CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY OF INDIA - VOLUME IX


Wednesday, the 10th August 1949

We do not want any other Commission. The Reserve Bank in the State. Bank and it is competent to give us advice as to what ought or ought not to be done in this -matter. Development schemes generally are to be undertaken by borrowings. They ought not to be legitimately borne on. the current ,revenues because the benefits of these schemes will be shared not only by the existing people, by the mass of the people now present, but also all the succeeding generations. From our recent budgets, it will be clear that the borrowing programmes are as wide as are the programmes for the revenues of the year. Under these circumstances, the matter of borrowing, the question of what loans are to be floated, is not being placed before Parliament. There is a similar provision in the existing Government of India Act. It is open to the Dominion Parliament to give directions as to the methods of borrowing, the amount of borrowing and so on. But all the same, all these matters have not been placed before us except as an appendix, as the tail-end of the budget, indicating what the capital outlay will be, and how in very brief outline, that money is to be made up. Parliament, when it makes provisions, should be very chary in granting permission to all and sundry loans being floated, irrespective of the capacity of the people to subscribe, etc. These and the purposes for which 'the borrowings take place will all be regulated by Parliament under article 268.

I find that both in articles 268 and 269, as regards loans that have to be borrowed by provinces, the consent of the Central Government is necessary in certain cases. In the present Government of India Act, there is a clausethat this consent ought not to be delayed or unreasonably delayed. There is no such provision in this. article, because it is thought such a provision is not necessary. Under the Government of India Act, it was thought there will be a different agency who will not be, a national of this country, in charge of the administration. But now with national governments in the provinces and a national government at the Centre, it is felt that such a provision is not necessary. I hope articles 268 and 269 will meet the situation. They will be taken full advantage of and will help to keep even a closer scrutiny upon the revenues of the Union and of the Provinces. I support the articles as they stand. But in the matter of working, the matter Will be placed before Parliament and the Executive will not take the entire responsibility on itself, of raising loans before coming to Parliament, in the future.

Prof. Shibban Lal Sakesna : Mr. President, Sir, in this article I again want to voice my feeling against arming the executive with powers to borrow upon the security of the revenues of India etc. Of course, the limits are to be prescribed Parliament by law. But beyond that, Parliament does nothing. Sir, I think in such important matters where the entire security of the State may be pawned, there must be some voice for Parliament. It must not merely be that Parliament shall fix the limit, but that in other matters the Executive shall have all the power. At least, after taking a decision, the executive must take the Parliament into confidence. After all the Ministry will have always the majority in the Legislature and. whatever they may do, they will be able to carry through the House. That being so, I do not know why they should feel shy to bring these things to Parliament. I therefore, think that such sweeping powers as are proposed in this article, should not be given to the Executive. Sir, this is my only objection and I hope the House will consider it. I am sorry I did not give notice of any amendment.

Shri H. V. Kamath: Mr. President, I earnestly hope that the House Will. bestow very serious consideration upon this chapter, Chapter II, which refers to borrowing by the Union, or giving guarantees to loans made by other units of the union. Borrowings can easily be one of those rocks upon which the

ship of State may founder; and in modem times, and in the modem world, when economics has assumed such tremendous importance, and when loans are floated and subscribed very frequently by every State, by every country in the world, I feel that the executive of the Indian Union to be, should not be vested with the power to decide upon borrowing, within the limits, of course, fixed by Parliament, no matter what the purpose of the borrowing may be. I feel that the purpose for which the loan is raised, under this article must be laid before Parliament and the, approval of Parliament must be sought and obtained for the purpose of that loan' But under this article 268, Parliament is empowered merely to fix the limits--I suppose it means the pecuniary limits, the monetary limits, within the limits of so many crores, and that sort of thing. Also the second part of the article relates to similar safeguards--not very important, in my estimation-regarding monetary limits of the guarantees to be given by the Union for loans. Nowhere does the article envisage the purpose for which the loan is raised or borrowed or guarantee given. In recent months, as the House is very well aware, various proposals have been made for loans from the World Bank or loans from America or from some other country as is willing to finance and promote our economic and industrial development. The House will also recollect that this House sitting as Parliament, during the last budget session and even in earlier sessions, pointedly asked the Prime Minister and perhaps the Finance Minister too whether loans borrowed from foreign countries, from America, or may be from U.S.S.R. if Government will consider such a proposal, win be subject to any political economic or military strings. After all, I am sure that Parliamentwill ultimately decide our international relations. It is neither the executive nor the' President but Parliament which will have the final word on what out foreign. relations are going to be, what our international policy is going to be. But the executive may be at variance with Parliament in certain matters and if the executive takes it into its head to pursue a foreign policy which Parliament later on may not approve or which be quite in consonance with the decisions of Parliament in this regard, a very unfortunate situation pregnant with dire consequences may arise when a commitment will have been made by the government of the -day-by the President and the executive-with regard to borrowing or the raising of loans from foreign countries. Of course they will not transgress the limits prescribed by Parliament. They will not borrow more than one, ten or twenty crores whatever the limit may be. But the real purpose of that loan may be kept a guarded secret, and the purpose of the loan -is an essential matter which will ultimately help or hinder us, and save or destroy us. I hope the House will consider this aspect of the matter which is far more vital in my judgment than the financial limits to be fixed by Parliament. The purpose of the loan goes to the root of the matter. If the President or the executive borrows a loan from America and either in a secret pact or in some :secret terms of the agreement there is some military commitment or a political commitment, to be effective in future if there be war,--that we will assist it against certain other countries,--do we wish to face such a dangerous situation as that? I therefore want that this article should be so amended as to enable Parliament not merely to fix the limits of borrowing and the giving of guarantees but also to see on every occasion that the purpose of the loan or the purpose of giving a guarantee is justified by circumstances and that it is in absolute and complete consonance with the policy adopted by Parliament in our internal as well as international relations--the more so in our foreign and international relations. If the executive raises a loan on terms contrary to the policy which has been approved of by Parliament or which may be subsequently enunciated by Parliament, a

conflict may arise between Parliament and the executive and it will be too late in the day to undo the disastrous effect of a loan that might have been borrowed by the executive with certain commitments made without reference to Parliament. We must be on our guard against this situation arising in future. I plead, with the House that this is no small matter at all, to be dismissed with just a flippant consideration or just because Dr. Ambedkar or the Drafting Committee is not going to consider the matter. I plead in the name of the future of India, of the peace, liberty and progress that we all have at heart--of the peace of India as well as of the world-that this article, and this Chapter as a whole, should receive more consideration than most articles usually do at the hands of this House. I hope that not merely the financial Emits but also the purpose of every loan will come before Parliament for its approval, and action is taken by the President in accordance with the policy laid down by Parliament with particular regard to our international relations or our internal policies.

Prof. K. T. Shah: Mr. President, Sir, I agree that every act of borrowing is an executive act. But the power to borrow need not necessarily be regarded as an Executive power exclusively, subject to such limits, if any, as Parliament may from time to time place. From this point of view I would like to suggest that the borrowing power, or the use of the national credit, is a very delicate matter. Under the Conditions under which we are now living, it cannot be treated too scrupulously or too cerefully if we would bear in mind the interests Pot only of the present generation, but of generations to come. As we know, the security of the revenues of India-as the clause speaks here-is, at the present time any rate, and judged strictly from purely economic considerations, a very thin security. That is to say, we have been, in the last ten years orso, habitually living in a deficit economy, and that deficit, considered in its budget aspect as well as in the aspect of the aggregate national economy, shows so far no sip of abatement. The various projects we have, undertaken promise to remedy these deficits within ten or fifteen years. At the present moment, at any rate, and for some years to come it seems to me that our economy being a deficit economy, borrowing would be a necessity for years to come, and, as such, we cannot too carefully regulate, limit or restrict this power.

Taking this view I think that if the Constitution categorically assigns this power to the Executive, the Constitution would be doing injustice, not only to the Legislature, but also to the interests of, as I said before, generations to come. And for this reason. Parliament should not only regulate the borrowing by the Executive in the sense of fixing limits up to which borrowing can take place or lay down conditions for offering securities or guarantee, but Parliament should in my opinion say every year, in what may be called the Ways and Means Act, or the Finance Act, how much, shall be borrowed, so that from time to time-from year to year-the Parliament is aware of the state of the national credit and husbands it accordingly. The question is still more fearful as I conceive it, because it is very likely that borrowing within the home market may not suffice and that you may have to resort to borrowing outside the limits of the country. At that point, the danger would be -much more acute than perhaps we are inclined to envisage it today. It has been the unfortunate experience of many countries which have been chronically indebted that the lender has time and again exercised influence, demanded security or guarantee, which is beyond the capacity of the country to afford. I will not quote, any remote examples, but even that country which was once regarded as the banker of the world--I mean Britain-whose credit is now being questioned is in a similar position, and the principal lender today is suggesting or inclined to interfere even in its domestic affairs. It is being alleged that

the course which the present Government in England is following of all-round nationalisation bit by bit, makes the lender very nervous about the stability or security of that country. Suggestions, therefore, are' not wanting that the accord between England and America may suffer.

I mention this illustration just to point out the danger inherent in a provision like this, wherein the power to borrow is left almost unconditionally to the executive, the only condition being that Parliament may impose limits as to the amount and nature of guarantees from time to time that may be given. The wording of the article suggests that even the imposition of such limits is a very doubtful proposition. The limits, "if any that means limits may not be there at all, and the Executive may be entitled to borrow without limit, either of the charge it may create upon the consolidated fund which will be then outside the annual votes of Parliament, or which may be so excessive that the country's entire future may be mortgaged to the lender.

Now, that is a consideration which fills me, for one, with great apprehension for the future. I am not prepared to say that there should be an utterly unconditional or unlimited power even under the Constitution to the executive to borrow up to what limits and in what manner it likes whether at home or abroad. As you know, in the past I leave pleaded for more power to the Parliament as against the executive. In is instance, I am even prepared to go so far as to say that, by express provision of the Constitution, even the power of the Parliament should be restricted in the matter of the use of the national credit. Not only should the power of the executive be restricted: the executive should only confine itself to administering the law the Act,under which borrowing should be authorised every year, so that every yearParliament is in a position to take stock. I go further and say that even the power of Parliament should be restricted in the nature of assurances and guarantees that it is in a position to give. Parliament should not, for instance, I suggest-be able to guarantee or mortgage the primary productive resources, nor mineral wealth nor rivers nor any of the primary sources of production on which the future happiness of the country may depend. And if such a thing as this can be done the people as a whole, I would suggest, should be in a position to know it, and a revision of the Constitution may be necessary before even Parliament could mortgage the resources of the country.

As I have said before, while I have always suggested that the supreme power should be vested in Parliament here is an instance in which, by the Constitution, I would limit the power even of Parliament to allow any borrowing within and much more so outside the country. This article, therefore, cannot be viewed too seriously, and I would appeal to the Draftsman to reconsider this matter if he takes into account as I hope lie will take, the seriousness of the stakes involved in this article.

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Sir, except for the last oration of my Friend Prof. K. T. Shah in which he suggested that we should introduce a clause putting limitation upon the authority of Parliament to sanction loans, I was really quite unable to understand the dissent which has been expressed by other speakers with regard to the provision contained in article 268. It is admitted that it is the executive alone which can pledge the credit of the country for borrowing purposes, for borrowing is an executive act in one aspect of the case, but in this article it is not proposed that the power of the executive to borrow is to be unfettered by any law that is to be made by Parliament. This article specifically says that the borrowing power of the executive shall be subject to such limitations as Parliament may by law prescribe. If Parliament does not make a law, it is certainly the fault of Parliament and I should 'have thought it very difficult to imagine any future Parliament which will not pay sufficient or serious attention to this

matter and enact a law. Under the article 268, I even concede that there might be an Annual Debt Act made by Parliament prescribing or limiting the power of the executive as to how much they can borrow within that year. I therefore do not see what more is wanted by those who expressed their dissent from the provisions of article 268. It is of course a different matter for consideration whether we should have a further provision limiting the power of the Parliament to pledge the credit of the country. It seems to me that even that matter may be left to Parliament because it will be free for Parliament to say that borrowing shall not be done on the pledging of certain resources of the country. I do not see how this article prevents Parliament from putting upon itself the limitations with regard to the guarantees that may be given by Parliament for the ensurement of these loans or borrowings. I therefore think that from all points of view this article 268 as it stands is sufficient to cover all contingencies and I have no doubt about it that, as my friend Mr. Ananthasayanam Ayyangar said, we hope that Parliament will take this matter seriously and keep on enacting laws so as to limit the borrowing authority of the Union,-I go further and say that I not only hope but I expect that Parliament will discharge its duties under this article.

Shri H. V. Kamath : Would not Dr. Ambedkar agree to the deletion of the words "if any" ?

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: I have been considering that, but do not think that will improve matters, because the words are "as may from time to time",Mr. President : I take it the amendment to substitute the words "Consolidated Fund of India" is accepted.

The question is :

"That in article 268. for the words 'revenues of India' the words 'Consolidated Fund of India' be substituted."The amendment was adopted. Mr. President : The question is :

"That article 268, as amended, stand part of the Constitution."

The motion was adopted.

Article 268, as amended, was added to the Constitution

Article 269

Mr. President: There are some amendments which are printed in the II Volume of the printed amendments on page 313.

(Amendments Nos. 2971 and 2972 were not moved.)

Then we shall take up amendment No. 107 by Dr. Ambedkar.

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

"That in clause (1) of article 269, the Words and figures 'for the time being specified in Part I of the First Schedule, be omitted."

"That in clause (1) of article 269, for the words 'revenues of the State? the words 'Consolidated Fund of the State, be substituted."

That with reference to amendment No. 2972 of the List of Amendments for clause (2) of article 269, the following clause be substituted :-

(2) The Government of India may, subject to such conditions as may be laid down by or under any law made by Parliament, make loans to any State or,.so long as any limits fixed under article 268 of this Constitution are not exceeded, give guarantees in respect of loans raised by any State, and any sums required for the purpose of making such loans shall be charged on the Consolidated Fund Of India."'

The important change by my amendment No. 107 is that originally the Government of India was given a free hand in this matter; now the action of the Government of India is subject to such conditions as may be laid down by or under any law made by Parliament.

Sir, I move :

"That in clause (3) of article 269, The words and figures 'for the time being specified in Part I or Part III of the First Schedule' be omitted."

Shri Brajeshwar Prasad: I am not moving amendment No. 108.

Shri H. V. Kamath: No. 146, I believe, is a verbal amendment and I leave it to the wisdom of the Drafting Committee.

Shri B. Das: (Orissa: General) : Sir, article 268 empowers, Parliament to fix by law the amount that could be borrowed by Provincial Governments. Article 269 was originally drafted differently. Now, the amendments that have been moved by Dr. Ambedkar shows that article 269, as sought to be amended by him,

imposes further burden on the Minister of Union Government. It also imposes additional burden on the Auditor-General of the Government of India without whose advice the Parliament will not be able to decide.

Today the Union Government is charged with additional responsibility of the borrowings of the States. Of course, it is qualified that such loans, such borrowings will be within the territory of India and also will be upon thesecurity of the revenues of the State. Sir, if we examine the finances of the various Provincial Governments we will find that except a few crores of loans that were raised when the Congress assumed responsibility for the administration of provinces in 1936, all loans have been borrowed on the credit of the Government of India, which task in future devolves on the Union Government. We have recently heard a controversy that certain provinces thought that they have the power to borrow any money. Certain provinces revolted and they thought that they can float any loans and issue any bonds or securities whether negotiable. or non-negotiable. Those of us who think that all borrowings should be done through the Union Government felt at that time at the national credit of the Union Government would suffer if provinces were given the freedom in the matter of borrowing. I do not understand what is the security of the revenues of the Provincial Governments. Who is to fix them ? Will the Auditor-General fix at the time of the promulgation of this Constitution that such and such States and such and such provinces will have so much power of borrowing ?

Unfortunately, I do not like the wording of article 268. How will Parliament fix by law the amount of borrowing every year for the Union and for the different provinces. Sir, as my memory goes over the past twenty-five years, I do not remember a single occasion when the alien Government which ruled over us, consulted Parliament over their borrowing policy. It always came in through the backdoor of explanatory memorandum. Never has the Government of India introduced the practice of raising a debate on their borrowing policy. The borrowing is sanctioned when the Budget is passed, Then we have article 269 under which the finance ministers of the States can claim sums of money for the development of their States. Whatever 'money they claim, article 269 is going to provide. It will be a charge on the revenues of the State. But who will be the judge as to whether a certain province has got the paying capacity? Already the Government of India is committed to large development schemes on behalf of the provinces. We have the Bhakra Dam in East Punjab, the Hirakund Dam in Orissa, the Damodor Valley Corporation in Bengal and the Kosi Dam in Bihar about which my friends from Bihar are so very anxious. Who is to judge that these development projects will stand the national credit of the particular provinces for which the money is borrowed? I wish there is someone to do this. I think, Sir, whatever be enacted in articles 268 and 269, we must not throw this responsibility on Parliament alone. Parliament, as I know it for the last twenty-five years, pays very little attention to the question of borrowing. If I remember a right, there have been only half a dozen debates in all during the last twenty-five years on the policy of borrowing. Will we improve our financial knowledge, in the next few years when we will be discussing the national credit of the Union and of the provinces and who, will say boldly that such and such provinces will only have so many crores of loan and nothing more? Unfortunately when provincial feelings come into play in the discussion over such matters, members simply fight for the benefit of their own provinces. I think articles 268 and 269 envisage giving more powers to the Auditor-General. The Auditor-General must review and submit the papers to the Members of parliament every year about the credit of each province, part from the Union Government. The Auditor-General is not now doing that. I am discussing the handicaps that surrounds us in

considering questions of this kind. Unfortunately the Finance Department of the Government of India is still following the old tradition and treating the Auditor--General as a mere auditor of a company, where the directors tell him to overlook certain errors and malpractice. But if the House accepts article 269 as it is, the House should somehow incorporate some provision whereby the Auditor--General must report to Parliament the credit conditions of the Provinces. Most of us are laymen and politicians. Very few members of Parliament will be financiers. Financiers do not belong to the class of democracy from which wecome. The future legislatures will not contain businessmen or men who understand stock exchanges or the financial credit of our country. Therefore, there is a double duty imposed by article 269 and I would ask my honourable Friend Dr. Ambedkar to explain how he thinks that Parliament will understand and appreciate the national credit of each of the States and of the Union and how it will limit the amount of borrowing of the Union Government and the States. The Parliament is empowered under article 268 and is going to be. further empowered by article 269 to maintain the national credit of India. But then how will the national credit of India be maintained ? I view with grave concern article 269. If any province rebels against the Centre and against the unification of the national economy of India, the national credit will not be a settled fact. Some other method must be thought of.

The Honourable Shri K. Santhanam (Madras: General): Sir, I wish to say a few Words with reference to one point which struck me when Prof. Shah was speaking on article 268. Prof. Shah suggested that the Government of India and even Parliament should not be entitled to pledge the primary resources of the country in order to borrow. I entirely agree. But., according to my reading of articles 268 and 269, there is no question of either the Government of India or any State pledging any particular resources for any particular borrowing. They give power to borrow only on the security of the Consolidated Fund of India or of the States. It will not be open to the Government of India to say that they pledge the railways for a particular loan, say -from America. Only the entire Consolidated Fund of India will be the security. It means that it will only be a general security of the credit of the people of India. There can be no question of particular general resources or the railways being pledged for any loan either from abroad or internally. The same will be the case with every State. Therefore there should be no apprehensions on the point. I think the plain meaning of articles 268 and 269 makes it certain in this respect. I would, however, Eke to suggest to Dr. Ambedkar that, if there, is the slightest doubt in the wording, the Drafting Committee should look into it and remove the doubt. It should be made clear that the only security should be the general credit of the whole of India or of a State and not particular resources.

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : I do not think, Sir, any reply is called for.

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

The question is :

"That in clause (3) of article 269, the words and figures 'for the time being specified in Part I of the First Schedule' be omitted."

The amendment was adopted.

Mr. President: The question is:

"That in clause (1) of article 269, for the words 'revenues of the State' the words Consolidated Fund of the State' be substituted."

The amendment was adopted.

Mr. President: The question is :

"That with reference to amendment No. 2972 of the List of Amendments, for clause (2) of article269, the following clause be substituted : -

(2) The Government of India may, subject to such conditions as may be laid down by or under any law made by Parliament, make loans to any State or so long as any limits fixed under article 268 of this Constitution are not exceeded, give guarantees in respect of loans raised by any State, and any sums required for the

purpose of making such loans shall be charged on the Consolidated Fund of India."'

The amendment was adopted.Mr. President: The question is:

"That in clause (3) of article 269, the words and figures 'for the time being specified in Part I or Part III of the First Schedule' be omitted."

The amendment was adopted.

Mr. President: The question is:

"That article 269, as amended, stand part of the Constitution."

The motion was adopted. Article 269, as amended, was added to the Constitution.Articles 5 and 6 Mr. President: We have now to take up articles 5 and 6 of the original draft. I find there is a veritable jungle, of amendments, something like 130 or 140 amendments, to these two articles. I suggest that the best course Will be for Dr. Ambedkar to move the articles in the form in which he has finally framed them and I shall then take up the amendments to this amended draft. Both 5 and 6 go together I think. Dr. Ambedkar.

Prof. K. T. Shah : May I know what happens to the amendments in the Printed List? They have all been tabled as amendments to the original draft. I do not quite understand your suggestion as to the process in which the amendments would now be taken up.

Mr. President: If there is any amendment which is of a substantial nature, which touches any of the amended drafts as proposed by the Drafting Committee, I shall certainly take it up, but I leave it to the Members to point out to me which particular amendment they wish to move.

Dr. P. S. Deshmukh : If the original draft is not moved, all the amendments tabled to that draft go by the wind.

Mr. President: We do not move the original draft, but it win be taken as moved and then the other amendments come in.

Members will find that Dr. Ambedkar has given notice of certain amendments which have been circulated to Members. The first is No. 1 in List I.

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Sir, May I give the references? The amendments of which notice has been given about the citizenship clause are spread over various lists, and I propose to give in the beginning to Members the references to the various lists. The first amendment is No. 1 of List 1. Then come amendments Nos. 128, 129, 130, 131, 132 and 133 of List IV. These are the various proposals of the Drafting Committee with regard to this article. I feel that the House may not be in a position to get a clear and complete idea if these amendments were moved bit by bit, separately. Therefore what I propose to do is this that I will move a consolidated amendment, so to say, which I have prepared, consisting of amendments Nos. 1, 128, 129, 130 and 133. My Friend, Mr. T. T. Krishnamachari, will subsequently move the other two amendments which are Nos. 131 and 132 in List TV. In amendment No. 129, it should read "of the proposed article 5A" instead of "of the proposed article 5". It is a printing error. With these preliminary observations, so to say, I move my am endment:

"That for articles 5 and 6, the following articles be substituted:---

"5.citizenship at the date of Commencement of this Constitution. At the date of commencement of this Constitution, every person who has his domicile in the territory in India and-

(a) who was born in the territory of India : or

(b) either of whose parents was born in the territory of India; or

(c) who has been ordinarily resident in the territory of India for not less than five years immediately preceding the date of such commencement,shall be a citizen Of India, provided that he has not voluntarily acquired the citizenship of any foreign State.

5-A.Rights of citizenship of certain persons who have migrated to India from Pakistan. Notwithstanding anything contained in article 5 of this Constitution, a person who has migrated to the territory of India from the territory now included in Pakistan shall be deemed to be a citizen of India at the date of commencement of this Constitution if-

(a) he or either of his parents or any of his grand-parents was born in India as defined in the Government of India Act, 1935 (as originally

enacted); and

(b) (i) in the case where such person has so migrated before the nineteenth day of July 1948, he has ordinarily resided within the territory of India since the date of his migration; and

(ii) in the case where such person has so migrated on or after the nineteenth day of July 1948 he has been registered as a citizen of India by an officer appointed in this behalf by the Government of the Dominion of India on an application made by him therefore to such officer before the date of com mencement of this Constitution in the form prescribed for the purpose by that Government:

Provided that no such registration shall be made unless the person making the application has resided in the territory of India for at least six months before the date of his application.

5-AA. Rights of citizenship of certain migrants to Pakistan. Notwithstanding anything contained in articles 5 and 5-A of this Constitution a person who has after the first day of March 1947, migrated from the territory of India to the territory now included in Pakistan shall not be deemed to be a citizen of India :

Provided that nothing in this article shall apply to a person who, after having so migrated to the territory now included in Pakistan has returned to the territory of India under a permit for resettlement or permanent return issued by or under the authority of any law and every such person shall for the purposes of clause (b) of article 5-A of this Constitution be deemed to have migrated to the territory of India after the nineteenth day of July 1948.

Shri Jaspat Roy Kapoor (United Provinces : General): Ibis, you, had said, would be moved by Mr. T. T. Krishnamachari.

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedker: I have been considering that, but I ted article as I am proposing to accept the amendment which will be moved by him.

5-B.Right of citizenship of certain persons of India origin residing outside India. Notwithstanding anything contained in article 5 and 5-A of this Constitution, any person who or either of whose parents or any of whose grandparents was born in India as defined in the Government of India Act, 1935 (as originally enacted) and who is ordinarily residing In any territory outside India as so defined shall be deemed to be a citizen of lndia if he has been registered as a citizen of India by the diplomatic or consular representative of India in the country where he is for the time being residing on an application made by him therefor to such diplomatic or consular representative, whether before or after the commencement of this Constitution, in the form prescribed for the purpose by the Government of the Dominion of India or the Government of India.

5-C. Continuance of the rights of citizenship. Every person who is a citizen of India under any of the foregoing provisions of this Part shall. subject to the provisions of any law that may be made by Parliament, continue to be such citizen.

6.Parliament to regulate the right of citizenship by law. Nothing in the foregoing provisions of this Part shall derogate from the power of Parliament to make any provision with respect to the acquisition and termination of citizenship and all other matters relating to citizenship." Sir, I would reserve my remarks after the amendments to my draft are moved by Mr. T. T. Krishnamachari and that will complete the thing.

Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad (West Bengal: Muslim): Sir, the amendment that has been moved is a last-minute consolidated amendment taken from severalamendments in the printed amendments. Though in the profession of law for a very long time, I find it a bit confusing to follow how the scattered amendments have been consolidated and whether any departure has been made in the process. In trying to consolidate a large number of amendments and redrafting them, unconscious departures often happen. It is again extremely difficult for us to consider our own amendments as to whether they are accepted or whether they are rejected in the consolidated draft of if they are to be moved, if they are to be moved in an altered form

just as a consequential measure.

I submit that substantially in amendment No. 1 in List I and in some other amendments in other Lists which are now consolidated there has been a great deal of departure from the Draft Constitution and the point that I took the other day is more applicable today than at any other time. There are absolutely new clauses, which purport to be amendments of articles 5 and 6, for instance proposed new articles 5A, 5B, 5C; then there are other articles like 5AA; then there is a new proviso in amendment No. 131 and amendment No. 130 is entirely new. Then in amendment No. 133 there is a new redraft of article 6. I submit, Sir, these amendments or this consolidated amendment amounts -largely to an amendment in the Constitution itself or rather a large number of new amendments to the Constitution itself. As I submitted the other day there was a time fixed by you for submitting regular amendments and then it was ruled by you, and it was applied in many cases, that amendments to amendments alone would be submitted; but then this present amendment or a consolidated amendment, consisting of a large number of amendments, consists of amendments of the Constitution itself and that is creating a considerable amount of difficulty. We are departing from the Draft ;Constitution every day and today the departure is still more complete. I hope that there will be some limit to this migration from the original Draft Constitution. I ask you, Sir, to consider whether' these amendments introducing absolutely new clauses which amount to amending of the Constitution itself should be allowed at this stage, and if they are to be allowed whether it would not be proper to give us a consolidated amended draft which could be considered by the Members in order to see whether their own amendments really fit in into it or they require readjustment or fresh' amendments. Sir, I ask you to consider the practical difficulties of the procedure. Clause 5 has been before the House for some time and amendments to amendments alone would now be regular, but every day new amendments and new ideas are coming in. Articles 5A, 5B and 5C are new. Article 5AA has been brought today and its proviso has come in by a different amendment. The explanation to article 5 is deleted today. These have been all put together in out ex tempore amendment. I do wish that the Constitution should be finished as quickly as possible; otherwise this taste for new changes would go on unabated. I ask you, Sir, to give us a ruling and to suggest a convenient method by which we can deal with the situation.

Mr. president: I have considerable sympathy with the honourable Member's objection that in this amendment new ideas have been brought in, but Members will remember that when this Constitution was taken up for discussion during the winter Session, these articles were over for further consideration and I suppose it was accepted that fresh amendments would be brought in. All those articles and those which were reached but not considered were held over to enable the Drafting Committee to reconsider the original draft and propose new drafts where necessary.

In that view, the Drafting Committee has considered that draft and has proposed new drafts, and they have suggested certain amendments to theirown draft. What Dr. Ambedkar has done is to put together all the amendments which they have proposed and he has read out a consolidated amendment. But I can fully appreciate the difficulties of Members when these various amendments are spread over a number of pages and a number of lists, and I would ask the Office to circulate to Members the consolidated amendment .is proposed by Dr. Ambedkar. We can take up the discussion of the consolidated amendment which has been moved by Dr. Ambedkar tomorrow morning, and the Members will have time by then to study the amendments in the consolidated form. In the meantime, I do not like to waste even the half hour that we have, and if Members have any other amendments to move, they might move them today so that we might take up the

consideration of the amendments as well as the draft as moved by Dr. Ambedkar tomorrow morning.

Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena: May we have Dr. Ambedkar's speech today?

Mr. President: Yes, I would ask Dr. Ambedkar to explain his amendment.

Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad: Amendments Nos. 130 and 131 have been circulated only this morning and we have had no opportunity of considering them. Then if we are to get the consolidated amendment today, there will be no time to suggest amendments which will be in time before the House.

Mr. President: If there is any reasonable grievance on that account, I win take that into consideration.

Shri T. T. Krishnamachari : I move amendment No. 131 of List IV. I move :

"That in amendment No. 130 above, to the proposed article 5-AA the following proviso be added:-

'Provided that nothing in this article shall apply to a person who, after having so migrated to the territory now included in Pakistan has returned to the territory of India under a permit for resettlement or permanent return issued by or under the authority of law and every such person shall for the purposes of clause (b) of article 5-A of this constitution be deemed to have migrated to the territory of India after the nineteenth day of July 1948."'

There is one other formal amendment which I have to move. It is No. 132.

I move :

"That in amendment No. 1 of List I (Third Week) of Amendments to Amendments, in the proposed article 5-B, the words 'and subject to the provisions of any law made by Parliament' be omitted."

Sir, I shall not explain these amendments. If necessary, Dr. Ambedkar will explain them.

Shri Jaspat Roy Kapoor : May I suggest that all the amendments which are on the list may also be formally moved today.

Mr. President: First, let Dr. Ambedkar explain his viewpoint and then the other amendments may be moved.

Shri Jaspat Roy Kapoor: I venture to make that suggestion because if all the other amendments are also moved, Dr. Ambedkar will have an Opportunity of saying something with reference to those amendments also. The other amendments may simply be moved but no speeches may be made on them, so that the House may be in possession of all the amendments.

Mr. President: If we take up all the other amendments, I think there will not be any end to them. First, let Dr. Ambedkar explain his proposition and then the other amendments may be moved.The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Mr. President, Sir, except one other' article in the Draft Constitution, I do not think that any other article has. given the Drafting Committee such a headache as this particular article. I do not know how many drafts were prepared and how many were destroyed as being inadequate to, cover all the cases which it was thought necessary and desirable to cover. I think it is a piece of good fortune for the Drafting Committee to have ultimately agreed upon the draft which I have moved, because. 1. feel that this is the draft which satisfies most people, if not all.

An Honourable Member: Question.

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Now, Sir, this article refers to, citizenship not in any general sense but to citizenship on the date of the' commencement of this Constitution. It is not the object of this particular article to lay down a permanent law of citizenship for this country. The business of laying down a permanent law of citizenship has been left to Parliament, and as Members will see from the wording of article 6 as I have moved the entire matter regarding citizenship has been left to Parliament to determine by any law that it may deem fit. The article reads-

"Nothing in the foregoing provisions of this Part shall derogate from the power of Parliament to make any provision with respect to the acquisition and termination of citizenship and all other matters relating to citizenship."

The effect of article 6 is this, that Parliament may not only take away citizenship from those who are declared to be citizens on the date Of the commencement of this Constitution by the provisions of article 5 and those that

follow, but Parliament may make altogether a new law embodying now principles. That is the first proposition that has to be borne in mind by' who will participate in the debate on these articles. They must not understand that the provisions that we are making for citizenship on the date of the commencement of this Constitution are going to be permanent or unalterable. All that we are doing is to decide ad hoc for the time being.

Having said that, I would like to draw the attention of the Members to the fact that in conferring citizenship on the date of the commencement of this Constitution, the Drafting Committee has provided for five different classes of people who can, provided they satisfy the terms and conditions which are laid down in this article, become citizens on the date on which the Constitution commences.

These five categories arc

(1) Persons domiciled in India and born in India : In other words, who form. the bulk of the population of India as defined by this Constitution; (2) Persons who are domiciled in India but who are not born in India but who have resided in India. For instance persons who are the subjects of the Portuguese Settlements in India or the French Settlements in India like Chandernagore, Pondicherry, or the Iranians for the matter of that who have come from Persia and although they are not born here, they have resided for a long time and undoubtedly have the intention of becoming the citizens of India.

The three other categories of people whom the Drafting Committee to bring within the ambit of this article are :

(3) Persons who are residents in India but who have migrated to Pakistan; (4) Persons resident in Pakistan and who have migrated to India: and (5) Persons who or whose parents are born in India but are residing outside India.

These are the five categories of people who are covered by the provisions of this article. Now the first category of people viz., persons who are domiciled in the territory of India and who are born in the territory of India or whose parents were barn in the territory of India are dealt with in article, 5 Clauses (a) and (b). They will be citizens under those provisions it they satisfy the conditions laid down there.The second class of people to whom I referred, viz., persons who have resided in India but who are not born in India are covered by clause (c) of article 5, who have been ordinarily resident in the territory of India for not less than five years immediately preceding the date of such commencement. The condition that it imposes is this that he must be a resident of India for five years. All these classes are subject to a general limitation, viz., that they have not voluntary acquired the citizenship of any foreign State.

With regard to the last class, viz., persons who are residing abroad but who or whose parents were born in India, they are covered by my article 5-B which refers to persons who or whose parents or whose grand-parents were born in India as defined in the Government of India Act, 1935, who are ordinarily residing in any territory outside India-they are called Indians abroad. The only limitation that has been imposed upon them. is that they shall make an application if they want to be citizens of India before the commencement of the Constitution to the Consular Officer or to the Diplomatic Representative of the Government of India in the form which is prescribed for the purpose by the Government of India and they must be registered as citizens. Two conditions are laid down for them--one is an application and secondly, registration of such an applicant by the Consular or the Diplomatic representative of India in the country in which he is staying. These -are as I said very simple matters.

We now come to the two categories of persons who were residents in India who have migrated to Pakistan and those who were resident in Pakistan but have migrated to India. The case of those who have migrated to India from Pakistan is dealt with in my article 5-A. The provisions of article 5-A are these-

Those persons who have

come to India from Pakistan are divided into two categories--

(a) those who have come before the 19th day of July 1948, and (b) those who have come from Pakistan to India after the 19th July 1948.

Those who have come before 19th July 1948, will automatically become the citizens of India.

With regard to those who have come after the, 19th July 1948, they will also be entitled to citizenship on the date of the commencement of the Constitution, provided a certain procedure is followed, viz., lie again will be required to make an application to an Officer appointed by the Government of the Dominion of India and if that person is registered by that Officer on an application so made.

The persons coming from Pakistan to India in the matter of their aquisition of citizenship on the date commencement of the Constitution are put into two categories-those who have come before 19th July 1948, and those who have come afterwards. In the case of those who have come before the 19th July 1948. citizenship is automatic. No conditions, no procedure is laid down with regard to them. With regard to those who have come thereafter, certain procedural conditions are laid down and when those conditions are satisfied, they also will become entitled to citizenship under the article we now propose.

Then I come to those who have migrated to Pakistan but who have returned to India after going to Pakistan. There the position is this. I am not as fully versed in this matter as probably the Ministers dealing with the matter are, but the proposal that we have put forth is this if a person who has migrated to Pakistan and, after having gone there, has returned to India on the basis of a permit which was given to him by the Government ofIndia not merely to enter India but a permit which will entitle him to resettlement or permanent return, it is only such person who will be entitled to .become a citizen of India on the commencement of this Constitution. This provision had to be introduced because the Government of India, in dealing with persons who left for Pakistan and who subsequently returned from Pakistan to India, allowed them to come and settle permanently under a system which is called the 'Permit system'. This permit system was introduced from the 19th July 1948. Therefore the provision contained in article 5-B deals with the citizenship of persons who after coming from Pakistan went to Pakistan and returned to India. Provision is made that if a person has come on the basis of a permit issued to him for resettling or permanent return, he alone would be entitled to become a citizen on the date of the commencement of the Constitution.

I may say, Sir, that it is not possible to cover every kind of case for a limited purpose, namely, the purpose of conferring citizenship on the date of the commencement of the Constitution. If there is any category of people who are left out by the provisions contained in this amendment, we have given power to Parliament subsequently to make provision for them. I suggest to the House that the amendments which I have proposed are sufficient for the purpose and for the moment and J hope the House will be able to accept these amendments.

Shri B. M. Gupte (Bombay: General): Was the permit system brought in on 19th July 1948 ?

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Yes, on the 19th July '48 there was an ordinance passed that no person shall come in unless he has a permit, and' certain rules were framed by the Government of India under that, on 19th July 1948, whereby they said a permit may be issued to any person coming from Pakistan to India specifically saying that he is entitled to come in. There are three kinds of permits, Temporary Permit, Permanent Permit and permit for resettlement or permanent return. It is only the last category of persons who have been permitted to come back with the express object of resettlement and permanent return, it is only those persons who are proposed to be included in this article, and no other.Mr. President: I think we shall take up the amendments tomorrow. But before I

adjourn, there is one thing about which I would like to take the sense of the House. In the next week, Monday which happens to be the 15th of August, is a holiday, and then Wednesday the 17th is also a holiday on account of Janamashthmi. It has been suggested to me that we might not meet on Tuesday so that Members might have a continuous four or five days from Saturday to Wednesday, and we might meet on Thursday; and instead of Tuesday, we might meet on the following Saturday. If that meets the wishes of the House, we can arrange our programme like that.

Honourable Members: Yes.

Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad: A long adjournment might make us forget everything.

Mr. President : I think you will get time again to study. So, we shall sit up to Friday next, and then adjourn till 9 O'clock on Thursday, and we shall sit on the following Saturday also.

Now the House stands adjourned till 9 O'clock tomorrow morning.

The Assembly then adjourned till Nine of the Clock on Thursday, the 11th August 1949.