CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY OF INDIA - VOLUME IX



Tuesday, the 30th August 1949

The Constituent Assembly of India met in the Constitution Hall, New Delhi, at Nine of the Clock, Mr. President (The Honourable Dr. Rajendra Prasad) in the Chair.

Mr. President: We shall take up the discussion of Entry No. 7. I find that several Members have given notice of amendments. No. 172 Dr. Deshmukh.

Dr. P. S. Deshmukh: (C. P. & Berar: General) : I have moved it already, Sir.

Mr. President: Then 173. Shri T. T. Krishnamachari.

Shri T. T. Krishnamachari: (Madras: General) : Mr. President, I move:

"That with reference to amendment No. 6 of List I (Sixth Week), in the proposed entry 7 of List I of the Seventh Schedule, for the words local self-government' the words 'local government' be substituted.

This has been explained by Dr. Ambedkar yesterday. There is no need for me to explain that further.

Shri Mahavir Tyagi: (United Provinces : General) : Sir, I am sorry that for a small matter yesterday you adjourned the House; otherwise I think it would have been clairfied yesterday. My difficulty is that when you put the Cantonments and Cantonment Boards and the regulation of house accommodation (including the control of rents in such areas in the hands of the Government of India) a great inconvenience will be felt. Personally, I feel that the cantonments in various States are Dot imperial islets. For all practical purposes, all the civil population in cantonments is controlled by the States. The cantonments were brought into being just to see that the sanitation of those places was suitable to the military neighbourhood and that all local government activities were in the hands of the military authorities or at least influenced by military authorities, so that the military areas may not find any sort of inconvenience with regard to health, hygiene or other matters.

Now, Sir, in the beginning the cantonments were mostly comprised of military barracks and officers' mess and a few other bungalows considered to be of military. Now what has happened is; let us take an instance. Take Meerut. In Meerut there is a military Cantonment, three-fourths of which is composed of civil population. There is the Sadar Bazar and there are lawyers and others living in that cantonment area. That area is within the area and the jurisdiction of the Cantonment Board. All the laws of the U.P. apply to the inhabitants of the cantonment areas. For instance, in the bazar there is the same sales tax as is elsewhere in U.P. For all purposes of law and order, they are controlled by the very same civil authorities of the Provinces everywhere in India. It was only the local government part of it which was transferred or rather intended to be transferred to the hands of the Cantonment Boards and the rest of the laws of the States equally apply to the citizens of cantonments.

Now, Sir, at most of the places cantonment area is exactly adjacent to the city areas. If the house rent controls and all similar powers were handed over to the Centre, and if those adjacent areas were to, be controlled by the Centre, then it will be an anomaly. One shop on this side of the demarcation line will be controlled by one law; the other shop on the other side of the line will be controlled by another. For a few years we controlled the house rents and house allotments by means of a law in the U.P. which was equally effectively controlling the rents of the cantonment areas. For two or three years it was getting on peacefully, but for the last one year or so, when a our Province the Rent Act was amended, they excluded the cantonment area, perhaps on the desire of the Central Government, with the result that I have received a number of letters from the cantonments of my province, complaining against the hardships which their civil population was undergoing with regard to house rents. I will read a few lines from the letter of the Secretary of the Cantonment Taxpayers' Association. "More than 1,000 suits for ejectment of tenants from houses and shops in Meerut Cantonment

have already been filed in the civil courts, and decrees for ejectment in some cases have already been passed." This is not a case where the ownership of the buildings or shops belongs to Government. It is about the civil area. The Secretary further says. "In Meerut alone the civil population in the cantonment is more than one lakh". Now, this one lakh of people belonging to one State shall now for all practical purposes be controlled by a different law from the Centre just as Delhi is controlled by the Centre. When that State enacts a law it will not automatically apply to the civil population in cantonments. The, law will only apply if and when the Centre thinks it fit to extend the application thereof to those areas. If this is going to be the state of affairs under the future Constitution. I must protest against it, because all those civilians living in cantonment areas are as good as the rest of the population in a State. To make this distinction will be 'invidious and unfair. I therefore submit that, except for the local self-government part of it, the civil population of cantonment areas must be controlled on an equal footing with their fellow citizens living as neighbours in the very same State.

I therefore move :

"That in amendment No. 6 of List I (Sixth Week), in the proposed entry 7 of List I, the words 'and the regulation of House accommodation (including the control of rents) in such areas be deleted."

Rent control is the function of the State everywhere in the Union. Why should the civil areas in the cantonments now be handed over to the Centre ?

My alternative, amendment, which I shall presently move, will come in only in case this is not accepted. It runs thus:

"That in amendment No. 6 of List I (Sixth Week). in the proposed entry 7 of List I, for the brackets and words '(including the control "of rents)' the brackets and word '(excluding the control of rents)' be substituted.

I mean this control of rent must not be left in the hands of the Union administration. I have received another letter from Jhansi saying that the people there are in trouble, because the United Provinces has not been permitted to control the rent in cantonment areas. I therefore submit that if my first suggestion is not approved my alternative proposal may be accepted; or Dr. Ambedkar's genius might find some other way to accommodate my wishes

(Amendments Nos. 175 to 177, were not moved.)Shri R. K. Sidhva (C.P. & Berar: General) : Mr. President, I want to speak. on Mr. Tyagi's amendment.

Mr. President : Very well, but do not take more than three minutes. I, shall be looking at the clock.

Shri R. K. Sidhva: Yesterday, while speaking on this amendment I made: the position very clear that the Drafting Committee, will accept the amendment. But the point is that Mr. Tyagi wanted to cover the extent to which delimitation of cantonments could take place. Mr. Tyagi wanted that house rent should be deleted from this. That means delimitation also would come to the Provincial List. Unless you absolutely remove from this List delimitation also, you cannot have house-rent regulation left in the Central List. I know the difficulty he has mentioned about the control of rents in the United Provinces. Complaints have, come to me also that the Rent Act is not applicable to the cantonment areas. That is a matter of opinion of the various, provincial Governments. In Bombay the position it different. In Poona Cantonment the House Rent Control is made applicable by the provincial Government. Apart from that, I do not think it is germane to Mr. Tyagi's amendment, because it will take away the entire delimitation now in the hands of' the Centre. .

Shri Mahavir Tyagi: For the information of my Friend I may say I have given notice of an amendment to include this in the Provincial List.

Shri R. K. Sidhva: When it comes we shall see. But so far as this is, concerned, you cannot divide the two, rent and delimitation. I am not prepared to support his amendment. I think that the Drafting Committee's amendment serves the purpose.

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar (Bombay: General) : Sir, the amendments moved by my Friend Mr. Tyagi are the only amendments which call for reply. His amendments are in alternative form. In the first, place, he wants to delete the whole part dealing with regulation of house accommodation including the control of rent. In his alternative amendment he is prepared to retain the control and regulation of house accommodation, but wishes to, delete the words 'rent control'. It seems to me, the matter is really one of common sense. If my Friend has no objection to the retention of the words, regulation of house accommodation", as is clear from his alternative amendment, then it seems to me that the control of rent is merely incidental to the power of regulation of house accommodation. It will be quite impossible to carry out the purpose, namely, of regulating house accommodation, I think he must not have any objection to the transfer of control also.

Mr. President : I will now put the amendments to vote. The first is that of Dr. Deshmukh.

Mr. P.S. Deshmukh : I will be content if the Drafting Committee will be pleased to consider it at the time of the final draft.

Mr. President : It is only a matter of drafting so far as I can see. So we might leave it to the Drafting Committee.

The question is :

"That with reference to amendment No. 6 of List I (Sixth Week), in the proposed entry of List I of the Seventh Schedule, for the words 'local self-government' the words 'local government' be substituted.

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. President : The question is :

"That in amendment No. 6 of List I (Sixth Week), in the proposed entry 7 of List I, the words 'and the regulation of House accommodation (including the control of rents) in such areas' be deleted."

Mr. President : The question is :

"That in amendment No. of List I (Sixth Week), in the proposed entry 7 of List I, for the brackets and words (including the control of rents)' the brackets and words (excluding the control of rents)' be substituted."

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. President : We have now disposed of all the amendments.

The question is :

"That for Entry 7 of List I, the following entry be substituted :-

"7. Delimitation of cantonment areas, local self-government in such areas, the constitution and powers within such areas of contonment authorities and the regulations of House accommodation (including the control of rents) in such areas."

The amendment was adopted.

Mr. President : The question is.

"The Entry 7, as amended, stand part of List I.'

The motion was adopted.

Entry 7, as amended, was added to the Union List.

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

Entry 8

Mr. President : I find there is no amendment to Entries 8,9,10 and 11 originally.

Shri Brajeshwar Prasad (Bihar : General) : There is one amendment No. 178 to Entry 8.

Mr. President : It is new amendment. I was referring to the original printed list of amendments to Entries 8,9,10 and 11. Consequently there was no amendment even in the smaller printed list. Now, I have got notice of new amendments, but I do not think I will allow new amendments to the original entries. So, amendments Nos. 178, 179 and 181 are ruled out.

The question is :

"That Entry 8 stand part of List I."

The motion was adopted

Entry 8 was added to the Union List.

---------------
 


Entry 9

Entry 9 was added to the Union List

Entry 10

Entry 10 was added to the Union List.

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

Entry 11

Entry 11 was added to the Union List.

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

Entry 12


 


Mr. President : There is an amendment in the name of Professor Shibban Lal Saksena that entry 12 be deleted. It is opposition. If he wishes to speak about it, he may do so. I also understand that there is an amendment by Mr. Kamath.

Shri H.V. Kamath (C.P. & Berar : General ) : Mr. President, I move, Sir :

"That in entry 12 in List the words 'or any other international body' be inserted at the end."

That is to say, I want this entry to be modified so as to comprehend any international body other than the United Nations Organisation. In moving this amendment, Sir, I would like to state that the United Nations Organisaion is not the only or the last word in international organisation. My honourable Culeagues are very well aware of a certain League of Nations which was founded after the First World War and which dies an untimely death a few years later. World be a rash prophet who would give a long lease of life for this Organisation also. Already there are rifts and cracks .............

Mr. President : Would not your purpose be served by entry 132.

Shri H.V. Kamath : No, Sir. I would come to that entry presently. There are already rifts and cracks in this Organisation and one never knows when this United Nations Organisation will go the way of the League of Nations. I hope that our Constitution will last quite a long time, and I need not point out that sceptics and pessimists are not wanting who are predicting an early death for the United Nations Organistion. God forbid that its end should come about in that manner, but nobody knows whether this Organisation would stand or whether some other Organisation will take its place. Apart from that, it is quite likely that in the future we might have regional organisations in the world. We are well aware that an Asian Relations Conference was held in April 1947 and in pursuance of that Conference an organisation called the Asian Relations Organisation has been set up. It may be that in times to come the Government of India along with the Governments of some other States might elect to become members of the Asian Relations Organisation. It may be that that Organisation may prove to be even more permanent than the United Nations Organisation.

You were good enough to draw my attention, Sir, to the fact that my proposal might probably be covered by what is mentioned in entry 13, that is to say, international associations and other bodies. If that were so, then my plea would ;be that there is no need for entry 12 as well, because the United Nations Organisation is also an international body or association. I suppose that what is meant by entry 13 is participation in these conferences and bodies form time to time, while entry 12 refers to membership of the organisation with its attendant consequences, responsibilities, duties and obligations. This, Sir, seems to be the distinction between entries 12 and 13 Entry 13 refers to participation in these conference while entry 12 is more comprehensive and includes the obligations and responsibilities resulting from membership of a particular international organisation. I therefore plead that considering that the United Nations Organisation is not at all a permanent body so far as we can see, and considering that we hope that our Constitution will last much longer than any other international body, I think we should provide for this contingency in the List and provide for our membership, with its attendant consequences and responsibilities, of not merely the United Nations Organisation but also any other international organisation which might come into being in the future. I therefore move amendment No. 3517 and commend it to the House for its consideration.

Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena (United Provinces : General) : Mr. President I beg to move that this entry No. 12 be deleted, and my reasons for demanding its deletion are as follow : I would like to draw the attention of the House to the Report of the Union Powers Committee and in that report in paragraph 2 it is said :

"'foreign Affairs' connotes all matters which bring the Union into relation with any foreign country and in particular includes the following subjects :-

(1) Diplomatic, consular and trade representation;

(2) United Nations Organisation;

(3) Participation in international concerences, associations and other bodies and implementing of decisions made thereat; etc."

In fact 17 subjects are mentioned and here we find almost all of them reproduced verbatim in this list. In entry 10 we have said : "Foreign Afairs; all matters which bring the Union into relation with any foreign country." So this entry No. 10 is very comprehensive and in fact includes all the entries which follow, at least 17 of them. I do not see any need of duplication. My second point is more important and it is this. We are framing a Constitution for our country and I do not see that in this Constitution we should provide an entry relating to the United Nations Organisation as a permanent part of our Constitution. As we all know the United Nations Organisation has only come into existence about four years back and even now it is not an organisation in which all the nations put trust, and I very well know that in spite of its existence the nations are trying to prepare for war and they have no trust that the United Nations Organisation can prevent war. If we lay down the United Nations Organisation as one of the entries in this List that means that we give to it importance which is not justified by plain facts. It may be that the united Nations Organisation may cease to exist tomorrow. It may be that India may desire to leave it and if so what is the sense in keeping this entry in the Union List ? I personally feel that entry No. 10 is very comprehensive and it is a matter of foreign policy whether we should continue our membership of the United Nations Organisation or whether we should get out of it. So I do not see any reason why we should put this entry in our Constitution. I also personally feel that the experience of India as a member of the United Nations Organisation has not been very happy and the amount of expenditure which it has involved was not at all commensurate with the advantages, if any, which we have derived from its membership, and in the Kashmir question, we know that we have not been able to get things settled. in fact it has become more complicated. We had hoped that we will get justice and, instead of that international politics have vitiated the whole thing and we are involved therein.

Similar is the case in the matter regarding the treatment of Indians in South Africa. We very well know that India has not got any real voice in the United Nations Organisation. ;The United Nations Organisation has got five permanent seats in the Security Council, and countries like Britain, America, Russia, France and China have each got one seat and India with a population almost bigger than any of them has not been given any seat. I, therefore, think that it is not very honourable for India to be there on these terms.

It is quite possible that tomorrow the parliament may decide that we shall not be in the United Nations Organisation and in that case this entry in the Constitution may be a sort of hindrance. The United Nations Organisation is mentioned as something permanent and I therefore think that this entry in the Union List is superflous as well as injurious. It really binds down the Parliament, and so I personally feel that this entry has no place in this list. Neither India is committed for ever to the United Nations Organisation nor does the House wish to aspire to do so and when we study the reactions of the world to this United Nations Organisation, we find that there is always criticism that it can only be a real world organisation when other nations are ready to part with a little of their sovereignty. The veto power gives power gives power to the United States of America and the Soviet Russia, who do not want to part with any of their sovereignty, to veto any proposal and in this way, I do not think it can go very far with this sad state of affairs.

I therefore, think that the United Nations Organisation is not an organisation of such a character that it should be put down in our Constitution as entry No. 12 in List No. 1 of Seventh Schedule. I think that entry No. 10 is quite comprehensive and it will include the United Nations Organisation. I therefore strongly feel that this entry 12 must be deleted and we must not have this in our Constitution.

The Honourable Dr. B.R. Ambedkar : Sir, there are various considerations which arise with regard to this amendment. As my honourable Friend, Mr. Kamath will see this is not the only entry which relates to foreign nations. There is, in the first place, an entry called Foreign Affairs which is broad enough, to be operated upon by this country if it wishes to establish itself as a member of any international organisation. There is also the entry following, which we are dealing with now, which permits legislation relating to participation in any international conference or any international body. In view of that, I should have thought that the kind of amendment which has been moved by my honourable Friend, Mr. Kamath is really unnecessary. Secondly, it must be remembered that this is merely a legislative entry. It enables the State to make legislation with regard to anybody of the Draft Constitution which limited the legislative power of the State given by any one of these entries, the question such as the one raised by my honourable Friend, Mr. Kamath would be very relevant, ;but I do not find that there is any limiting article in the Constitution itself which confines the legislative power given under this entry to the membership of the United Nations Organisation and there is no such entry at all in the article. Therefore the State can act under any of the other items and be a member of any other international organisation. But if the House is particular about it, I think no harm can be done if Mr. Kamath's amendment is accepted and therefore, I leave the matter to the House to decide.

Mr. President : The question is :

"That in entry 12 in List I the words 'or any other international body' be inserted at the end."
 


The amendment was negatived.


 


Mr. President : The question is :

"That entry 12 stands part of List I."
 


The Motion was adopted.

Entry 12 was added to the Union List.

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

New Entry 9-A


 


Mr. President : There is notice of one amendment by Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena for adding one more entry : " Cosmic energy, and scientific and industrial research and other resources needs for its production, development and use." It comes after entry No. 9. I missed it just then. I should have put it after entry No. 9.

Would you like to move it, Mr. Shibban Lal Saksena ?

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : I do not know what it means.

Mr. President : We have atomic energy; he wants to have cosmic energy also.

Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena : Sir, I beg to move :

"That after entry 9 of List I, the following new entry be added :-

"9-A. Cosmic energy, and scientific and industrial research and other resources needed for its reproduction, development and use."

Sir, we have provided in entry No. 9 for atomic energy and mineral resources essential to its production. We very well know that atomic energy has revolutionised the whole conception of defence. In fact, the biggest problem in the U.N.O. is about the atomic energy. You all very well know that there is also the cosmic energy. About this also, researches are being made by Russia. We have often heard that on the Pamir Plateau there are laboratories where Russia is investigating into cosmic rays and its use for war purposes. In these days we cannot remain ignorant of this great advance in science. I think our State should also undertake this research work which is at present being carried on by Russia and other countries. Therefore, I think there should be entry No. 9-A in which we should provide for this item. We have recently passed a Bill for atomic energy and we are doing something about it. About this cosmic energy and cosmic rays also about which we have heard so much in the scientific magazines, I think we should make provision in our Constitution. I hope Dr. Ambedkar will see that this lacuna is removed.

The Honourable Dr. B R. Ambedkar : Sir, all I can say is that if the amendment moved by my Friend Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena is at all necessary, I think we have enough power under entry No. 91 of List I to deal with that : "any other matter not enumerated in List II or List III including any tax not mentioned in either of those Lists". That matte could be covered by this.

Shri H. V. Kamath : That would cover many of the entries in the List itself.

Mr. President : The question is :

"That after entry 9 of List I, the following new entry be added :-

"9-A. Cosmic energy, and scientific and industrial research and other resources needed for its reproduction, development and use."
 


The motion was negatived.

Entry 13


 


Mr. President : There is an amendment of which notice has been given by Messers Mohammed Ismail, Pocker, and Ahmed Ibrahim. I find none of them here. So that is not moved.

There is no other amendment to this entry.
 


Entry 13 was added to the Union List.

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

Entry 14


 


Mr. President : There is no amendment.

Shri Brajeshwar Prasad : I would like to speak on this, Sir.

Mr. President : Speak on war and peace ? Why ? We all understand war and peace. It is there.

Shri Brajeshwar Prasad : I would like to speak a few lines.

Mr. President : Oppose it or support it ?

Shri Brajeshwar Prasad : I would like to have further elucidation.

Mr. President : Very well; come along.

Shri Brajeshwar Prasad : Mr. President, Entry 14 : War and Peace. While discussing entry No. 5, I had suggested that instead of the word parliament, the word 'President' ought to be incorporated--"such industries which are declared by Parliament to be essential for certain purposes". Here, it is not defined whether the question of declaration of the President or Parliament. On the lines of the American Constitution, I would like clarification of this question. It is a very vital question, Sir. The power to frame laws regarding war and peace has been left to Parliament. But, I want that this power should not be left in the hands of Parliament. It should be left in the hands of the President. I have nothing more to add.

Mr. President : Dr. Ambedkar, would you like to say anything in reply ?

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : No elucidation is necessary.

Mr. President : The question is :

"That entry No. 14 stand part of List I."
 


The motion was adopted.

Entry No. 14 was added to the Union List.

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

Entry 15


 


Mr. President : There is no amendment to this.
 


Entry 15


 


Mr. President : There is no amendment to this.
 


Entry No. 15 was added to the Union List.

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

New Entry 15-A


 


Mr. President : There is a suggestion by Mr. Kamath that another entry be added, No. 15-A, Mr. Kamath, you may move it.

Shri H.V. Kamath : Mr. President, I move :

"That after entry 15 in List I, the following new entry be inserted :-

"15-A. The acquisition, continuance and termination of membership of any international or supra-national organisation."

I am sorry there is a printers devil : it is 'Supernational' It should be super-national'.

I feel, Sir, that in view of the rejection of my last amendment which happily enough commended itself to Dr. Ambedkar ................

Mr. President : But not to the House.

Shri H.V. Kamath : Unhappily though, not to the House. I feel, Sir, there is some raison d'etre for this amendment of mine. Had my last amendment been accepted, namely, membership of ;the UNO or any other international body, then, there would have been no need for this amendment. But as the advice of Dr. Ambedkar, I think that this provision should be made in this List. My honourable Friend Dr. Ambedkar pointed out to me Entry 10 and said that it had a very wide field and covered many things not otherwise specifically mentioned. It may be that the term 'foreign affairs' means all things to all men. But in a matter like this I.e., in the Union List (Legislative) we ought to be specific as far as lies in human power. It is not enough to say just 'foreign affairs'. It conveys either everything or nothing. Apart from that, the second part of Entry 10 refers to all matters which bring the Union into relation with any foreign country. No organisation or association or international body is mentioned as such. Entry 12 which we had adopted refers only to UNO. This list therefore to my mind suffers from a little lacuna and that is, our membership of any international body, or I may call it super-national body, other than the UNO. I have made a distinction between "international" and "super-national." Super-national in political parlance today connotes more than merely international. In modern political theory, after the birth of the League of Nations, politically interested people started talking of the Super-State-the Super-State to which all component States would willingly surrender a portion of their sovereignty. That was called a Super-State. But here we are talking of an organisation which has no powers, coercive powers of the State apparatus which we may find in a World Government of which many are dreaming today. Here we are confining ourselves to an organisation of nations where various nations assembled in conclave or in conference might discuss several matters affecting all of them and arrive at certain decisions for implementation by the various Government concerned or members of the particular organisation and here comes the moot point, viz., the membership of any international or super-national organisation must be a matter which has got to be considered in great detail before one elects to become a member of any organisation. Today membership of an organisation caries with it several commitments of various sorts and therefore it is necessary to provide for not merely the acquisition of membership but also its continuance and termination. If we say mere membership, it is in my judgment too vague, and therefore we must specifically state everything. I am not mentioning only UNO because it is only one of the many organisations which human wisdom has created. There are no bounds to man's wisdom, here as elsewhere. I, therefore, feel that in view of the rejection of my previous amendment, and in view of the non-mention of this particular item in the other entries of this List, that this is a very vital matter which not merely Dr. Ambedkar but also the House might choose to consider in all seriousness. I, therefore, commend my amendment to the House for its consideration.

Shri S.V. Krishnamoorthy Rao : (Mysore) : Mr. President, acquisition, continuance and termination of membership of international or supernational organisations can be only according to the rules-bye-laws framed by those bodies and I think it has already been provided in entry 13 which we have already accepted-participation in international conferences, associations and other bodies and implementation of decisions made therein. So I feel that entry 13 which the House has already accepted covers this and this amendment is superfluous. I, therefore, oppose it.

Mr. President : The question is :

"That after entry 15 in List I, the following new entry be inserted :-

"15-A. The acquisition, continuance and termination of membership of any international or super-national organisation."
 


The amendment was negatived.

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

Entry16


 


Mr. President : We go to Entry 16. There is no amendment to that. I put it to vote.
 


Entry 16 was added to the Union List.

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

Entry 17

Entry 17 was added to the Union List.

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

Entry 18

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

Entry 18 was added to the Union List.

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

Entry 19

Entry 19 was added to the Union List.

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

Entry 20

Entry 20 was added to the Union List.

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

Entry 21

Entry 21 was added to the Union List.

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

Entry 22


 


The Honourable Dr. B.R. Ambedkar : Sir, I move :

"That for entry 22 of List I, the following entry be substituted :-

'22. Piracies and crimes committed on the high seas' or in the air; offences against the law of nations committed on land or the high seas or in the air.'"

[The Honourable Dr. B.R. Ambedkar]

The second part of this entry - "Offences against the law of nations comitted on land or the high seas or in the air." is new. It was an omission made in the earlier part of the draft. With regard to the first part, we are substituting the word "crimes" for "felonies and offences", as it is the common word used in India. "Felonies and offences" are English technical terms. We are also taking out of the first part, the words, "against the law of nations" because piracies and crimes are matters which can be regulateld by any country by reason of its own legal juridication and authority. It has nothing to do with the law of nations.

Mr. President : There are two amendments to this, of which notice is given by Mr. Diwakar and Mr. Brajeshwar Prasad. But they do not arise after the amendment which has been moved by Dr. Ambedkar. Then there is the amendment of Prof. Saksena. But is your amendment any different ?

Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena : No, it is covered by the same amendment.

Mr. President : Then there is the amendment of Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad.

Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad (West Bengal : Muslim) : Sir. I move :

"That in amendment No. 8 of List I (Sixth Week), in the proposed entry 22 of List I-

(i) for the word 'Piracies' the word 'Piracy' be substituted : and a semi-colon be inserted thereafter;

(ii) the word 'and' after the word 'Piracies' be deleted; and

(iii) the words 'committed on land or the high seas or in the air 'be deleted.'

Sir, with regard to the first part of my amendment, I want to change the word "Piracies" from the plural to the singular. I shall not press this matter to the vote, but I would ask the Drafting Committee to consider the matter. I would like to draw the attention of the House to certain other items which precede this item, and to say that they are all in the singular. I submit that the word "piracy" is quite sufficient to include the subject. It is not necessary that we should use the word in the plural. For instance, we have in item, 11, said-"Diplomatic, consular and trade representation: and not "representations". So also in item No. 14 we speak of "War and Peace" and not "Wars and Peaces". Tehen we come to item 16-"Foreign jurisdiction" and not "Foreign juridications." We come to item 17-"Trade and Commerce" and not "Trades and Commerces". Then we come to item 20- "Extradition" and not "Extraditions". I think these would be enough to show that the singular is quite sufficient in this item also. But as I said, I shall be quite content to leave the matter to the tender care of the Drafting Committee.

Then with regard to the second part of my amendment, I want to remove the word "and" occurring after the word "Piracies" or "Piracy"-whichever would be more acceptable. I say that that word, Piracy or Piracies should stand alone, and then there should be a semi-colon so as to entirely separate this from what is coming on, because they are entirely different. A semi-colon has been accepted as a favourite device in similar other places. This is also a matter of drafting.

Then comes the expression "crimes committed on the high seas or in the air". I should leave it untouched. But when we come to the words "offences against the law of nations" and then there is an unnecessary explanation-"committed on land, or the high seas or in the air." The addition of those last words, I think, is first of all. absolutely unnecessary. If we leave it at "offences against the law of nations," it includes offences committed anywhere. As the honourable Member Dr. Ambedkar has just now explained, in dealing, with another article, we should be elaborate when dealing with a subject in an article, but in specifying a certain subject in the legislative list, it is enough to mention the subject, and the question as to in what direction the legislature will act, that is a matter for the legislature alone. We need not try to elaborate the jurisdiction of the legislature in that respect. In this case, I humbly suggest that the words-"committed on land, or the high seas or in the air" have the effect-if they have any effect at all- of curtailing the jurisdiction of the Union Legislature, and quite unnecessarily too, and without perhaps appreaciating the curtailment effected. I submit that if we leave the expression "offences against the law of nations" that will imply offences committed anywhere. By saying that the offences must be committed on "land, the high seas or in the air," we are needlessly elaborate. I also submit that the very mention of the expression "high seas" would leave out offences against the law of nations committed in the low seas or within the limits of the territorial waters. If any offence against the law of nations is committed between the land and the high seas, then I think entry 22 as it is now drafted, would preclude it from the jurisdication of the Union Legislature. Therefore I submit it is better to omit the words "committed on land, or the high seas or in the air".

Sir, while considering a previous entry the honourable Member referred to entry 91. That is a residuary article. There it is stated-"Any other matter not enumerated in List II or List III including any tax not mentioned in either of those Lists". But I submit it would not be a very safe thing to rely upon the curative virtues of entry 91. It is not meant, I submit most respectfully, to cure any specific omission of a certain subject in a specific part of a list. It is a well-known law of interpretation that where you make a specific mention of a subject, and omit certain specific subjects, then the general words in any other part would not cover that omission, and would not cure any defect or omission which might have been left in the specific items. I suppose the items introduced by the Honourable Dr. Ambedkar have been submitted to the House with careful thought and careful consideration. So it would be said that offences against the law of nations committed in this no-man's area would be out of the jurisdiction of the Union Legislature. Therefore, I submit it will be better to leave out the explanatory portion altogether. That part is, in my humble judgment, absolutely unnecessary and may lead to some amount of quibbling. I know my fear are justified by some leading cases on this point. There are some very authoritative rulings to the effect that general words at the end of a list do not enlarge the powers already given or to supply the gaps which are definitely left in the body of the enumerated list. That is a well-known law of interpretation. But I believe probably that I am submitting my arguments to the Honourable Dr. Ambedkar without any effect, because he has not heard me and was engaged in conversation.

Mr. President : There is then Mr. Kamath's amendment, No. 184.

Shri H.V. Kamath : Sir, I move :

"That in amendment No. 8 of List I (Sixth Week), in the proposed entry 22 of List I, the words 'and crimes' be deleted."

I am not sure, Sir, in my own mind as to whether crimes of all types should be within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Union Government and not also concurrently with the State Governments. As regards high seas there is no doubt on that point, because shipping, navigation and allied subjects are within the purview of the Union Government.

[Shri H.V. Kamath]

The House is very well aware that many States and provinces have made considerable headway in civil aviation. Most of the provinces have now flying clubs and some of the provinces have planes of their own for their Ministers. Facts reported in the press recently-not in our country, but in other countries like America and Europe-have brought to light different types of crimes committed when a plane was in mid-air. There has been mar peet inside a plan; there have been scuffles for money, or rum or liquor. Suppose, for instance, one of the provincial or State planes, or the plane of a flying club is up in the air and some sort of offence is committed. Or, consider, for instance, a pilot who may be drunk tries to jump out of the plane, either with parachute or without it; then he is certainly attempting to commit suicide and putting the lives of people inside it into danger. In such contingencies should we leave these matters solely to the exclusive jursdiction of the Union Government ? Should we not make such matters concurrent between the Union and the State Governments and confer power upon the States also to make rules or regulations, or even to legislate in matters of this kind ?

I eel, that this matter needs some attention because of the recent developments in civil aviation.

The Honourable Dr. B.R. Ambedkar : Sir, listening to what my honourable Friend Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad said, I am afraid I have again to say that he has not got a very clear notion of what this entry 22 proposes to do.

Mr. Zaziruddin Ahmad : The difficulty was that Dr. Ambedkar was engaged in conversation and did not hear me.

The Honourable Dr. B.R. Ambedkar : I was no doubt engaged in conversation; but I was quite avadhan to what he was saying.

My Friend first posed the question as to why we should use the term "piracy and crime" in plural. Well, the other way in which we can use piracy and crime would be in collective terms. I think in maters of this sort, where criminal legislation is provided for, it is much better not to use the word in collective form. He cited some examples, but he forgets the fact that in some cases the generic use of the term is quite sufficient; in other cases it is not sufficient. and crimes" in plural because it is appropriate in the context in which it is used.

My Friend Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad said as a second count against this entry that there ought to be a semi-colon after 'Piracies'. Now, that, I think, would distort the meaning and the purport of item 22 . Supposing we had a semi-colon after 'piracies', 'piracies' in item 22 would be dissociated from the rest of the entry. Now, if piracies are dissociated from the rest of the entries, it would mean that the Centre would have the right to legislate on all piracies, including piracies in inland rivers also. It is not the intention of this entry to give to the Central Legislature the power to legislate on piracies of all sorts. The words "committed on high seas or in the air" are words which not only qualify the word "crime" but they are also intended to qualify the word "piracy"/

Then, the third count of my Friend was that we should omit the words "on land, on high seas and in the air" after the words "ofences against the law of nations". That would not make it clear that the second entry is an all-pervasive entry and gives the power contrary to the first part of the entry to the Central Legislature to deal with offences against the law of nations, not merely on the high seas and in the air but also on land. In other words, the States will have no kind of power so far as the second part of the entry is concerned. I, therefore, submit that the entry as proposed carries the intention of the draftman and no amendment is necessary.

Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : The honourable Member has not heard me. What about offences committed against the law of nations, which is neither on land, nor on high seas, nor in the air, but in the low seas ?

The Hounourable Dr. B.R. Ambedkar : It can only be in his imagination, it cannot be anywhere else.

Sardar Hukam Singh : (East Punjab : Sikh) : If piracies are not dissociated from ;;the remaining items, then would these words 'in the air' also qualify the word 'piracy' ?

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : There may be piracies in the air also.

Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : Piracies are always on water, never on land or in the air.

Mr. President : I will now put the amendments to vote.

Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : I would like only the last one to be put to vote.

Mr. President : The question is :

"That in amendment No. 8 of List I (Sixth Week), in the proposed entry 22 of List I, the words 'committed on land or the high seas or in he air' be deleted."
 


The amendment was negatived.


 


Mr. President : The question is :

"That in amendment No. 8 of List I (Sixth Week), in the proposed entry 22 of List I, the words 'and crimes' be deleted."
 


The amendment was negatived.


 


Mr. President : The question is :

"That for entry 22 of List I, the following entry be substituted :-

"22 Piracies and crimes committed on the high seas or in the air; offences against the law of nations committed on land or the high seas or in the air."
 


The Amendment was adopted.

Entry 22, as amended was added to the Union List.

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

Entry 23

Entry 23 was added to the Union List.

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

Entry 24

Entry 24 was added to the Union List

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

Entry 25

Entry 25 was added to the Union List.

Entry 26


 


The Honourable Dr. B.R. Ambedkar : Sir, I move :

"That for entry 26 of List I the following be substituted :-

'26 Import or export across customs frontiers; definition of customs frontiers.'"

Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : Sir, I move :

"That in amendment No. 9 of List I (sixth Week), for the proposed entry 26 of List I, the following be substituted :-

'26 Customs frontiers; import and export across customs frontiers.'"

I fully admit that this is more or less of a drafting nature and therefore, I should explain the reasons which induced me to suggest this amendment and then leave it to the Drafting Committee for final consideration. The entry as moved by Dr. Ambedkar says "import or export across customs frontiers". I fail to see the real purport of the word "or". Are the subjects "imports" and "exports" alternative ? Should it be import or export, or should it be import and export ? The form in which it is moved makes the entry "either import or export". It would seem from the alternative way of expression that if the Union will have "import" it cannot have "export" and vice versa. I do not think that this contingency was intentional but it is a drafting error which should be corrected.

Dr. Ambedkar's amendment puts it as "definition of customs frontiers". I think the expression "Customs frontiers" would include the entire subject of customs frontiers and necessarily implies the power to define customs frontiers. You cannot have jurisdiction to pass laws over customs frontiers without having jurisdiction to define customs frontiers. The very fact that customs frontiers is within the cognisance of the Union legislature also empowers it to define it and it is absolutely unnecessary to expand it further. The word "and" in "import and export" in my amendment is most important. As I have said already this is more or less of a drafting nature and therefore I would leave it to the Drafting Committee to deal with it without having my motion put to the House.

The Honourable Dr. B.R. Ambedkar : Sir, I am content with clarity and I do not wish to run after elegance.

Mr. President : The question is :

"That for entry 26 of List I the following be substituted :-

'26. Import or export across customs frontiers; definition of customs frontiers.'"
 


The amendment was adopted.

Entry 26, as amended, was added to the Union List.

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

New Entry 26-A


 


Mr. President : The honourable Member's (Mr. Shibban Lal Saksena) amendment No. 185 is already covered by one of the articles we have passed (271-A). We have already passed the chapter dealing with ownership of property. That gives the right to the legislature to deal with the subject.

Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena : I want that the power to legislate on the subject should be given only to the Union legislature and not to the States.

Mr. President : It will come under entry 42 which will cover that.

Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena : Will it exclude the power of the State ?

Mr. President : Oh, yes. All properties of the Union are covered by entry 42. I do not think the amendment is necessary at all.

Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena : Sir, there have been cases in the Supreme Court of America on this subject and I would like it to be clearly stated. I would therefore like to move my amendment. Sir, I move :

"That after entry 26 of List I, the following new entry be added :-

'26-A. Ownership of and domination over the lands, minerals, and other things of value underlying the ocean seaward of the ordinary low watermark on the coast exceeding three nautical miles.'"

I am aware that in the Constitution we are taking over these things but I do want that it should be made absolutely clear. I would refer to one important case recently decided by the Supreme Court of America on June 23rd, 1947. The case was United States vs. California. In that case, they had found some very valuable quantities of oil and gas underneath the land near California. The case went to Supreme Court and although the majority of the Court were in favour of the United States, two judges, Justices Reed and Frankfurter were against it. I think it is a very important thing that this right of the Union should be absolutely above suspicion. I would quote a paragraph from that judgment :

"The very oil about which the State and Nation here contend might well become the subject of international dispute and settlement. The ocean, even its three-mile belt in this of vital consequence to the nation in its desire to engage in commerce and to live in peace with the world; it also becomes of crucial importance should it ever again become impossible to preserve that peace. And as peace and world commerce are the paramount responsibilities of the nation, rather than an individual State so if wars come, they must be fought by the nation. The State is not equipped in our constitutional system with the powers or the facilities for exercising the responsibilities which would be concomitant with the dominion which it seeks. Conceding that the State has been authorized to exercise local police power functions in the part of the marginal belt within exercise local police power over this area. Consequently, we are not persuaded to transplant the Pollard rule of ownership as an incident of State soverignty in relation to inland waters out into the soil beneath the ocean, so much more a matter of national concern."

This is from the judgement of the U.S. Supreme Court, who laid down that the property underneath the ocean belongs to the Federal State. If this is mentioned specifically in the Union List, then there is no likelihood of any future dispute arising in regard to any such minerals or other wealth which may be found in the coast underneath the land. I, ;therefore, suggest that if this entry is added, it will make the whole thing very clear.

The Honourable Dr. B.R. Ambedkar : This matter is already covered, if I may say so, by article 271A. My difficulty is : my Friend Prof. Shibban Lal's amendment speaks of ownership. Now, in all these legislative lists, we only deal with power to make law, not power appropriate. That is a matter which is regulated by another law, and not by legislative entries. I therefore, cannot accept it.

Mr. President : He has referred to a judgment of the Supreme Court of the United States, but I think that is based on the absence of something like article 271A of our Constitution.

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : We decovered that there was no entry and this was therefore a matter of doubt and in order to clear that doubt we put in 271A. It is practically a verbatim reproduction of Mr. Shibban Lal's amendment.

Mr. President : So I shall put Mr. Shibban Lal's amendment. The ques is :

"That after entry 26 of List I, the following new entry be added :-

'26-A. Ownership of and dominion over the lands, minerals, and other things of viz underlying the ocean seaward of the ordinary low water mark on the coast exceeding the nautical miles.'"
 


The motion was negatived.

-----------

Entry 27

Entry 27 was added to the Union List

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

Entry 28


 


Mr. President : Then we come to entry 28. There is an amendment Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad No. 158.

Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : Not moving, Sir.

Entry 28 was added to the Union List.
 


-----------


 


Entry 29

Mr. President : Now we come to entry 29. There is an amendment by M. Naziruddin Ahmad.

Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : Not moving, Sir.

Entry 29 was added to the Union List.
 


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

Entry 30


 


Mr. President : There are no amendments to entry 30.

Entry 30 was added to the Union List.
 


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


 


Mr. President : I find there are some amendments to every 31.

The Honourable Dr. B.R. Ambedkar : Sir, I move :

"That for entry 31 of List I, the following entry be substituted :

'31. Highways declared to be national highways by or under law made by parliament. It is just transposition of words to make the matter clear.

Mr. President : There is notice of an amendment to the original entry Mr. Karimuddin, but that is not to be moved. There is no other amendment. So I put this entry No. 31 as moved by Dr. Ambedkar.

The question is :

"That entry 31, as amended, stand part of List I."
 


The motion was adopted.

Entry 31, as amended, was added to the Union List.

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

Entry 32


 


Mr. President : There is an amendemnt to entry 32, but that is only for deletion.
 


Entry 32 was added to the Union List.

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

Entries 33 and 34

Entries 33 and 34 were added to the Union List.

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

Entry 35


 


Mr. President : There is an amendment to entry 35 by Mr. Santhanam.

The Honourable Shri K. Santhanam : (Madras : General) : Not moving, Sir.
 


Entry 35 was added to the Union List.

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

Entry 36

Entry 36 was added to the Union List.

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

Entry 37


 


The Honourable Dr. B.R. Ambedkar : Sir, I move :

"That in amendment 12 of List I, in entry 37, for the words 'by air or by sea' the words 'by railway, by sea or by air' be substituted."

This is just caused by an omission.

Dr. P.S. Deshmukh : Sir, I beg to move :

"That in amendment No. 12 of List I (Sixth Week), in entry 37 of List I for the words 'by railway, by sea or by air' (proposed to be substituted), the words 'by land, sea or air' be substituted."

My reason is quite plain. The present change introduced according to the amendment moved by Dr. Ambedkar is for the addition of the words 'by railway'. I do not see any reason why the change should be so restricted. If the transport of goods and passengers by railways have to be brought within the jurisdiction of the Union Government, why not we use the term 'by land'? If this is not done, the carriage of goods and passengers on the national highways will not come within the jurisdiction of the Union Government. If there is any particular reason why this should not be made applicable to passengers moved by roads, I would not press my amendment. I do not think so because although road transport falls within State jurisdiction exclusively inter-State road-transport cannot. I would like therefore to know why the amendment should be confined to railway traffic only and should extend to traffic on roads also ?

Shri R.K. Sidhva : What about buses run by provincial Governments ?

Mr. President : They all come under your amendment.

Dr. P.S. Deshmukh : Bus transport in the State will be excluded. It will apply to inter-State traffic only.

Shri R.K. Sidhva : This could be applied to them.

Mr. President : This could be applied to the carriage of passengers by air, by sea or by railway.

Dr. P.S. Deshmukh : If goods and passengers carried by railway are to be placed under the Union Government according to my amendment it should include also goods and passengers carried by road, but only where the movement covers more than one State. The States having been given exclusive jurisdiction within their territories will not be affected.

Mr. President : The entry does not cover only inter-State traffic. It may be within one State, but if the transport is by railway it will be within the cognisance of the Central legislature. If you put down 'by land', it will bring in the ekka, the tongas and even the bullock-carts.

Dr. P.S. Deshmukh : I intend my amendment to be limited to traffic covering more than one State only.

Mr. President : It is not limited like that here.

Dr. P.S. Deshmukh : That was my intention. If it covers more than one State, it will be necessary for the Union to have this jurisdiction.

Mr. President : The next amendment stands in the name of Mr. Kamath to substitute the word 'rail' for the word 'railway'. Is a speech necessary for moving this amendment ?

Shri H.V. Kamath : I shall leave it to the cumulative wisdom of the Drafting Committee which I am sure is abundant. My knowledge of English language, though very meagre, impels me to say that the expression 'carriage by railway' is not quite correct and opposite. We usually say 'carriage by rail' and not by 'railway'. Therefore I just formally move this amendment, Viz.,

"That in amendment No. 12 of List I (Sixth Week), in entry 37 of List I, for the word 'railway' (proposed to be substituted), the word 'rail' be substituted."

The Honourable Dr. B.R. Ambedkar : Sir, I am afraid I cannot accept the amendment move by Dr. Deshmukh, because if we include it, it will become a central subject.

Dr. P.S. Deshmukh : If it is between two provinces ?

The Honourable Dr. B.R. Ambedkar : That will come under inter-State traffic.

Dr. P.S. Deshmukh : I am prepared to withdraw my amendment.

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

(Shri H.V. Kamath did not press his amendment.)

Mr. President : The question is :

"That in entry 37 of List I, for the words 'by air or by sea' the words 'by railway, by sea or by air' be substituted."
 


The amendment was adopted.


 


Entry-37, as amended, was added to the Union List.

The Honourable Dr. B.R. Ambedkar : Sir, I move :

"That for entry 38 of List I, ;the following entry be substituted :-

'38. Railways.'"

I think this change requires some explanation. If honourable Members will turn to entry 38 as it stands in the Draft Constitution, they will notice in the first place the distinction made between Union railways and minor railways. The distinction was necessary because, in respect of ;the Union railways, the Centre would have the authority to legislate with regard to safety, minimum and maximum rates and fares, etc. The responsibility of actual administration as carriers of goods and passengers, in respect of minor railways, was limited. In other words, so far as maximum and minimum rates and fares, station and service terminal charges etc. are concerned, they were taken out of the jurisdiction of the Central legislature. It is felt that it is desirable that, as the railway service is one uniform service throughout the territory of India, there should be a single legislative authority to deal with railways in all matters on a uniform basis. Consequently the entry in the First Part is now extended to all railways including minor railways. Again, as legislation is intended to be uniform, it is felt that it is unnecessary to retain the second part of the entry which made a distinction between Union railways and minor railways.

I might also say that this entry is purely a legislative entry. It is not an entry which deals with ownership. That means that even if the Centre had power to regulate minimum and maximum fares and rates and terminal charges, every State which owned a minor railway, whether it is a State in Part I or Part III, if it was the owner of the particular railway, would be entitled to receive and keep the proceeds of the rates and fares as may be fixed by the Centre. It does not affect the rights of ownership at all. They remain as they are. If the Centre wishes to acquire any minor railway now owned by any State either in Part I or Part III the Union will have to acquire it in the ordinary way. Therefore this is purely a legislative entry. The object of the amendment is to have a uniform law with respect to all matters dealing with railways and it does not affect any question of ownership at all.

The question of tramways is however separated from the question of railways. We propose in the Interpretation Clause of define railways in such a manner as to exclude tramways so that the States in Parts I and III will retain the power to regulate tramways in all respects as though they are not covered by 'railways'.

Shri R.K. Sidhva : There is a Minor Railways Act which is worked by the Provincial Government. May I know whether it is intended to repeal that Act and bring it into the Union ?

The Honourable Dr. B.R. Ambedkar : Yes, the Union will have power to abrogate that Act, make any other law or retain it if it so feels. It is only an enabling entry which will enable the Centre either to make 'different laws regulating the major and minor railways or make one single law regulating all railways irrespective of whether they are a major railways or minor railways.

Shri R.K. Sidhva : Then the minor railways will be governed by the Minor Railways Act ?

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Yes, the existing law will continue until Parliament changes it. This is merely to give power to the parliament to change it.

Mr. President : I would now put entry 38 to the vote. I am told there is an amendment which I have received this morning after nine. I am afraid I cannot accept it. The question is :

[Mr. President]

"That for entry 38 of List I, the following entry be substituted :-

'38. Railways.'"
 


The amendment was adopted.


 


Entry 38, as amended, was added the Union List.
 


Entry 39

The Honourable Dr. B.R. Ambedkar : Sir, I move :


 


" That for entry 39 of List I, the following entry be substituted :-

'39. The institutions known on the date of commencement of this Constitution as the National Library, the Indian Museum, the Imperial War Museum, the Victoria Memorial, the Indian War Memorial, and any other institution financed by the Government of India wholly or in part and declared by parliament by law to ;be an institution of national importance.'"

The substance of the entry is the same as it exists at present, except for a few verbal changes which have taken place in the nomenclature of the institutions subsequent to the 15th August 1947.

Shri B. Das : (Orissa : General) : When the Constitution comes into force, will the name "Imperial Library" has been changed to "National Library" ?

The Honourable Dr. B.R. Ambedkar : I understand that the "Imperial Library" has been changed to "National Library", but the Imperial War Museum retains its existing name. These descriptions are intended merely to identify the institutions, whenever Parliament wishes to make any law about them.

Shri B. Das : I want to know whether when the Constitution comes into force and the Adaptations are made, the word "Imperial" will go. I expect words like "His Majesty's Government", "The Crown" etc., will vanish.

The Honourable Dr. B.R. Ambedkar : Adaptations will apply to laws and not to names.

Mr. President : This entry gives the right to Central Legislature to change the names.

There is an amendment to this by Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad, No. 160.

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

"That in amendment No. 14 of List I (Sixth Week), in the proposed entry 39 of List I-

(i) for the words 'on the date of commencement' the words 'at the commencement' be substituted;

(ii) for the words 'other institution' the words 'other similar institution' be substituted; and

(iii) for the words 'by Parliament' the words 'by or under any law made by Parliament' be substituted."

With regard to the first part of my amendment, it is of a drafting nature. Entry 39 as it is at present refers to the "date of commencement of the Constitution". I submit the "commencement" of the Constitution means the date on which the constitution comes into effect. We have used this expression in numerous places in the Draft Constitution in the articles which have been accepted by the House. We ;have described the date of commencement of the Constitution as the "commencement of the Constitution". The words "date of" would be not only unnecessary but would not be in keeping with the moneniclature and the phraseology used in other articles which have been accepted by the House. I submit ;that there should be some amount of uniformity, and instead of ;"on the date of commencement" of the constitution, we should have "at the commencement" of the Constitution which certainly means the date. Commencement always starts on a date and it begins immediately after twelve midnight of the previous day. This is of a drafting character and I merely draw the attention of the House and of the Drafting Committee to this so that they can make the necessary change, if they so choose, in the interest of uniformity.

The second part of my amendment is important. The item moved by Dr. Ambedkar runs thus : "The Institutions known as the National Library, the Indian Museum, the Imperial War Museum, the Victoria Memorial, the Indian War Memorial, and any other institution financed by the government of India". I want to change the last part to read as "any other similar institution "financed by the Government of India. Sir, here we are dealing with a particular class of institutions. The National Library, the Indian Museum, the Imperial War Museum, the Victoria Memorial and the Indian War Memorial, they all belong to a class, and if we do not restrict the last part of the entry to any other "similar"institution, we would be unconsciously including many other institutions of any entirely dissimilar character. This will enable Parliament to cover under this entry any other institution financed wholly or in part by the Government of India, apart from its character, apart from its being related to congnate subjects specifically included herein. I submit, therefore, that in order to clarify the meaning of this entry and restrict it to similar class of institutions, we should definitely say "any other similar institution". There is again the rule of interpretation to which I referred a little while ago that if we specify certain items and at the end we include a general expression, the general expression will be controlled by the items mentioned. Courts will be inclined to declared that " any other institution" will enlarge the scope of the entry beyond the class or character of the institutions specifically mentioned. This is known to every lawyers but may not be known to every non-lawyer. That is why I say that though the meaning should be clear, it is far better to be on the safe side. That will certainly maintain the integrity of the entry and also make it sufficiently elastic to include similar institutions. But if the expression "any other institution" is intended to include other classes of institutions, then I think it is vague and it should be definitely be brought in by means of an independent entry. So this amendment raises a question some what of principle.

The other part, the last part of my amendment is for the words "by parliament" the words "by or under any law made by parliament" be substituted. In this connection I would only refer to amendment No. 10 introduced by Dr. Ambedkar, the insertion of a substituted entry No. 31. It reads :-"Highways declared to be national highways by or under law made by parliament." There is a distinction between a declaration made by parliament and a declaration under any law made by parliament, and in the one case Parliament makes the declaration on the floor of the House but in the other case Parliament empowers others to make the declaration and declarations are made the law. In order to keep to the phraseology of the amendment entry No. 31, I have also attempted to introduce "or under law made by parliament". It will make it more elastic and Parliament need not be required to make the declaration directly but will permit the declaration being made by some other authority empowered in this behalf. I have seen in many other entries the expression "by or under law made by Parliament". So I wanted to make it uniform so as make it more elastic. I submit this is more or less of a drafting nature and may be left to the Drafting Committee but with regard to the second portion of my amendment, namely, "similar institution", I think it may have some important consequences. So I will ask the House to consider the second part of the amendment.

Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena : Sir, in this entry we have named a few institutions and we have said that they shall be in the Union List. The institutions which have been mentioned are such as the Imperial War Museum, the Victoria Memorial, etc., and in the end we have also got a clause which says : "any other institution financed by the Government of India wholly or in part and declared by parliament by law to be an institution of national importance." If it is only one institution of its kind, there would be no objection. But so long as we put in our Constitution the words "Imperial War Museum" But so long a we put in our Constitution the words "Imperial War Museum" I think that it is not worthy of Free India. In our Constitution also we are trying to perpetuate things which remind us of that imperial power which kept us under bondge so long. I think, Sir, that any trace of that imperialism or a reminder of that must not find a place in our Constitution. I, therefore, think that we must only mention that there should be some institutions and it should be left for the Parliament to define the institutions and in the meantime if you put this in the Constitution, it will be difficult for us to change it afterwards. I, therefore, think that it will be better that these things should be left for the parliament to decide instead of putting them in the Constitution.