikh): Mr. Vice-President, Sir, the point that I want to press before this House has already been touched upon by one or two Members. The Honourable Pandit Kunzru has saidthat he wants to enquire what relation there is betweenarticle 10 and article 296. Certainly if we take article 10,clause (1), it is laid down there that "there shall beequality of opportunity for all citizens in matters ofemployment under the State". That would mean that when postsare to be filled, that would be done by open competition and the topmost men would be taken in. That is quite all right;that should be the procedure.

But when we look at articles 296 and 297, those twoarticles lay down that claims of all minor ities shall betaken into consideration:--

"Subject to the provisions of the next succeedingarticle the claims of all minor ity communities shall betaken into consideration, consistently with the maintenanceof efficiency of administration, in the making ofappointments........"

To me it seems that there is some conflict betweenthese two articles. If we are to fill up these posts by opencompetition and on merit, certainly we cannot giverecognition to the claims of all minor ities. Then the bestmen would be taken in and if some members of the minor itiesdo happen to succeed, that would not be on the considerationof their claims as minor ities but that would be underarticle 10 as equal citizens of the State. If they get thoseposts in open competition, it is all right; but if they arenot adequately represented by that method, then what article296 implies is, that special consideration shall be shown to them to see that their representation is made up.

Sir, there can be only one of these two things--eitherthere can be clear equal opportunity or specialconsideration. Article 10 says there shall be equality ofopportunity, then it emphasises the fact by a negativeclause that no citizen shall be discriminated on account ofreligion or race. It is quite good, but when no indicationis given whether this would override article 296 or article296 is independent of it, we are certainly left in thelurch. What would be the fate of the minor ities?

In clause (3) this new phrase "backward class" ofcitizens has been introduced. We had heard of "depressedclasses", "scheduled castes", but this "backward class ofcitizens", so far as our part of the country is concerned,we have never seen used in any statute. Just now we havebeen told that "backward classes" have been defined in theProvince of Madras; that may be, but that is not within myknowledge. Whereas this new term has made apprehensive themembers of the scheduled castes and they have pressed herethat it should be made clear that it only applies to them,if it is for their benefit, at the same time it has made theminor ities apprehensive whether they are being included, asPandit Kunzru said, whether "backward classes" would includethose minor ities as well, whether if they are not adequatelyrepresented any concession would be shown to them; and If they are not to be included in this phrase then what wouldbe their fate under article 296.

Unless we reconcile thesetwo articles--296 and 10--the safeguards that are beingprovided in article 296 become illusory and there isapprehension in our minds as to whether that article wouldbe to our benefit at all.

Shri K. M. Munshi: Mr. Vice-President, Sir, thecriticism that has been placed before the House so far hasrevolved round two points. The first point is the scope of amendment No. 82 moved by my honourable friend Shri AlladiKrishnaswami Ayyar; the second is about the word "backward".I propose to deal with the first question particularly inview of what was said by my honourable friend Mr. Gupta and the comments made by my honourable friend Mr. Kamath.

I want the House to realise the scope of this article.In article 10, clause (2), the House has added the word"residence" to the various restrictions that are mentionedthere.

Shri T. T. Krishnamachari (Madras: General): It has notbeen added, it was merely suggested.

Shri K. M. Munshi: It has been moved that it should beadded; I stand corrected. We have moved an amendment to thiseffect implying thereby that we are going to support it andI hope we are going to get the support of the House. The amendment seeks to insert the word "residence" in clause(2); that would mean that no State, not even a localauthor ity like a municipality or a local board, can evermake a rule that the incumbent of an office or an employeeshall be a resident of that particular place. This wouldlead to great inconvenience. For instance, there is anamendment to insert the words "office" and "employment"separately; that would include offices which do not carry asalary. Then, take for instance the chairman of a localboard. It may become necessary for a Provincial Legislatureto lay doen a residential qualification. The ProvincialLegislature, however will not have the power to do so unlessthe House accepts the amendment which has been moved by myhonourable friend Shri Alladi. All that amendment No. 82seeks to do is this: if the clause with regard to residencehas to be qualified and a residential qualification has to be imposed, it can only be done by the Parliament, that isby the Central Legislature. The reason of this change isthat there should be uniformity with regard to thisqualification throughout the whole country and that thisprovision should not be abused by some Legislature byimposing an impossible residential qualification.

The second difficulty which evidently has been presentbefore the minds of some of the Members of the House is withregard to the word "State". I would like to draw theattention of the House to the different meanings of the word"state" used in the Constitution. The amendment says, "AnyState for the time being specified in Schedule I". So wehave to find the meaning of the word "State". I may nowrefer to article 1 which says:--

"India shall be a Union of States.

The States shall mean the States for the time beingspecified in Parts I, II and III of the First Schedule".

Now, if you go to the First Schedule, the Schedule isheaded "State and Territories". So far as the First Scheduleis concerned, Parts I, II and III refer to the Statesorganised into a separate autonomous Government; while theterritories are described in Part IV--Andaman and NicobarIslands. Therefore, the words "Any State for the time beingspecified in the First Schedule" would cover only the Statesmentioned in Parts I, II and III but would not include theAndaman and Nicobar Islands.

Some difficulty has been felt by one or two memberswith regard to the definition of the word "States".

Shri H. V. Kamath: May I draw my learned friend Mr.Munshi's attention to the language used in the FirstSchedule? Part I refers to "territories" as well--"theterritories known immediately before the commencement ofthis Constitution as the Governors' Provinces". The word"territory" is used there and not merely in connection withAndaman and Nicobar Islands. In Parts I, II, and IV the wordemployed is "territory".

Shri K. M. Munshi: If the Honourable Member is goodenough to follow the submissions which I am

making, I amsure he will be convinced, unless he is determined not to beconvinced, in which case it it a different matter.

Shri H. V. Kamath: The boot, Sir, is on the other leg.

Shri K. M. Munshi: What I am saying is, if you look atthe words of article 1, it says: "The States shall mean theStates, `&c.". These do not include the Central Governmentof the Union. It only means the autonomous States which are mentioned in Parts I, II and III. As regards PartIV you will find in clause 3, sub-clause (2)--"theterritories for the time being specified in Part IV of theFirst Schedule. . . . ." Therefore Nicobar Islands are not aState within the meaning of article 1. They are a territory.These territories are not governed by any legislature of their own nor are they a state with any autonomous powers.They are directly controlled by the Centre and the Centrecannot make a distinction with regard to its own servicesbetween a resident of one province and another. It musttreat every citizen equally. The scheme of this amendmenttherefore, if it is seen in this light, is that with regardto the States in Parts I, II and III and in respect of anyoffice under such States, a residential qualification can beimposed by the legislature.

The other difficulty was in regard to article 7. Thearticle uses the words "the State". They are almost madeinto a term of art and apply only to the words "the State"used in Part III, that is for the purpose of Fundamental rights. It has no application to either the Schedule or to the States falling within article 1. Therefore, when the amendment under discussion says "any State" it cannot mean'the State' as defined in article 7. I submit this amendment, makes it perfectly clear that it is for thepurpose of services under the States mentioned in Part I, IIand III that the Central Legislature can enact alegislation, not with regard to any part of the territorywhich is directly controlled by the Central Government. Itwould be quite wrong in principle, I submit, that theCentral Government should make distinctions between theresidents of one province and another. Therefore, the amendment as it stands, I submit, is perfectly correct.

Shri H. V. Kamath: Mr. Vice-President, if I heard myfriend aright, he did say just now that the words "anyState" refers to only Parts I, II and III of the firstSchedule. Then, why not say specifically and definitely in this amendment--"any State for the time being specified inParts I of the First Schedule to III" and be done with it?

Shri K. M. Munshi: I may humbly point out to my friendthat the heading of the First Schedule is "the States andTerritories of India" under articles 1 and 4, and NicobarIslands are territories; they are not States. Therefore, it is perfectly clear to any one who compares the two articles.I cannot add any further explanation to what I have given.

Shri H. V. Kamath: If the wise men of the Drafting Committee think so, and as ultimately they will have theirown way in regard to this amendment right or wrong, I do notwant to press this point.

Shri K. M. Munshi: The meaning as I understand it,--andI hope I have made it clear to the House--is perfectly clearand requires no further comment on my part.

The other point that has been raised--of course, itwill be dealt with exhaustively by my Honourable friend Dr.Ambedkar when he replies generally--is about the use of theword "backward." There is one point of view which I wouldlike to place before the House. I happen not to belong to the Scheduled Castes; and I am putting that point of view,which possibly may come better from me than my Honourablefriend Dr. Ambedkar. Certain members of the Scheduled Casteshave expressed a doubt whether by the use of the word"backward classes" their rights or privileges oropportunities will be curtailed in any manner. I cannotimagine for the life of me how, after an experience of ayear and a half of the Constitutent Assembly any honourableMember of the Scheduled Castes should have a feeling thatthey will not be included in the backward classes so long asthey are

backward. I cannot also imagine a time when thereis any backward class in India which does not include theScheduled Caste. But the point I want to draw the attention of these Members tois this. Look at what has been going on in this House for the last year and a half. Take article 11. From the firsttime the draft was put before the sub-committee of theMinor ities Committee--the Fundamental Rights Committee--there has not been a single member of the non-Scheduled castes who has ever raised any objection to it. On thecontrary, we members who do not belong to the Scheduled castes, have in order to wipe out this blot on our society,been in the forefront in this matter. Not only that, butarticle 296 and even this particular proviso has been put inand supported fully by members of other communities and havebeen supported by the whole House. There need, therefore, beno fear that the House, as constituted at present orhereafter, will ever make a distinction or discriminateagainst the Scheduled Castes. That fear, I think, isentirely unfounded. What we want to secure by this clauseare two things. In the fundamental right in the first clausewe want to achieve the highest efficiency in the services of the State--highest efficiency which would enable theservices to function effectively and promptly. At the sametime, in view of the conditions in our country prevailing inseveral provinces, we want to see that backward classes,classes who are really backward, should be given scope in the State services; for it is realised that State servicesgive a status and an opportunity to serve the country, and this opportunity should be extended to every community, evenamong the backward people. That being so, we have to findout some generic term and the word "backward class" was thebest possible term. When it is read with article 301 it isperfectly clear that the word "backward" signifies thatclass of people--does not matter whether you call themuntouchables or touchables, belonging to this community orthat,--a class of people who are so backward that specialprotection is required in the services and I see no reasonwhy any member should be apprehensive of regard to the word"backward."

Pandit Hirday Nath Kunzru: This is begging thequestion. To argue like this is to argue in a circle.

Shri K. M. Munshi: Well, I have not been able to tracethe circle so far, inspite of my learned friend's attempt tomake me do it.

An Honourable Member: Who are those backward classes?

Shri K. M. Munshi: Article 301 makes it clear thatthere will be a Commision appointed for the purpose ofinvestigating what are backward classes. Some reference hasbeen made to Madras. I may point out that in the province ofBombay for several years now, there has been a definition ofbackward classes, which includes not only Scheduled Castesand Scheduled Tribes but also other backward classes who areeconomically, educationally and socially backward. We neednot, therefore, define or restrict the scope of the word`backward' to a particular community. Whoever is backwardwill be covered by it and I think the apprehensions of theHonourable Members are not justified.

Shri T. T. Krishnamachari: Mr. Vice-President, Sir, Iam afraid I am in a position of disadvantage, coming as I doafter Mr. Munshi, whom the House knows as a very learnedlawyer. I now see that his technique in advocacy is toconfuse the judge, as--if I had heard him aright--he musthave confused the minds of those Members of this House whohad some doubts in regard to the provisions of article 10.Sir, I was reading recently in a newspaper the comments onthis Constitution by a celebrated author ity--Prof. IvorJennings. Vice-Chancellor of the Ceylon University--and hecharacterises this chapter of fundamental rights as aparadise for lawyers. And, as a piece of loose drafting,article 10 takes the palm. My own view, if I may bepermitted to state it, is that this article had better notfind a place in this Chapter on Fundamental Rights.

Let me take clause (1): "There shall be equality ofopportunity for all citizens in matters of

employment underthe State." What class of citizens? Literates? Illiterates? Could an illiterate file a suit before the Supreme Court alleging that he has been denied equality ofopportunity? This is not my own view. This is a statement of the view which I found expressed in Professor Jennings'criticism.

I now move on to clause (2). I am afraid this House hasbeen put to a lot of trouble merely because of the attemptto accommodate my Honourable Friend Shri Jaspat Roy Kapoorby including the word `residence' in this clause after theword `birth'. This has been beginning of all the trouble. Wehave had an amendment by Shri K. M. Munshi and another byShri Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar. Is it at all necessary toinclude the word `residence?' I put it to the House that it is not necessary, because if there is discrimination becauseof `residence' as there may be, you are not going to coverit up by putting it in here and taking it out in clause 2(a).

An Honourable Member: Delete 2 (a) then.

Shri T. T. Krishnamachari: That is a matter for theHouse. But I suggest to the House that we can be impartialin this matter. We shall deny Mr. Jaspat Roy Kapoor theright to put in `residence' and we shall deny Shri AlladiKrishnaswami Ayyar the occasion to bring in an explanatorysub-clause which would whittle down the concession given asmuch as possible.

Now let us turn to the wording of the particularamendment moved by Shri Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar on whichmy Honourable Friend Mr. Munshi dilated at length. Sir, as Isaid before, I am not presuming to give any advice on thematter. Let us see what the Parliament is going to do? Is itgoing to pass a comprehensive law covering the needs of allthe States, all the local bodies, all the village panchayats(which will also be States under the definition in Article7) and all the universities? Or, is it going to enact freshlegislation as and when occasion arises and as and when aparticular local body or university or village panchayatasks for special exemption? Nothing is known as to what isnaturally contemplated. We do not know what procedure isgoing to be laid down for this purpose, and this clause isso beautifully vague that we do not know whether Parliamentis at all going to be moved in the matter for acomprehensive piece of legislation. Even then what is thetype of legislation it could enact?

The proposal of my friend Shri Jaspat Roy can benullified if Parliament decides that there should beresidence of at least ten years before a person can qualifyfor an officer in the area. Or, is Parliament going to putdown one year or is it going to cover the position ofrefugees by putting in six months or nothing at all? My ownview is that, instead of putting in a clause like 2 (a)which is so vague,--the doubt raised by my friend Mr. Kamathis quite right--we can safely trust the good sense ofParliament. We are leaving the whole thing to the good senseof Parliament, the legislatures, the Supreme Court and theadvocates who will appear before that Court when we enactthis Constitution in the manner in which it has beenpresented to us. I am afraid there must be some region whereyou must leave it to the good sense of some people, becausewe are here trying to prevent the good sense of people fromnullifying the ideas which we hold today.

Sir, the amendment of Shri Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyarsays: ".....under any State for the time being specified in the First Schedule or any local or other authority withinits territory, any requirement as to residence within thatState prior to such employment or appointment." I cannotreally understand where any State comes in here, even afterhearing the very able advocacy and admirable advocacy ofShri Munshi in support of the amendment. I suggest that boththe ammendments be dropped. If any particular Statedisregards our views and insists on residentialqualification it would not matter very much.

I now come to clause (3). Quite a number of friendsobjected to the word `backward' in this clause. I have nodoubt many of them have pointed out that when this House took a decision in

this regard in thisparticular matter on a former occasion the word `backward'did not find a place. It was an after-thought which thecumulative wisdom of the Drafting Committee has devised for the purpose of anticipating the possibility of thisprovision being applied to a large section of the community.

May I ask who are the backward class of citizens? Itdoes not apply to a backward caste. It does not apply to aScheduled caste or to any particular community. I say thebasis of any future division as between `backward' and`forward' or non-backward might be in the basis of literacy.If the basis of division is literacy, 80 per cent. of ourpeople fall into the backward class citizens. Who is goingto give the ultimate award? Perhaps the Supreme Court. Itwill have to find out what the intention of the framers wasas to who should come under the category of backwardclasses. It does not say `caste.' It says `class.' Is it aclass which is based on grounds of economic status or ongrounds of literacy or on grounds of birth? What is it?

My honourable Friend Mr. Munshi thinks that this wordhas fallen from heaven like manna and snatched by theDrafting Committee in all their wisdom. I say this is aparadise for lawyers. I do not know if the lawyers who havebeen on the Committee have really not tried to improve thebusiness prospects of their clan and the opportunities of their community or class by framing a constitution so fullof pitfalls.

Shri K. M. Munshi: Well, my honourable friend canattempt to become a lawyer.

Shri T. T. Krishnamachari: I am afraid I may have to,when people like Mr. Munshi desert the profession for othermore lucrative occupations. If my friend wants me to saysomething saucy I can tell him that I could attempt that anddo some justice to it.

Shri K. M. Munshi: You can, I know.

Shri T. T. Krishnamachari: I must apologise to you, Mr.Vice-President, for carrying on a conversation with Mr.Munshi notwithstanding the fact that he has beenprovocative. Anyhow the subject is not one which merits suchsallies.

Sir, coming back to the merits of clause (3) my feelingis that this article is very loosely worded. That the word`backward' is liable to different interpretations is thefear of some of my friends, though I feel that there is noneed for such fear, because I have no doubt it is going to be ultimately interpreted by the Supreme author ity on somebasis, caste, community, religion, literacy or economicstatus. So I cannot congratulate the Drafting Committee onputting this particular word in; whatever might be theimplication they had in their mind, I cannot help feelingthat this clause will lead to a lot of litigation.

Sir, before I sit down I would like to put before theHouse a suggestion not to block the issue further either byadmitting the amendment of Shri Jaspat Roy Kapoor or, as asequel to it, the amendment of Shri Alladi KrishnaswamiAyyar.

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Mr. Vice-President,Sir, I am going to say at the outset, before I deal with thespecific questions that have been raised in the course of the debate, that I cannot accept amendment No. 334 moved byMr. Misra; nor can I accept the two amendments moved by myfriend, Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad, Nos. 336 and 337. I amprepared to accept the amendment of Mr. Imam No. 338, asamended by amendment No. 77 moved by Mr. AnanthasaynamAyyangar. I am also prepared to accept the amendment of Mr.Kapoor, viz. No. 340, as amended by amendments Nos. 81 and82 moved by my friends Mr. Munshi and Mr. AlladiKrishnaswami Ayyar

I do not think that I am called upon to say anythingwith regard to amendments Nos. 334, 336 and 337. Suchobservations, therefore, as I shall make in the course of myspeech will be confined to the question of residence aboutwhich there has been so much debate and the use of the word"backward" in clause (3) of article 10, My friend, Mr. T. T.Krishnamachari, has twitted the Drafting Committee that theDrafting Committee, probably in the interests of somemembers of that Committee, instead of producing aConstitution, have produced a paradise for

lawyers. I am notprepared to say that this Constitution will not give rise toquestions which will involve legal interpretation orjudicial interpretation. In fact, I would like to ask Mr.Krishnamachari if he can point out to me any instance of anyConstitution in the world which has not been a paradise forlawyers. I would particularly ask him to refer to the vaststorehouse of law reports with regard to the Constitution of the United States, Canada and other countries. I amtherefore not ashamed at all if this Constitution hereafterfor purposes of interpretation is required to be taken to the Federal Court. That is the fate of every Constitutionand every Drafting Committee. I shall therefore not labourthat point at all.

Now, with regard to the question of residence. Thematter is really very simple and I cannot understand why sointelligent a person as my friend Mr. T. T. Krishnamacharishould have failed to understand the basic purpose of thatamendment.

Shri T. T. Krishnamachari: For the same reason as myhonourable Friend had for omitting to put that wordoriginally in the article.

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: I did not quitefollow. I shall explain the purpose of this ammendment. It is the feeling of many persons in this House that, since wehave established a common citizenship throughout India,irrespective of the local jurisdiction of the provinces and the Indian States, it is only a concomitant thing thatresidence should not be required for holding a particularpost in a particular State because, in so far as you makeresidence a qualification, you are really subtracting fromthe value of a common citizenship which we have establishedby this Constitution or which we propose to establish bythis Constitution. Therefore in my judgment, the argumentthat residence should not be a qualification to holdappointments under the State is a perfectly valid and aperfectly sound argument. At the same time, it must berealised that you cannot allow people who are flying fromone province to another, from one State to another, as merebirds of passage without any roots, without any connectionwith that particular province, just to come, apply for postsand, so to say, take the plums and walk away. Therefore,some limitation is necessary. It was found, when this matterwas investigated, that already today in very many provincesrules have been framed by the provincial governmentsprescribing a certain period of residence as a qualificationfor a post in that particular province. Therefore theproposal in the amendment that, although as a general ruleresidence should not be a qualification, yet some exceptionmight be made, is not quite out of the ordinary. We aremerely following the practice which has been alreadyestablished in the various provinces. However, what we foundwas that while different provinces were laying down acertain period as a qualifying period for posts, the periodsvaried considerably. Some provinces said that a person mustbe actually domiciled. What that means, one does not know.Others have fixed ten years, some seven years and so on. Itwas therefore felt that, while it might be desirable to fixa period as a qualifying test, that qualifying test shouldbe uniform throughout India. Consequently, if that object isto be achieved, viz., that the qualifying residential periodshould be uniform, that object can be achieved only bygiving the power to Parliament and not giving it to the local units, whether provinces or States.That is the underlying purpose of this amendment puttingdown residence as a qualification.

With regard to the point raised by my friend, Mr.Kamath, I do not propose to deal with it because it hasalready been dealt with by Mr. Munshi and also by anotherfriend. They told him why the language as it now stands in the amendment is perfectly in accord with the otherprovisions of this Constitution.

Now, Sir, to come to the other question which has beenagitating the members of this House, viz., the use of theword "backward" in clause (3) of article 10, I should liketo begin by making some general observations so

that membersmight be in a position to understand the exact import, thesignificance and the necessity for using the word "backward"in this particular clause. If members were to try andexchange their views on this subject, they will find thatthere are three points of view which it is necessary for usto reconcile if we are to produce a workable propositionwhich will be accepted by all. Of the three points of view,the first is that there shall be equality of opportunity forall citizens. It is the desire of many Members of this Housethat every individual who is qualified for a particular postshould be free to apply for that post, to sit forexaminations and to have his qualifications tested so as todetermine whether he is fit for the post or not and thatthere ought to be no limitations, there ought to be nohindrance in the operation of this principle of equality ofopportunity. Another view mostly shared by a section of theHouse is that, if this principle is to be operative--and itought to be operative in their judgment to its fullestextent--there ought to be no reservations of any sort forany class or community at all, that all citizens, if theyare qualified, should be placed on the same footing ofequality so far as the public services are concerned. That is the second point of view we have. Then we have quite amassive opinion which insists that, although theoreticallyit is good to have the principle that there shall beequality of opportunity, there must at the same time be aprovision made for the entry of certain communities whichhave so far been outside the administration. As I said, theDrafting Committee had to produce a formula which wouldreconcile these three points of view, firstly, that thereshall be equality of opportunity, secondly that there shallbe reservations in favour of certain communities which havenot so far had a `proper look-in' so to say into theadministration. If honourable Members will bear these factsin mind--the three principles, we had to reconcile,--theywill see that no better formula could be produced than theone that is embodied in sub-clause (3) of article 10 of the Constitution; they will find that the view of those whobelieve and hold that there shall be equality ofopportunity, has been embodied in sub-clause (1) of Article10. It is a generic principle. At the same time, as I said,we had to reconcile this formula with the demand made bycertain communities that the administration which has now--for historical reasons--been controlled by one community ora few communities, that situation should disappear and thatthe others also must have an opportunity of getting into thepublic services. Supposing, for instance, we were to concedein full the demand of those communities who have not been sofar employed in the public services to the fullest extent,what would really happen is, we shall be completelydestroying the first proposition upon which we are allagreed, namely, that there shall be an equality ofopportunity. Let me give an illustration. Supposing, forinstance, reservations were made for a community or acollection of communities, the total of which came tosomething like 70 per cent. of the total posts under theState and only 30 per cent. are retained as the unreserved.Could anybody say that the reservation of 30 per cent. asopen to general competition would be satisfactory from thepoint of view of giving effect to the first principle,namely, that there shall be equality of opportunity? It cannot be in my judgment. Therefore the seats to bereserved, if the reservation is to be consistent with sub-clause (1) of Article 10, must be confined to a minor ity ofseats. It is then only that the first principle could findits place in the Constitution and effective in operation. Ifhonourable Members understand this position that we have tosafeguard two things namely, the principle of equality ofopportunity and at the same time satisfy the demand ofcommunities which have not had so far representation in theState, then, I am sure they will agree that unless you usesome such qualifying phrase as "backward" the

exception madein favour of reservation will ultimately eat up the rulealtogether. Nothing of the rule will remain. That I think,if I may say so, is the justification why the Drafting Committee undertook on its own shoulders the responsibilityof introducing the word `backward' which, I admit, did notoriginally find a place in the fundamental right in the wayin which it was passed by this Assembly. But I thinkhonourable Members will realise that the Drafting Committeewhich has been ridiculed on more than one ground forproducing sometimes a loose draft, sometimes something whichis not appropriate and so on, might have opened itself tofurther attack that they produced a Draft Constitution inwhich the exception was so large, that it left no room for the rule to operate. I think this is sufficient to justifywhy the word `backward' has been used.

With regard to the minor ities, there is a specialreference to that in Article 296, where it has been laiddown that some provision will be made with regard to theminor ities. Of course, we did not lay down any proportion.That is quite clear from the section itself, but we have notaltogether omitted the minor ities from consideration.Somebody asked me: "What is a backward community"? Well, I think any one who reads the language of the draft itselfwill find that we have left it to be determined by eachlocal Government. A backward community is a community whichis backward in the opinion of the Government. My honourableFriend, Mr. T. T. Krishnamachari asked me whether this rulewill be justiciable. It is rather difficult to give adogmatic answer. Personally I think it would be ajusticiable matter. If the local Government included in thiscategory of reservations such a large number of seats, I think one could very well go to the Federal Court and the Supreme Court and say that the reservation is of such amagnitude that the rule regarding equality of opportunityhas been destroyed and the court will then come to theconclusion whether the local Government or the StateGovernment has acted in a reasonable and prudent manner. Mr.Krishnamachari asked: "Who is a reasonable man and who is aprudent man? These are matters of litigation". Of course,they are matters of litigation, but my honourable Friend,Mr. Krishnamachari will understand that the words"reasonable persons and prudent persons" have been used invery many laws and if he will refer only to the Transfer ofProperty Act, he will find that in very many cases the words"a reasonable person and a prudent person" have very wellbeen defined and the court will not find any difficulty indefining it. I hope, therefore that the amendments which Ihave accepted, will be accepted by the House.

Mr. Vice-President: I am now going to put the amendments to vote, one by one.

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: I am sorry I forgotto say that I accept amendment No. 342.

Mr. Vice-President: The question is:--

"That in clause (2) of article 10, for the word `ongrounds only' the words `on grounds' be substituted."

The motion was negatived.

Mr. Vice-President: The question is:

"That clauses (2), (3) and (4) of article 10 be deleted."

The motion was negatived.

Mr. Vice-President: The question is:

"That for clause (2) of article 10, the followingclause be substituted:--

"(2) Every citizen shall be eligible for office underany State irrespective of his religion, caste, sex, descentor place of birth."

The motion was negatived.

Mr. Vice-President: I shall put to vote amendment No.338 as amended by No. 77 of List No. 1 which has alreadybeen accepted by the Chairman of the Drafting Committee. Thequestion is:--

"(i) That in clause (1) of article 10, for the words`in matters of employment', the words `in matters relatingto employment or appointment to office' be substituted."

(ii) That in clause (2) of article 10, after the words`ineligible for any' the words `employment or' be inserted."

The motion was adopted.

Mr. Vice-President: The question is:

"That in clause (2) of article 10, after the words`place of birth' the

words `in India be added."

The motion was negatived.

Mr. Vice-President: I will now put amendment No. 340 asmodified by amendment No. 81 of List No. III to the vote.

Shri H. V. Kamath: I submit, Sir, that amendments 81and 82 will have to be put to the vote first.

Mr. Vice-President: There is no difference so far as Ican see in regard to amendment No. 81 and if you insist, Iam prepared to put it separately. I would like to carry theHouse with me, so long as it is legitimate.

Shri H. V. Kamath: I think it would be better, but I donot insist.

Mr. Vice-President: You do not insist. Then let meproceed in my own inadequate way.

Mr. Vice-President: The question is:

"That in clause (2) of articles 10, after the word`birth' the word `residence' be inserted.

The motion was adopted.

Mr. Vice-President: The question is:

That after clause (2) of article 10, the following newclause be inserted:--

"(2a) Nothing in this article shall prevent Parliamentfrom making any laws prescribing in regard to a class orclasses of employment or appointment to an office under anyState for the time being specified in the First Schedule orany local or other author ity within its territory, anyrequirement as to residence within that State prior to suchemployment or appointment."

The motion was adopted.

Mr. Vice-President: The question is:

"That in clause (2) or article 10, after the word`ineligible' the words `or discriminated against' be inserted."

The motion was adopted.

Mr. Vice-President: The question is:

That clause (3) of article 10 be deleted.

The motion was negatived.

Mr. Vice-President: The question is:

"That in clause (3) of article 10, for the words `shallprevent the State from making any provision for thereservation' the words `shall, during a period of ten yearsafter the commencement of this Constitution, prevent theState from making any reservation' be substituted."

The motion was negatived.

Mr. Vice-President: The question is:

"That in clause (3) of article 10 the word `backward'be omitted."

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. Vice-President: The question is:

"That in clause (4) of article 10, after the words `inconnection with' the word `managing' be added, and the words`or denomination' be deleted."

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. Vice-President: I shall now put the article as awhole as amended by amendment No. 338, (as modified byamendment No. 77), as amended by amendment No. 340 asmodified by amendments numbers 81 and 82 of list III, and asfurther amended by amendment No. 342. The question is.

That this Article in this modified form stand part of the Constitution.

The motion was adopted.

Article 10, as amended, was added to the Constitution.

Article 12

Mr. Vice-President: We come to Article 12.

An Honourable Member: What about Article 10-A, Sir?

Mr. Vice-President: So far as our records show, thatwas finished. That was not moved.

The motion before the House is:

"That article 12 form part of the Constitution."

The first amendment is No. 383, standing in the name ofPandit Lakshmi Kanta Maitra and others.

(Amendment No. 383 was not moved.)

Mr. Vice-President: Amendment No. 384 is out of order.

(Amendment No. 385 was not moved.)

Mr. Vice-President: Amendments Nos. 386 and 392 may beconsidered together. I can allow amendment No. 386 to be moved. It stands in the name of Shri Kamleshwari PrasadYadav.

(Amendments numbers 386 and 392 were not moved.)

Mr. Vice-President: Amendments Nos. 387 and 394 are ofsimilar import. I shall allow amendment number 387 to be moved. One thing more: before you speak, I want to knowwhether Mr. A. K. Menon in whose name amendment No. 394stands, wants to press it.

Shri A. K. Menon: (Madras: General): No, Sir.

Shri T. T. Krishnamachari: Sir, I move:

"That in clause (1) of article 12, after the word"title" the words `not being a military or academicdistinction' be inserted."

Sir, article 12 clause (1) will read, as amended, asfollows: "No title not being a military or academic

distinctionshall be conferred by the State."

The history of this particular article the Members of the House know very well. Generally, public opinion has beenagainst any titles being granted. The House is also awarethat consequent on India becoming independent, severalpeople who had accepted titles from our Brit ish Rulers in the past had given up their titles, though some of them doretain them still. [There has been a proposal at one stagethat it is the intention of the members of the Drafting Committee to exclude only hereditary titles or otherprivileges of birth; but Dr. Ambedkar has chosen not to moveit. Actually, if he had moved it, it would have made theposition of those people who did not have any hereditarytitles, but resigned their titles with the advent ofindependence, very difficult. Then, it would mean that theGovernment could grant titles like Dewan Bahadur, somethinganalogous to knighthood, and so on. It would put thosepeople who have been patriotic enough to resign their titlesat the time that we got independence in a very invidiousposition.]

Even now, in my view, the article is not complete;because, without a specific non-recognition of titlesalready granted by the Brit ish, those people who have beengood enough to resign their titles have no benefit. Somehave resigned their titles in order to get jobs; and theyhave got jobs. Other people have resigned; and they have gotnothing out of it. Some people have kept their titles andthose titles are recognised by the present Government. Itmakes the position of those people who have resigned theirtitles very sad. It may probably be that in course of timethe Government will refuse to recognise those titles. I knowthe one Paper which is very near to the Government refusesto recognise such titles. Personally, I think, if the Housewould permit me to make a personal remark, from my point ofview, the retention of titles is beneficial. Here is anhonourable Member of the House who bears the same name asmine. He even went to England along with me. He is a titledgentlemen; I am not and that helps to avoid confusion and Iam glad he retained his title. That is by the way. What Ireally mean by this amendment is that certain type of titleshas to be permitted. For instance, honourable Members ofthis House know that the Government have decided on threetypes of Military distinction to be granted in the futureMahavir Chakra, Parama Vir Chakra and Vir Chakra. Please donot confuse this with the name of our friend Mahabir Tyagi,a very distinguished Member of this House, to whom the titlewas given by his parents. In course of time, these VirChakras will become Bir Chakras. This amendment is moved tomake provision for these Military distinctions.

In regard to academic distinctions, you may ask,academic distinctions are not conferred by the State. It mayprobably be that, some time later, the State might bewilling to revive titles like Mahamahopadhyaya which willprobably be classed as academic.

Even so, in consonance with the definition of State inarticle 7, the University becomes a State and no one in theHouse can say, that the University is something completelydivorced from State. So much so, the titles granted byUniversities or academic institutions have to be providedfor as one cannot completely exclude it from the scope ofclause (1) of article 12 as it stands now, The House mightask whether those titles earned by us by sitting for anexamination come under the scope of article 12 because theholder had to sit for an examination and get it. These willnot come under article 12. But there are titles which areHonoris Causa. For instance the House knows that our PrimeMinister, Deputy Minister, Ministers and Governor-Generalare being showered with Doctorates wherever they go andwherever there happens to be a mushroom University. Toprovide for contingencies of that sort we are providing by this amendment that academicdistinctions should be excluded from the scope of this sub-clause. I hope the House fully understands the meaning ofthis amendment, which in my view takes stock of

things tocome and provides for them. I hope the House will accept myamendment.

Mr. Vice-President: Amendments No. 388, 389, first part of 390, 391, 395 to 397 are of similar import. 389 may be moved.

Shri Lokanath Misra: Sir, I beg to move:

"That in clause (1) of article 12, after the words "beconferred" the words "or recognised" be inserted."

Sir, this is a small amendment. I beg to submit that if youare going to abolish all titles, it is also proper thatthose people who have already titles rightly or wronglyshould no more be recognized. We know that titles areappendages and titles give a different view to the man andwe know instances where people have got titles which they donot deserve and the entitled gentlemen belies the import of the title. I therefore submit that we should not onlyabolish all titles, we should also cease to recognise anytitle that has been conferred, but recognised by none of us.

Mr. Vice-President: I would like to know whether themover of amendment No. 388 wants it to be put to vote.

Shri H. V. Kamath: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Vice-President: No. 390 first part. I want to knowwhether this should be put to vote.

Prof. K. T. Shah: Yes.

Mr. Vice-President: 391 is the same. 393, 396 and 397are not moved. 390 (second part) is disallowed as being averbal amendment. I can allow 398, 399 and 400 to be moved.

(Nos. 398 and 399 were not moved).

Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad: Mr. Vice-President, Sir, I beg to move:

"That for clause (2) of article 12 the following clausebe substituted:--

"(2) No title conferred by any foreign State on anycitizen of India shall be recognised by the State."

This word `the' before "State" is a consequential change.Sir, the clause which this amendment seeks to replace runsthus:--

"No citizen of India shall accept any title from anyforeign State."

What is prohibited by the original clause is the`acceptance' of a title. I would ask: if anybody accepts anyforeign title, what is the penalty which is provided? Nopenalty is provided for accepting it. The State has no meansof giving effect to this clause. If anybody accepts a titlefrom a foreign State, what are you going to do--send him torigorous imprisonment for six months?

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: The State shall notrecognize it.

Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad: I am grateful for theinterruption. My amendment is exactly this that no titleconferred by any foreign State on the citizens of Indiashall be recognised by the State. The honourable Member Dr.Ambedkar has stated very kindly that the State shall notrecognize it. That is really the form in which it should bestated, Supposing any title is conferred upon any honourableMember here by a foreign State and if he accepts it, youhave no means of effecting a compliance with clause (2). Allthat you can do as has been rightly pointed out by Dr.Ambedkar is that you do not recognise it; and that is the form in which this amendment stands. I do not think any further author ity is necessary than theinterjection of Dr. Ambedkar to support my amendment.

(Amendments Nos. 401, 402 and 403 were not moved.)

Shri Algu Rai Shastri (United Provinces: General): *[Iam not moving this amendment because a similar amendment wasmoved earlier by Shri Krishnamachari and I agree with him.I, therefore, do not move my amendment.]

Mr. Vice-President: 404 is not moved. 405, 407, 410 and411 are of similar nature. I rule that amendment No. 405 maybe moved.

(Amendments Nos. 405, 407, 410, 411 and 406 were not moved.)

Mr. Vice-President: Amendment Nos. 408 and 409 areverbal ones and therefore I disallow them. Now for generaldiscussion. Mr. Kamath.

Shri H. V. Kamath: Mr. Vice-President, Sir, with yourpermission, I want to say a few words in support of the amendment.

Mr. Vice-President: I can allow you discussion on theclause as a whole, but cannot allow you to speak about yourown amendment.

Shri H. V. Kamath: With your permission, I want torefer to the amendment of some other member. I want to saysomething in support of the amendment moved by my friend

Mr.Lokanath Misra. But before I come to that, I would like tosay one or two words about the doubt or difficulty raised bymy friend Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad in the course of his motionon amendment No. 400. He wanted to know if a member of theHouse, or for the matter of that, if a citizen of India, is invested with a title by any foreign State, what willhappen? Shall we sentence him to rigorous imprisonment? ButI say the remedy is easy. We can say that the citizen whoaccepts that title forfeits his citizenship of India. Such aremedy is open to us, in accordance with the provision ofthis article.

Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad: But there is no provision to thateffect.

Shri H. V. Kamath: I suppose it will flow from theexisting provision.

Now, coming to the amendment which was moved by Mr.Misra, and which I am going to support, the amendment saysthat titles should neither be conferred nor recognized bythe State. I think, it is a very important provision in thenew set-up of our country. It is one thing to say thattitles should not be conferred and quite another thing tosay that titles shall not be recognized. Unfortunately, Sir,even today in our country, even after the Brit ish havequitted our country, the toys or the baubles that theBrit ish have left behind still remain with us. Of course, wecannot compel our fellow-citizens, our brethren here, togive up the titles that they might have received at thehands of their erstwhile Brit ish Masters. There may not beany compulsion. But certainly, we can see to it that theState, that is to say, the Government does not in any wayrecognise those titles. I will illustrate my point. In most,or at least some of the government documents, records orcommuniques or press-notes issued by the Government fromtime to time, officers of the State, including ambassadorsabroad, are referred to along with their titles. If Iremember aright, our Charge-d-Affaires in Paris, and ourAmbassador in America, whenever their names are mentioned bythe Government in a press-note or communique, their titlesgo along with their names. The titles are not dropped. I forone, fail to see why Government should continue to recogniseor mention these titles in the course of their officialcommuniques or notes.--I remember very well, that after theRussian Revolution, and after the revolution in Turkey 25years ago, whatever titles had been bestowed by the formerregime


*[] Translation of Hindustani speech.

were abolished and those who did not choose to give up suchtitles were given no importance whatsoever. The State didnot refer to those titles whenever they referred to thenames.

Of course, it may be argued against the amendment ofMr. Misra, that it is not possible to make this ajusticiable right. But certainly, I fail to see, if clause(1) of article 12 can be made a justiciable right, why notthis? I have got very serious doubts on the point whetherclause (1) of article 12 can be a justiciable, fundamentalright. No title shall be conferred by the State. But if theState inadvertently or in a fit of absent-mindedness or dueto some other cause, does confer titles, what can be doneagainst the State? After all, the State itself has conferredthe title. Will you proceed against the State? If you canproceed against the State in that eventuality, there is noreason why the State cannot be proceeded against, if theState in any way recognises a title conferred by theerstwhile Brit ish masters. I therefore, support Mr. Misra'samendment. So far as those titles are concerned which arestill with us unfortunately, and so far as those title-holders are concerned the Government of India should notrecognise them in any way whatsoever in their documents orreferences or in any other way. If there is any legaldifficulty about incorporating it as a justiciablefundamental right, I shall be happy to hear from my learnedfriend Dr. Ambedkar that the principle is acceptable, and ifit can be embodied in the Constitution somewhere, or if itcould be brought forward in Parliament by means of a specialbill, to the

effect that the State will not recognisetitles, then I shall be happy. I also hope that in thatevent, my friend Mr. Misra will not press his amendment.

Shri R. K. Sidhwa (C. P. and Berar: General): Mr. Vice-President. Sir, the conferment of titles during the Brit ishregime has been so scandalous that a large section of thepeople of the country has always viewed it with contempt.Therefore I am very glad that in this House and everywhereoutside also, today the conferment of titles is looked uponwith equal contempt, and this Constitution rightly providesthat there should be no titles conferred upon anyone by theState.

If you refer to clause (3) a concession has been madeof a person upon whom a title is conferred by a foreignState. Sir, if our State does not recognise in our owncountry the conferment of titles, I really fail tounderstand why we should allow even a foreign State toconfer a title upon one of our own citizens. I am of theopinion that the word `title' should be omitted from theclause. It says--

"No person holding any office of profit or trust underthe State shall, without the consent of the President,accept any present, emolument, title or office of any kindfrom or under any foreign State."

Sir, emoluments, we can understand. Presents we canunderstand, but why titles? The whole object of this articleis not to confer titles: then why include `title' in clause(3)? The beauty of this article is really spoilt by thislittle word. I support this article, but I should havepreferred that foreign states also should not be allowed toconfer any title on any of our countrymen.

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Sir, I accept the amendment moved by my Friend Mr. T. T. Krishnamachari.

With regard to the amendment moved by my friend Mr.Naziruddin Ahmad, he wanted the word "acepted" to be substituted by the word "recognised". His argument was,supposing the citizen does accept a title. what is the penalprovision in the Constitution which would nullify that act?My answer to that is very simple: that it would be perfectlyopen under the Constitution for

Parliament under its residuary powers to make a lawprescribing what should be done with regard to an individualwho does accept a title contrary to the provisions of thisarticle. I should have thought that that was an adequateprovision for meeting the case which he has put before theHouse.

With regard to the second point of Mr. Kamath, if Ihave understood him correctly, he asked whether this is ajusticiable right. My reply to that is very simple: it is not a justiciable right. The non-acceptance of titles is acondition of continued citizenship; it is not a right, it isa duty imposed upon the individual that if he continues to be the citizen of this country then he must abide by certainconditions, one of the conditions is that he must not accepta title because it would be open for Parliament, when itprovides by law as to what should be done to persons whoabrogate the provisions of this article, to say that if anyperson accepts a title contrary to the provisions of article12 (1) or (2), certain penalties may follow. One of thepenalties may be that he may lose the right of citizenship.Therefore, there is really no difficulty in understandingthis provision as it is a condition attached to citizenship;by itself it is not a justiciable right.

Shri H. V. Kamath: My point is about recognition ofexisting titles by the State.

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: As I said in replyto my friend Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad, it is open for Parliamentto take such action as it likes, and one of the actionswhich Parliament may take is to say that we shall notrecognise these titles.

Shri H. V. Kamath: I want Dr. Ambedkar to accept theprinciple. Parliament can do what it likes later on.

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Certainly it is justcommonsense that if the Constitution says that no personshall accept a title, it will be an obligation uponParliament to see that no citizen shall commit a breach of that provision.

The Assembly then adjourned till Half Past Nine of

theClock on Wednesday, the 1st December 1948.