CONSTITUTENT ASSEMBLY OF INDIA - VOLUME VII


Wednesday, the 5th January 1949

So far as industrial and labour disputes are concerned,as has been explained by Sardar Patel, this is a Provincialsubject, but it has been felt desirable that there should besome uniformity of legislation followed by necessaryexecutive action with regard to the industrial tribunalswhich may be constituted under Provincial laws for thepurpose of settling disputes. After consultation with theProvincial Government and some of the Provincial Premiers,and representatives of Provincial Governments who werepresent in Delhi, it has been deemed desirable that duringthe interim period completely wide powers need not be takenover by the Government of India, but a suitable amendmentmay be made only in respect of those particular items whichare now of an urgent character and which require animmediate solution. For this purpose, you will find fromAmendment No. 9 that we have referred to industrial andlabour disputes, trade and commerce in, and production,supply and distribution of, products of industries thedevelopment of which is declared by Dominion law to beexpedient in the public interest: the sanctioning ofcinematographic films for exhibition; and inquiries andstatistics for the purpose of any of the matters in theConcurrent Legislative List. This will mean a consequentialchange in clause 7, as originally provided in the Bill. Thelatter portion of clause (a) will be omitted and put in theConcurrent List. The result will be that so far aslegislative powers are concerned, the Dominion ParlI amentwill have ample powers to pass laws wherever necessary and such laws willsupersede provincial laws, if any; so far as the executiveauthority is concerned in respect of these matters, it willalso be open to the Dominion ParlI ament to pass laws andtake over responsibility for executive administration, incase such a step is considered to be desirable or necessary.Sir, it is not intended that the Provincial Governmentsshould not be utilised for purposes of co-ordinating thepolicy of the Central Government even in respect of thosematters where central regulation and control are necessaryin the interests of the whole country. Obviously in normalcircumstances, the executive machinery, which will beutilised, will be the Provincial Governments themselves. Butif an occasion arises when it is necessary for the CentralGovernment to exercise executive authority in respect ofmatters, which are considered to be of an all-Indiaimportance, power to do so has to be taken over by theGovernment of India and the Dominion ParlI ament. A questionhas arisen whether this power should be exercised by theDominion Legislature without consultation with theProvincial Governments. Hitherto whenever the CentralGovernment or the Dominion Legislature had an occasion totake steps for introducing legislation for development ofindustries, previous consultations did take place with theProvincial Governments. I believe on a suitable occasionwhen the matter comes up a little while later, Sardar Patelwill give an assurance on behalf of the Government thatduring the interim period before the new Constitution comesinto force, if it is necessary for the Central Government tomove in accordance with the powers which are now proposed tobe taken under Amendment No. 9, previous consultation withProvincial Governments will always be held and the resultsof such consultation will be placed before the Legislaturefor information.

With these words, Sir, I move that the amendment beaccepted.

Mr. Vice-President: There are four amendments to thisamendment, which I shall call out one after another. Thefirst is by Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad. No. 3 in the list.

Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad: It is only a formal amendment and therefore, I am not moving it.

Shri T. T. Krishnamachari: Mr. Vice-President, Sir, I move:

"That in the new clause 2 proposed for substitution byamendment No. 9 of the original list of amendments, for thewords `said Act' the word, figure and brackets `Governmentof India Act, 1935

(hereinafter referred to as the saidAct)' be substituted."

This is a formal amendment, which makes the amendmentmoved by my honourable Friend Dr. Syama Prasad Mukerjeecomplete. I hope the House will accept it.

Pandit Hirday Nath Kunzru (United Provinces: General):Sir, it is unnecessary for me to move my amendment in viewof the amendment moved by Dr. Syama Prasad Mukerjee.

Mr. Vice-President: Clause 2 is now open for generaldiscussion. Pandit Kunzru will kindly come to the mike.

Pandit Hirday Nath Kunzru: Mr. Vice-President, theStatement of Objects and Reasons appended to the Bill beforeus asks for more executive power for the Government of Indiain the interest of the establishment of uniform principleswith regard to the review of awards made by the Provincialand Central industrial tribunals. Sardar Patel, in askingthat the Bill be taken into consideration also dwelt on this matter only. I think, therefore, that I am justified inconcluding that this is the only reason for which SardarPatel is asking that the Dominion Legislature should havepower to confer executive functions on Central officials in connection withlaws relating to the concurrent field.

It is obvious, Sir, when one reads the amendmentproposed in the Bill that it goes far beyond the needs of the case. The question that is being discussed now wasraised by me in connection with article 60 of the DraftConstitution which was discussed the other day. Myhonourable Friend Dr. Ambedkar was unable to accept my point of view and in the course of an excellent speech gave whathe thought were convincing reasons against the acceptance ofmy amendment. This Bill only seeks to bring the Governmentof India Act in line with the Draft Constitution. I shouldhave thought therefore that the matter had been finallydecided by the Constituent Assembly and that it would notcome up for consideration again. It seems now, however, that the House is prepared to accept the point view, that Ifruitlessly urged the other day, in connection with theamendment of the Government of India Act, 1935. I do notknow, Sir, whether the Provincial Governments will be ableto enjoy the freedom that they seek to have only till theDraft Constitution comes into force or whether the amendmentmoved by my honourable Friend Dr. Syama Prasad Mukerjeemeans that the House is prepared to revise its opinion inconnection with article 60 of the Draft Constitution. For mypart, Sir, I welcome the amendment moved by Dr. Mukerjee.

Sir, Dr. Ambedkar said the other day in the course ofhis speech to which I have referred that it was necessarythat the Dominion legislature should be in a position topass laws extending the executive power of the Dominionofficials to matters relating to the concurrent field. Toexplain what he meant he referred to any legislation that the Centre might pass in regard to untouchability and thefailure of the provincial Governments to give effect to theChild Marriage Restraint Act. It is undoubtedly desirablethat when the Central Legislature passes a measure it shouldbe loyally given effect to by all the provinces. But, it isquite possible that in some provinces there may be littlesympathy with a measure that has found favour with theCentral Legislature. My honourable Friend Dr. Ambedkar saidthat in such a case it was eminently desirable that theCentral Legislature should be able to authorise the Centralofficials to see that the law passed by it was properlyexecuted.

Shri T. T. Krishnamachari: Not always.

Pandit Hirday Nath Kunzru: I have referred only to thetwo illustrations given by Dr. Ambedkar and I do not thinkthat I have so far unfairly summarised his arguments.

Sir, I think that if the Central Government went so faras to appoint officials of its own to give effect to anti-untouchability laws or the Child Marriage Restraint Act, it would find itself in a serious predicament. The magnitude of the task would, I think, be beyond its powers and theconsequeces of its coming into conflict with provincialGovernments would be so unwelcome that I am certain that anypower that the

Dominion legislature may have to authorisethe Dominion officials to execute certain laws relating to the concurrent field is not likely to be exercised inpractice. My honourable Friend Dr. Ambedkar referred to thecase of Australia in respect of which I had made anerroneous statement. I accept Dr. Ambedkar's correction. Butalthough the Commonwealth Government in Australia can askits own officers to execute laws passed by it even in theconcurrent field. Australia is, in respect of population, avery small country. I am not aware that in practice, inmatters of any importance, it has actually asked theCommonwealth officials to execute laws that it should be theproper responsibility of the States Governments to enforce. In a country like India, Sir, thoughthe Union legislature may be authorised to confer executivefunctions as respects laws relating to the concurrent fieldon Dominion officials, the size and population of thecountry would render it virtually impossible to put such alaw into practice. I think, therefore, that the amendmentmoved by Dr. Syama Prasad Mukerjee is timely. It reminds the House that it is going too far in its desire to have astrong Centre. We all desire a strong Centre. We do not wantthat the Central authority should be unable to enforceobedience to its laws in vital matters. The unity andintegrity of India depend on the authority and prestige of the Central Government. But there is a limit that must beset to the powers of the Union Legislature and the UnionGovernment. We should not in pursuance of a theory makeourselves responsible for a policy that might lead toserious consequences. It seems to me that the amendmentmoved by Dr. Syama Prasad Mukerjee is going to be acceptedby the House, but I hope that its acceptance will lead to areconsideration of the decision the House has alreadyarrived at in connection with article 60 of the DraftConstitution.

Shri B. Das (Orissa: General): Sir, I was all alongunhappy since this Bill was circulated, that this Billshould try to incorporate absolute executive powers whichthe British Government took in its hands since 1939 in oneshape or other. Consequently, Sir, I welcome the amendmentwhich my friend Dr. Syama Prasad Mukerjee has moved wherebythe executive power has been restricted. I am glad he hasthe support of Pandit Govind Ballabh Pant and that theamendment was jointly tabled by my honourable Friends PanditPant and Dr. S. P. Mukerjee. Sir, I think the House is veryrestive over any encroachment of democracy inside theGovernment as well as outside the Government. This is notthe first occasion on which I have spoken of thatreprehensible measure-Section 126-A of the Government ofIndia Act, 1935, which the British House of Commons passedin 1939 and gave retrospective effect to it from 1937.Clause 2 wants to incorporate one of the original sub-parasof Section 126-A. Clause 5 wants to incorporate another sub-section of that reprehensible measure passed in the House ofCommons after the War in 1939.

Sir, democracy is under trial and it is particularlyunder trial in a new Sovereign State like India. The foreignrulers ruled India and looked at India through Section 126-A. I cannot understand how the legal advisers of theGovernment of India or even how the Constitutional Adviserof this august Assembly advised that in peace time Section126-A in its various forms should be incorporated in thefirst Sovereign Bill that this Sovereign House is going topass. It was a great surprise to me and it gave me greatpain. Today I feel relieved that Dr. Mukerjee had voiced thedifferences which the Government of India has itself had andI wholeheartedly support the motion. I hope later on myfriend Pandit Pant will move the other amendment to deleteclause 5. I am happy this Sovereign House is functioning asa democratic legislature and not going to give itsGovernment autocratic powers that are required in time ofwar and not in time of peace.

The Honourable Pandit Govind Ballabh Pant (UnitedProvinces: General): Sir, I had given notice of a similaramendment. In fact my name is

coupled with that of Dr. SyamaPrasad Mukerjee with regard to the amendment which he moveda few minutes ago. I consider it necessary to make a fewobservations as my reasons for giving notice of the same andidentical amendment may not be identical with his. So whilewelcoming and supporting this amendment, I should like tostate why I have considered it necessary to do so.

Section 8 of the Government of India Act gave theFederal Centre the power to appoint its own executiveorganization only with regard to matters included in List I. Every Federal structure involvesdistribution of legislative and executive functions, powersand duties. The jurisdiction of each organ, so far as it maybe possible, has to be earmarked and demarcated. We haveunder our Constitution now agreed to the fundamental basisof a Federal structure. In 1935 too, when that Act waspassed, a Federation consisting of provinces and States wasenvisaged. The powers of the Federation were defined andalso those of the provinces or the States that were to formits component parts. As honourable Members are doubtlessaware, three lists were prepared. List I dealt with Centralsubjects with regard to which the Centre had the power tolegislate and to have its own agency and machinery for theirexecution. List II contained provincial subjects andprovinces alone had the authority to pass the laws toappoint suitable agency for their administration. Besidesthese two, there was a Concurrent List and it is withreference to that List that this amendment has beenproposed. Now the Concurrent List was essentially concernedwith provincial subjects, i.e. subjects which wereconsidered to be appropriate for purposes of legislation aswell as execution of these laws by the provinces themselves.But some exception was made in order to secure uniformity in the matter of legislation where such uniformity might beconsidered desirable. Under the scheme of that Act--and ourConstitution is modelled on that Act for the most part,--theCentre has no executive authority with regard to Concurrentsubjects. It could issue directive to provinces but it couldnot appoint its own agents in order to execute the laws thatcame within the purview of List III. That is why thisamendment has been moved. Thus under the scheme of the 1935Act so far as List III was concerned, the Centre had anoverriding legislative authority but it had no executiveauthority beyond this that it could issue directives.

Now, the original clause of this Bill made a very wideprovision. It in tended to give power to the Centre toappoint its own agency for the execution of any or all of the subjects mentioned in the Concurrent List. That ishardly possible ands altogether improbable, because it isnot conceivable that the Centre could administer all thesubjects that are included in the Concurrent List, in allthe Provinces of India. That is beyond the capacity of eventhe most resourceful and powerful Centre. It would have ledto a great deal of confusion, if we had two parallelagencies and machineries in the provinces to deal withmatters that came within the purview of the Concurrent List.The Concurrent List includes criminal law, it includes civillaw, it includes arbitration. It includes also miscellaneoussubjects such as boilers, engines and so on and so forth.Now, if we had parallel agencies appointed on the one handby the Provinces and on the other by the Centre, for theexecution laws relating to these matters, then there wouldbe confusion and chaos and no government would be able tofunction with efficiency. That is why under the originalscheme of the 1935 Act, the duty of carrying out the lawsrelating the subjects included in the Concurrent List wasimposed exclusively on the provinces, because thus alonecould orderly administration of those subjects be ensured. Ipersonally feel and think, that was a prudent arrangement.That was desirable. But all the same, the art of governmentis a practical one and adjustments have to be made from timeto time; only whatever we do must conduce to greaterefficiency, to greater economy, to greater

public good andgreater convenience. All these should be taken into account.So I would not altogether exclude the possibility ofsometimes arrangements being made by the Centre foradministering the subjects which at present might beincluded in the Concurrent List. So, so far as the generalprinciple is concerned, I believe, the present Government ofIndia accepts it, that concurrent subjects should ordinarilybe administered by the Provinces. It is also, I think,accepted that no change should be made in the present system of administration except with the consentand, if I may say so, the concurrence of the provinces. Weon our part, are ever ready to place ourselves at thedisposal of the Centre. In fact there is no occasion for anyconflict now; and howsoever much one may feel that anothercourse might perhaps be preferable. if the Centre takes adecision, one does not only reconcile oneself to it, but Ifor one would think that is the only right decision, and I am, perhaps, in the wrong. That may be the case, even withrespect to this particular clause. But now when we made theanalysis of the provisions of this clause, we found that thereason given for it in the Statement of Objects and Reasonsonly suggested the appointment of judges of appeliateindustrial courts in order to settle labour and industrialdisputes. Honourable Members might have seen the amendmentsthat I notified previously on the basis of that Statement ofObjects and Reasons. I had suggested that in the circumstances, you might make a change in the lists, so asto meet the exigencies of the present situation. When Idiscussed the matter with the Honourable Home Minister, and the Honourable Minister for Industries and the HonourableMinister for Labour, we found that besides this one matter,there were two or three others also with regard to whichthey thought that it would be desirable to make someprovision, although they had not been mentioned in theStatement of Objects and Reasons. So this amendment wasrecast. On the one hand, it upholds the principle that withregard to concurrent subjects, the executive authority wouldordinarily vest in the provinces. On the other hand, it alsoaccepts that there may be occasions when it may be necessaryto make a departure, and it may be necessary for the Centreto step in and even to appoint its own agency and machinery.I do not yet know whether the Centre will actually do so. IfI may submit with great humility, there are two sides to theshield, and some times, the Centre sees one and theprovinces perhaps see the other. So one may look at one sideof the shield and not attach any importance to the otherside. But the advantages of one side may be more than out-balanced by the disadvantages of the other. So, unless wetake a balanced view of the whole thing, it is difficult tosay that the next advantage lies in any particular coursethat might suggest itself to any Honourable Minister who maybe in charge of a particular subject. I do not suggest thatin the case of the particular subjects that are mentioned in these amendments there may be such difficulties. But I dothink that the basic principle should be adhered to.Otherwise it will lead to confusion. So the position withwhich some of us were confronted was this, that this Billhad contemplated an over-riding executive authority in theCentre with regard to concurrent subjects. Well, that as Isaid, seemed to me, to be against the basic principle of theGovernment of India as well as of the pivotal principle of afederal structure. So some way out had to found. On theother hand there was the experience of the HonourableMinisters at the Centre who had found that their powers withregard to these particular subjects were not adequate enoughto enable them to discharge their duties and obligationssatisfactorily. So we hit upon this compromise, that withregard to these subjects, the powers should be conferred onthe Centre. Now, that power does not by itself enable theCentre to appoint executive agents, but it gives them theoption to bring such a measure in this House and if thisHouse approves

of it., then it will be open to them toappoint their own agents. I believe that it will still besimpler and easier if they were to appoint the ProvincialGovernments themselves as their agents for administeringthese subjects. We are there in the provinces to carry outtheir wishes to us are no less than behest. Whatevercommunications we get from the Centre, we try our best togive effect to the directions and even to the hintscontained in them and it will be our privilege to do so evenin future. I hope, however, that things will be arranged insuch a manner that there will be no occasion for anyconfusion. What I am afraid of is confusion in the matter ofadministration. In the field of administration there should be no overlapping so far as it can be avoided.The ambit of provincial autonomy has been clearly defined.All the spheres of provincial administration, whetherlegislative, executive or judicial, should remain untamperedwith, so that responsibility may be imposed on the provincesand their sense of responsibility may not be impaired. Onthe other hand, after all, as I said we have to be guided bypractical considerations and no theories can be allowed tooverride the demands of the actual hard realities of theday.

So, while supporting this amendment, I express the hopethat there will be no desire to impose any fresh executiveon the provinces and that the utmost use will be made of theprovinces even in the execution of laws that may be framedwith regard to these subjects.

Mr. Vice-President: Does Sardar Patel wish to offer anyremarks?

The Honourable Sardar Vallabhbhai J. Patel: No, Sir.These are agreed proposals.

Mr. Vice-President: Then I shall put the question.

The question is:

"That clause 2 as amended by amendment No. 9 andfurther modified by Amendment No. 4 do from part of theBill."

I am sorry I find I have to put amendment No. 4 to votefirst.

The question is:

"That in the new clause 2 proposed for substitution byamendment No. 9 of the list of amendments, for the words`said Act' the words, figure and brackets `Government ofIndia Act, 1935 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act)'be substituted."

The amendment was adopted.

Mr. Vice-President: The question is:

"That for clause 2, the following be substituted:

`2. Amendment of section 8 of the Government of IndiaAct, 1985-

In section 8 of the said Act,--

(a) in the clause (i) of the proviso to sub-section (1), after the words `in this Act'the words `or in any law made by the DominionLegislature with respect to any of thematters specified in the next succeeding sub-section' shall be inserted; and

(b) after sub-section (1), the following sub-section shall be inserted, namely:--

(1-A) The matters referred to in clause (i)of the proviso to sub-section (1) ofthis section are--

(a) industrial and labour disputes;

(b) trade and commerce in, andproduction, supply and distributionof, products of industries thedevelopment of which is declared byDominion law to be expedient in thepublic interest;

(c) the sanctioning of cinematographicfilms for exhibition; and

(d) inquiries and statistics for thepurpose of any of the matters in the Concurrent Legislative List.'"

The amendment was adopted.

Mr. Vice-President: I shall now put clause 2, asamended, to the vote of the House.

The question is:

"That clause 2, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

The motion was adopted.

Clause 2, as amended, was added to the Bill.

Mr. Vice-President: The House will now take up clause 3for consideration.

Amendment No. 15 standing in the name of Shri KuladharChaliha has the effect of a negative vote. It is thereforedisallowed. The first alternative in amendment No. 16standing in the name of Shri T. Prakasam also has the effectof a negative vote and is therefore disallowed. ShriPrakasam may move the second alternative in amendment No.16. I understand that the mover does not want to move it.The next three amendments to this clause, Nos. 17, 18 and19, I understand are also not moved.

I shall now put clause 8 to vote.

The question is:

"That clause 3 stand part of the Bill."

The motion was adopted.

Clause 3 was added to the Bill.

Mr. Vice-President: The House will take up clause 4 forconsideration.

Amendment No. 20 standing in the name of Rai BahadurLala Raj Kanwar is disallowed as having the effect of anegative vote.

The next two amendments, Nos. 21 and 22, I understand,are not being moved.

I shall now put clause 4 to the vote of the House.

The question is:

"That clause 4 stand part of the Bill."

The motion was adopted.

Clause 4 was added to the Bill.

Mr. Vice-President: Now we come to amendment No. 23standing in the name of the Honourable Pandit Govind BallabhPant.

The Honourable Pandit Govind Ballabh Pant: Sir, I amjust moving the amendment, but I will not take much time. Ibeg to move:

"That after clause 4, the following new clause beinserted:--

4-A. Insertion of new section 108-A.-Before section 109in Chapter II of Part V of the said Act, the followingsection shall be inserted, namely:--

108-A. No Bill or amendment providing for the exerciseof the executive authority of the Dominion with respect toany of the matters specified in sub-section (1-A) of section8 shall be introduced or moved in the Dominion Legislatureexcept with the previous sanction of the Governor-General,and the Governor-General shall not give his sanction to theintroduction of any such Bill or the moving of any such

Previous sanction of Governor-General for certainlegislative proposals.

amendment unless be is satisfied that the views of theGovernment of the Provinces and the Acceding Statesconcerned have been ascertained.'"

Sir, I have only suggested in this amendment that before anyBill or any amendment is introduced in the House with regardto the matters mentioned in section 8 or in clause 2 whichwe have just passed, the provinces should be consulted, that there should be a certificate to that effect and that thepapers relating to such correspondence should be placed onthe table. I do not want to take the time of the House byany lengthy speech in support of this amendment. Thesubstance of this amendment is, I believe, acceptable to theHonourable the Home Minister. So far as the form isconcerned, I do not worry too much about it. So, if he will be pleased to acceptin substance what this amendment proposes, I will beprepared to withdraw it in form. With these words I proposethis amendment.

Mr. Vice-President: There is an amendment to thisamendment.

Shri T.T. Krishnamachari: That is not being moved.

The Honourable Sardar Vallabhbhai J. Patel: I entirelyagree with the Honourable Pandit Pant with regard to thesubstance of this amendment. I therefore give him anassurance that no Bill will be introduced in the Legislatureat the Centre of the nature mentioned without giving areasonable opportunity to the provinces for giving theiropinion. Therefore it would be quite appropriate if hewithdraws the amendment.

The Honourable Pandit Govind Ballabh Pant: With theleave of the House I withdraw the amendment.

The amendment was, by leave of the Assembly, withdrawn.

Mr. Vice-President: Now we come to clause 5. AmendmentNo. 24 is that the clause be deleted and it is thereforedisallowed. Amendment No. 28 standing in the name of Mr.Naziruddin Ahmad.

Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad: Sir, I beg to move:

"That in clause 5, at the end of the proposed section126-A, the following be added ....."

Shri T. T. Krishnamachari: Mr. Vice-President, Sir, mayI suggest that since the intention of the mover of the Billis to ask for this clause to be withdrawn, this amendment isnot necessary and need not be moved.

The Honourable Sardar Vallabhbhai J. Patel: We haveaccepted a change in clause 2 and so there is no point inkeeping clause 5. I think it may be deleted.

Mr. Vice-President: The motion is:

"That clause 5 stand part of the Bill."

The motion was negatived.

Mr. Vice-President: Then we come to clause 6. AmendmentNo. 29 is disallowed as it has a negative effect.

Mr. Vice-President: Amendment No. 38

standing in thename of Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad. If you have no objection, weshall take it that the amendment has been read. You can makeyour remarks upon it.

Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad: Sir, I move:

"That in clause 6, in clause (a) of sub-section (1) of the proposed new section 290-A, the word `or' occurring atthe end, the whole of clause (b) of sub-section (1) and theproviso to sub-section (1) be deleted."

the words `shall be administered', substituted.

or, alternatively,

That in clause 6, in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of the proposed new section 290-A, for the words `shall beadministered', the words "shall with their consent beadministered" be substituted.

or, alternatively,

That in clause 6, in sub-section (1) of the proposednew section 290-A, for all the words beginning with `theGovernor-General may Order direct' to the end of clause (b)of the said sub-section, the following be substituted:--

`the Governor-General may by Order direct that theState or the group of State shall be administered in allrespects as if the State or the group of States were--

(a) a Governor's or a Chief Commissioner's province, or

(b) with the consent of the State or State concerned,as part of a Governor's province.'"

I have to draw the attention of the House to clause 6for the insertion of the proposed new section 290-A. Withregard to clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 290-A,the part which I object to is that "the State or group ofStates shall be administered in all respects as if the Stateor the group of States formed part of a Governor's or aChief Commissioner's province......". The point which I would like to urge is that the States have entered into anagreement which is called the merger agreement. Under theterms of that agreement, this proposal to treat them as ifthey formed part of a Governor's or a Chief Commissioner'sprovince would not be legal. Sir, I have to submit that ifit is done, with the consent of the State or the Statesconcerned, everything will be all right. So, the first partof my amendment is that the whole clause (b) be deleted. Thenext part of the amendment is in the alternative form that it may remain with the addition of the words "with theconsent of the State or States concerned". The thirdalternative is the State is to be administered as anindependent Governor's province or a Chief Commissioner'sprovince or as a part of it only with their consent.

The reason which induced me to move these amendments is this: It appears that some States, compendiously describedas Eastern States, entered into several agreements with theCentral Government to the effect that the Ruler cedes to theDominion Government "full and exclusive authority,jurisdiction and powers for the governance of the State andagrees to transfer the administration of the State to theDominion Government" with effect from a certain date and theDominion Government will be competent "to exercise suchpowers, authority and jurisdiction in such manner andthrough such agency as they may think fit". The effect ofthis agreement to my mind is that the State or the Ruler onbehalf of this State in each case has ceded to theGovernment of India the management or the "administration"of the State. That power which has been ceded to theGovernment of India may be exercised directly or through anagency. What I object to is that this management or ratheradministration cannot be exercised so as to destroy or alterthe identity or the integrity of the State. What hashappened is that these States, a large number of them, havebeen, by virtue of these agreements, actually amalgamatedwith the Province of Orissa. That, I submit, absolutelydestroys their identity. Orissa is a Governor's Provinceunder the Government of India Act. So far as these smallStates are concerned, their Constitutions are ratherobscure, but they are totally dissimilar to the constitutionof the Province to which they are to be amalgamated. Isubmit that while entrusting the governance or rather theadministration of the States to the Government of India tobe carried on directly or

through agency, no power has beengiven to convert these States into a part of a Governor'sprovince. They could be managed fully and with fullauthority by the Province of Orissa but without in the leastaffecting their integrity or character and cannot be mergedas part of Orissa. That is the point which I wish to submitbefore the House. (Interruption).

With regard to the interjection of my honourableFriend, Mr. Ananthasayanam Ayyangar, he has pointed out that it is not actually merging the State in the Governor'sprovince but that is to be treated only "as if" it is partof a Governor's province. I fail to see any real orpractical distinction or difference between the two, thoughthere is some verbal difference. In fact, these States areto be treated just like the province, and in effect theseStates are to be completely merged. or rather sub-merged, in the province. The words "as if" do not at all relieve thesituation. To emphasise them would be to shut our eyes toreality-they are, in fact, already actually a part ofOrissa.

The House will be pleased to consider the well knownlegal position. In fact, when the British left, these Statesdid attain some kind of independence or sovereignty. Thiswas conceded by the Honourable Dr. Ambedkar during thedebate on the consideration of the Draft Constitution. Somehonourable Members had suggested that these States had nosovereignty, but on a proper consideration, the Honourable Doctor, presumably on behalfof the Government of India and in full concurrence with theGovernment, cleared the position, namely, that they havesome kind of sovereignty. Call it a modified kind ofsovereignty or inferior kind of sovereignty, but some kindof sovereignty they enjoyed.

With regard to this, there is a section in theGovernment of India Act, as adapted, enabling these Statesto accede and it may be by different documents. Theaccession, however, is strictly limited to the terms of theaccession. That is absolutely clear from the Government ofIndia Act, Section 6, Sub-section (2). In fact, the powersceded or subjects acceded to must be clearly specified. In these circumstances, the question really will depend uponthe construction you put upon the documents. One is theinstrument of accession and the second is dated the 14th orthe 15th of December 1947. There were a number of similardocuments executed by many Rulers of States on or aboutthese dates. these two documents are crucial and their termswould be extremely important and the question will dependupon what powers and jurisdiction and authority have beenreally conceded to the Government of India-keeping in viewonly one point, namely, the power to merge the State in aGovernor's province as part thereof. Whether this power hasbeen clearly, specifically or by necessary implicationreally granted is the only point. In interpreting the seconddocument, which is really material, namely, the documentdated the 14th or 15th of December, I find there are certaindifficulties and I wish frankly to state them before the House both for and against the interpretation which I amseeking to introduce. In the preamble to this document,there is the expression-.

"Whereas in the immediate interest of the State and thepeople the ruler is desirous that the administration shouldbe integrated as early as possible with the province ofOrissa....."

In fact, the Preamble clearly states a desire that the States concerned should be integrated with the Province ofOrissa.

Mr. Vice-President: Though I do really admit that I have very little knowledge of these matters, it does seem tome as though you are talking in a general way. You ought totalk about your own amendment. This is not generaldiscussion. These things would have been more appropriate in the general discussion.

Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad: I bow to your ruling but this, asI am going to point out, is directly concerned with thepoint.

Mr. Vice-President: I am afraid I do not agree withyou. I must ask you to speak on the amendment.

Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad: These are the matters in theamendment. I am stating before

the House the difficultywhich lies against my contention. I must fairly state thatalso.

Mr. Vice-President: Quite so. You have your conviction,but the House has its opinion also, and probably theconviction of 299 members is much more important than theconviction of a single Member.

Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad: Of course so, but every Memberhas the right to speak.

Mr. Vice-President: You are not to argue but to followmy suggestion.

Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad: What is your suggestion?

Mr. Vice-President: That you speak on your amendment.

Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad: I submit, Sir, that I wasspeaking on my amendment.

Mr. Vice-President: Directly then, not in a round-aboutmanner.

Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad: I am not round-about.

Mr. Vice-President: I am afraid you are arguing.

My opinion holds good here.

Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad: Of course, Sir. The difficulty isthat the subject is a very intricate one. I submit that thisdesire for integration which is clearly against me appearsonly in the Preamble and not in the body of the agreementwhich is really the operative part, and it is a well knownrule of interpretation that any wish or opinion or desireinserted in the Preamble is not effective and has no weightunless the same finds a place in the body of the documentalso. This rule is well established. I submit that in thebody of article 1, which is really directly in point, it issaid "full and exclusive authority and jurisdiction andpowers" but only in relation to the governance or theadministration of the State. The State only agrees for theabove reasons that the administration should be transferred.There are two important points in this connection. One isthat the agreement relates to the governance of the Stateand transfers the "administration". It does not transfersovereignty, what remains of that sovereignty at the time ofexecution of the instrument of accession. Whatever is leftas the remainder out of the rights that were carved out ofthat sovereignty, that remains. There is no mention of`integration' in the body of the document. Only the right ofadministration has been transferred. I submit that inadministering any property which is left to your care, youcannot alter its character. Supposing for instance any oneis asked to administer a certain business, say a business insugar. You ask a managing agent, or a Receiver or anAdministrator to administer it. The managing agent or theAdministrator has a quinine business. He converts the sugarbusiness into a quinine business. Instead of producingsomething sweet, he produces some thing bitter. I submit,Sir, that you are going to do the same thing here. You areasked to administer a State with distinct and distinctivelaws, rules, forms of constitution, forms of government. Youwant now to change them and convert it into a part of aGovernor's province with different rules and constitution.It is not merely a physical combination between the two buta complete merger and a metamorphosis as a result of whichthe State loses its distinctive character and identityaltogether. Suppose a man in difficulty left his wife to thecare of a friend; the friend transfers the wife to someother friend, converting her as the latter's own wife. Thisis what is going to be done.

Mr. Vice-President: A not very happy illustration.

Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad: The power to administer is apower to manage. In managing or administrating a thing youcannot convert it to something else. That is the simpleposition. The Honourable Dr. Patel referred to certain legalopinion having been obtained for the States. There areopinions, not of insignificant lawyers like me, but somevery weighty opinions like those of Sir T. B. Sapru andothers which are against the legality of the merger. Theyare clearly of opinion-I think the opinion has beencirculated to the Government of India also that it isillegal.

The Honourable Sardar Vallabhabhai J. Patel: ThisDepartment keeps away from outside legal opinion.

Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad: Quite so, the question should beconsidered, independently of any outside opinion, on itsmerits by the

House. I submit that there is a body ofweighty opinion, and the matter should be carefullyconsidered. In these circumstances I submit that item (b) ofsub-clause (1) really goes against the provision in theAgreement. I submit the Agreement should be carefullyconsidered. I find there is nothing in the agreement whichjustifies the conversion, of a State of one kind to onecompletely of a different kind. This in short is the simpleproposition which I submit. I must make it absolutely clear that in doing so I am actuated only by the desire toregularise things. If there is anything irregular or ifthere is any lacuna, I think the Rulers should be asked in their own interests to execute another document just totransfer this right so as to treat their States as part of aGovernor's province.Suppose atsome futuredate..............

Mr. Vice-President: I have already given twenty minutesto the honourable Member.

Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad: Is it your desire that I shouldstop?

Mr. Vice-President: Yes.

Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad: Thank you, Sir.

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

"That in clause 6, in sub-section (3) of the proposednew section 290-A, after the words `give such' the word`supplemental' be inserted."

It is more or less a formal amendment. The wordsmentioned in the clause are `incidental' and`consequential'. `Supplemental' is also necessary.

The Honourable Sardar Vallabhai J. Patel: I accept it.

Mr. Vice-President: Amendment No. 64 to be moved byShri Himatsingka.

Shri Prabhudayal Himatsingka (West Bengal: General):Sir, I move:

"That in clause 6, in the proposed new section 290-B,for the words `by the Government of' the words `in allrespects by' be substituted."

Section 290-A makes provision for the administration ofcertain acceding States which are being tacked on to theChief Commissioner's provinces or Governor's provinces. Thisis the contrary case where any part of the area included ina Chief Commissioner's province is to be tacked on to someacceding State. I am therefore suggesting that it shall beadministered in all respects, so that there may be no doubtas to the authority of the state to which it is tacked on,to administer in all respects, executive and legislativeauthority and other authorities. This will be on par with the previous provision.

The Honourable Sardar Vallabhbhai J. Patel: I acceptit.

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

"That in clause 6, in sub-section (2) of the proposednew section 290-B, after the words `contain such' the word`supplemental' be inserted."

This is similar to the previous amendment, moved by meand I hope the House will accept it.

Mr. Vice-President: Clause 6 is now open for generaldiscussion. I shall call upon the States' people becausethey are the people who are principally concerned. Mr.Gopikrishna vijayavargiya. I am sorry I cannot give you toomuch time.

Shri Gopikrishna Vijavargiya [United States of Gwalior-Indore-Malwa (Madhya-Bharat): Mr. Vice-President, Sir, I amnot taking much of the time of the House and particularly I have to reply to the amendment moved here by Mr. NaziruddinAhmad. I come from a State and I say it is not the rulersbut it is the States' people who are most concerned in thisaffair. It is not a legal question really, although law isrequired everywhere, but it is a political question. We donot want to divide this country into so many pieces and somany principalities and, therefore, it has been a consistentdemand of the people of the States that the several Statesmust go and we should form one India, and so whatever the States Ministry has done and whatever agreements have been entered into, they are in theinterests of the people. After all, the people of the so-called British Indian Provinces and the States are all one,and therefore whatever has been done is in the interests of the country. I must say, Sir, that the words `as if' arequite sufficient from the legal view point and it maintainswhatever little distinction is necessary. I rather wish that these states should be completely obliterated from

the faceof India and not even this distinction should be maintained,and therefore, I will say that all these legal objections tothis section must go and we must pass this section as it ishere.

Shri Ratan Lal Malaviya (C. P. & Berar: States): *[Mr.Vice-President, Sir, I rise to support Honourable SardarPatel's Bill seeking to amend the Government of India Act,1935, and specially clause 6. The truth is that theChhattisgarh States had an earnest desire that all of themshould be merged in order that they may share in theprogress being made by the provinces and also to make theirown contribution to the progress of the country as a whole.When, on 14th December 1947, Honourable Sardar Patel reachedKattak, the representative of the Chhattisgarh Statessubmitted to him a memorandum requesting for an early mergerof the States on the lines followed in merging certainstates in Orissa. I am glad that the Chhattisgarh Stateshave been merged in C. P. On the 1st January, every where in the States, the merger celebrations were held and there wasrejoicing among the people, After 1st January, i.e., afterthe States were merged, the Provincial Government tried itsbest to bring about improvement in the States and tookcertain measures in quick succession for their developmentwhich gave us satisfaction that the merger had beenbeneficial to us. But the Provincial Government could notpull on well with the representatives of the States. Therearose therefrom some trouble which still continues. Theamendment Act, which is before the House should be passed sothat the State representatives may have the right to advisethe Provincial Government and the State administration maybe conducted in the light of their advice. On the 1stJanuary, i.e., one month after the merger, an Advisory Boardfor the States in Orissa was formed and theirrepresentatives were also taken in the Executive Council.But the C. P. Government could not do the same. Therepresentatives of the States in C. P. tried for theformation of such a board. If C. P. had formed an AdvisoryCouncil to secure the co-operation in the matter of theState administration and had taken on the board some staterepresentatives, there would have been no discontent. It maybe that there were difficulties owing to which the C. P.Government did not form such a board. But with theacceptance of this clause the difficulties, if any, would beremoved.

Sir, in this connection I may inform you that since ourrepresentatives were not in any way associated with theGovernment of the Central Provinces, it happened that thereports submitted by State officials against our workers,-and I may add these were responsible workers.-were acceptedby the Government in due course. Naturally this led to sometrouble in the initial stages.

Besides, as our representatives were not associatedwith the administration, many excesses were committed in therealisation of the land revenue. When we approached thePrime Minister and the Government with our grievances, theofficials felt annoyed with us and started cases against ourworkers, and I may add that a number of workers haverecently been sentenced to imprisonment. Similarly, rates inrespect of forest were considerably enhanced which causedconsiderable discontent in the States. The facilities whichthe States previously enjoyed were also curtailed and thistoo created resentment. If the Provincial Government hadcared to secure our co-operation, as would be obligatory infuture by virtue of this clause, the difficulties which weare

------------------------------------------------------------

* [] Translation of Hindustani speech.

facing today and the conditions that have been created wouldnot at all have been there.

With the passage of this clause, the representative of the people would be able to render some services to thepeople and the people would have an opportunity of conveyingtheir wishes to the Government. With these words, Sir, Icommend clause 6 of the Bill and express my gratitude toHonourable Sardar Patel for bringing it forward.]

Mr. Vice-President: Sardar

Patel, do you wish to sayanything?

The Honourable Sardar Vallabhbhai J. Patel: I havenothing to say.

Mr. Vice-President: I shall now put the amendments oneby one to vote.

Amendment No. 38 standing in the name of Mr. NaziruddinAhmad:

The question is:

"That in clause 6, in clause (a) of sub-section (1) of the proposed new section 290-A, the word `or' occurring atthe end, the whole of clause (b) of sub-section (1) and theproviso to sub-section (1) be deleted,

or, alternatively,

That in clause 6, in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of the proposed new section 290-A, for the words `shall beadministered', the words "shall with their consent beadministered" be substituted.

or, alternatively,

That in clause 6, in sub-section (1) of the proposednew section 290-A, for all the words beginning with `theGovernor General may by Order direct' to the end of clause(b) of the said sub-section, the following be substituted:-

`the Governor-General may by Order direct that theState or the group of States shall be administeredin all respects as if the State or the group ofStates were-

(a) a Governor's or a Chief Commissioner's province, or

(b) with the consent of the State or States concerned,as part of a Governor's province.'"

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. Vice-President: Amendment No. 56 standing in thename of Mr. T. T. Krishnamachari.

The question is:

"That in clause 6, in sub-section (3) of the proposednew section 290-A, after the words `give such' the word`supplemental' be inserted."

The amendment was adopted.

Mr. Vice-President: Amendment no. 64 moved by Mr.Prabhudayal Himatsingka.

The question is:

"That in clause 6, in the proposed new section 290-B,for the words `by the Government of' the words `in allrespects by' be substituted."

The amendment was adopted.

Mr. Vice-President: Amendment No. 75 standing in thename of Mr. T. T. Krishnamachari.

The question is:

"That in clause 6, in sub-section (2) of the proposednew section 290-B, after the words `contain such' the word`supplemental' be inserted."

The amendment was adopted.

Mr. Vice-President: The question is:

"That clause 6, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

The motion was adopted.

Clause 6, as amended, was added to the Bill.

Mr. Vice-President: We take up clause 7. Amendment No.80 standing of the name of Mr. T. T. Krishnamachari.

Shri T. T. Krishnamachari: Mr. Vice-President, Sir, I move:

"That in sub-clause (a) of clause 7, in the proposedparagraph 34 of the Federal Legislative List, the words`trade and commerce (whether or not within a province) in,and production, supply and distribution of, products of suchindustries' be deleted."

Sir, the reason for this amendment primarily wasdifferent; but now, in view of the fact that article 2 hasundergone a change and also in view of the fact that myhonourable Friend Mr. Govind Vallabh Pant is going to moveamendments numbers 87 and 88, this will be necessary inorder to clarify the position, because the words that arenow sought to be omitted are being put in List III ofSchedule 7, by the amendments Nos. 87 and 88. I hope the House will accept this amendment.

The Honourable Pandit Govind Ballabh Pant: With yourpermission, Sir, I should like to move....

Mr. Vice-President: All the three amendments?

The Honourable Pandit Govind Ballabh Pant: Yes, Sir:amendments 84, 87 and 88. I move:

"That in sub-clause (b) of clause 7, in the proposedparagraph 27 of the Provincial Legislative List, for thewords `34 of List I' the words `31 (A) of List III' besubstituted."

"That in sub-clause (c) of clause 7, in the proposedparagraph 29 of the Provincial Legislative List, for thewords and figures `34 of List I' the words and figures `31-Aof List III' be substituted."

"That in clause 7, the following new sub-clause beinserted at the end:-

`(d) after paragraph 31 of the Concurrent Legislativelist the following paragraph shall beinserted as paragraph 31(A):-

31(A). Trade and commerce in, and production, supplyand distribution of, products

of industries,the development of which is declared byDominion law to be expedient in the publicinterest under paragraph 34 of List I.'"

Sir, all the four amendments Nos. 80, 84, 87 and 88 areinter-connected and inter-linked and they must stand or falltogether. According to the Bill, development of industrieswhere development under Dominion control is declared byDominion law to be expedient in the public interest,regulation and control of such industries, trade andcommerce (whether or not within a province) in, andproduction, supply and distribution of, products of suchindustries, were to be included in List I. That is, allthese subjects were to be brought within the exclusivejurisdiction of the Federal Legislature and the FederalGovernment. Now, that would have led to several otherdifficulties and complications. We all realise that so faras development of industries, where development underDominion control is declared by Dominion law to be expedientin the public interest and regulation and control of suchindustries should vest in the Centre. According to the entryalready contained in the Federal Legislative List,development of industries where development under Dominioncontrol is declared by Dominion law to be expedient in thepublic interest, is already included and there is nointention of making any change so far as that is concerned. But, as proposed in thisamendment regulation and control of such industries shouldalso be placed under the jurisdiction of the FederalLegislature. So, so far as the first two parts of thisclause are concerned, they will stand as they are. But withrespect to the rest, that is, trade and commerce (whether ornot within a province) in, and production, supply anddistribution of, products of such industries, it is proposedby the series of amendments to which I referred at theoutset, that these should be included in the Concurrent Listand consequential changes should be made in the otheramendments. So, the main point that is before the House iswhether trade and commerce (whether or not within aprovince) in, and production, supply and distribution of,products of such industries should or should not betransferred from this class to List III, that is, instead ofbeing included in List I they should form part of List III.

I think honourable Members will agree that theamendments that I am proposing will serve the purpose whichthe original clause had in view fully and will at the sametime avoid other difficulties and complications which mightarise if these items were not included in the ConcurrentList. For, by including these in the Concurrent List, thepower is vested in the Centre to legislate with regard to these matters. Power is also vested by virtue of clause 2,which has already been amended, to appoint agents directlyfor the administration of any of these subjects so that theCentre can have plenary, comprehensive and if it so chooseseven exclusive control with regard to these matters. But,whatever the Centre may do, I venture to submit that it willstill be necessary for the provinces to exercise a number offunctions within their own provincial boundaries with regardto these matters. So, if these are made the exclusive chargeof the Centre, then, the provinces will not be free todischarge the duties and obligations which will necessarilydevolve on them. In order to enable the provinces to playtheir part subject to the overriding powers that will nowvest in the Centre, it is necessary to include these itemsin the Concurrent List and that is what I propose. Even nowwhen we have got the Essential Supplies Act, the Centregenerally frames a few basis rules and leaves the rest to the provinces. We in the provinces have been issuing ordersrules and regulations with regard to these matters in ourrespective provinces. Whatever be the position hereafter, itwill still be necessary for the provinces to exercise thesepowers. In our own province for example, we propose tointroduce a bill so that the distribution of buildingmaterials may be regulated, that no steel or iron or

coaletc. be supplied for the purpose of any building which islikely to cost more than Rs. 25,000. That is under ourconsideration. Now unless these items are included in theConcurrent List, we have no power to introduce such a billin our Legislature. Besides, as I said, if these items areplaced in List I, the Centre will not find it possible toadminister these subjects in an efficient way. They requirea very extensive network and I think it is not possible for the Centre to manage these things without the active co-operation and support of the provinces. So I propose that the amendments to which I referred at the outset be acceptedunanimously by the House.

Mr. Vice-President: There are two amendments which haveto be considered further. The one is No. 9 in the name ofMr. Naziruddin Ahmad which is disallowed as verbal.

Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad: It should be considered by theDraftsmen.

Mr. Vice-President: I suppose it will be. Is itnecessary to hold a general discussion on this clause?

Honourable Members: No.

Mr. Vice-President: Then I shall put the amendments tovote one after another.

The question is:

"That in sub-clause (a) of clause 7, in the proposedparagraph 34 of the Federal Legislative List, the words`trade and commerce (whether or not within a province) in,and production, supply and distribution of, products of suchindustries' be deleted.'

The amendment was adopted.

Mr. Vice-President: The question is:

"That in sub-clause (c) of clause 7, in the proposedparagraph 29 of the Provincial Legislative List, for thewords and figures `34 of List I, the words and figures 31-Aof List III be substituted."

The amendment was adopted.

Mr. Vice-President: The question is:

"That is clause 7, the following new sub-clause beinserted at the end:-

(d) after paragraph 31 of the Concurrent LegislativeList the following paragraph shall be inserted as paragraph31(A):-

31(A). Trade and commerce in, and production, supplyand distribution of, products of industries, thedevelopment of which is declared by Dominion lawto be expedient in the public interest underparagraph 34 of List I."

The amendment was adopted.

Mr. Vice-President: The motion is:

"That clause 7, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

The motion was adopted

Clause 7, as amended, was added to the Bill.

Mr. Vice-President: The question is:

"That clause 1 and the Long Title form part of theBill."

There is an amendment to this.

Shri. T. T. Krishnamachari: Mr. Vice-President, I move:

"That for clause 1 the following clause besubstituted:-`Short title and 1. (1) This Act may be called theGovernment of India (Amendment commencement.) Act, 1949.

(2) It shall come into force on the 15th day of January,1949."

Sir, the first sub-clause is necessary because thedate has to altered and the second one precisely states whenthe Act will come into force.

Sir, I move.

Mr. Vice-President: I now put the amendment to vote.The question is:

"That for clause 1 the following clause besubstituted:-

`Short title and 1.(1) This Act may be called theGovernment of India (Amend commencement.) Act, 1949.

(2) It shall come into force on the 15th day of January,1949."

The amendment was adopted

Mr. Vice-President: The motion is:

"That clause 1, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

The motion was adopted.

Clause 1, as amended, was added to the Bill.

Mr. Vice-President: The question is:

"That the Long Title and the Preamble stand part of theBill."

The motion was adopted.

The Honourable Sardar Vallabhbhai J. Patel: Sir, I move:

"That the clauses 1(A),2,3 and 4 be renumbered asclauses 2,3,4 and 5 respectively."

Mr. Vice-President: The question is:

"That the clauses 1(A), 2, 3 and 4 be renumbered asclauses 2, 3, 4 and 5 respectively."

The motion was adopted.

The Honourable Sardar Vallabhbhai J. Patel: Sir, I move:

"That the Bill,

as amended, be passed."

Mr. Vice-President: The question is:

"The Bill, as amended, be passed."

The motion was adopted.

Mr. Vice-President: The House stands adjourned till tentomorrow.

The Assembly then adjourned till Ten of the Clock onThursday, the 6th January 1949.