DR. AMBEDKAR: THE PRINCIPAL ARCHITECT
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
Clause wise Discussion on
the Draft Constitution
30th
July 1949 to 16th September 1949
SECTION
SIX
Clausewise
Discussion
______________________________________________________________
Contents
Continued---
Articles
for Discussion:
ENTRY
17-A
|
|||
|
|||
ENTRY
2
|
|
UNION
LIST
[f1]
Shri Brajeshwar Prasad
: Mr. President, Sir, I beg to move :
"
That for amendment No. 3572 of the List of amendments, the
following be substituted:—
"
That for entry 81 of List I, the following he substituted :—
"
81. Duties in respect of succession to property including agricultural land."
***
[f2]
The
Honorable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar:
I may mention, Sir, that this matter was considered at the conference with the Provincial Premiers. They were of option that, although
the principle might be sound, they were at the present moment not prepared to make this
radical change.
[The amendment of Mr. Brajeshwar Prasad
was withdrawn and Entry 81
was added to the Union List.]
[f3]
Mr.
President: There are two amendments to this.
The
Honorable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar:
Sir, I move :
"
That in entry 83 of List I, after the word ' railway ' a comma and the word ' sea ' be
inserted."
The
intention is to complete the entry by the addition of the word "
sea " which was inadvertently omitted.
***
[f4]
The Honorable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar:
Sir, I cannot accept Dr. Deshmukh' s amendment because the inclusion of the word " land " would also
permit the Center to levy Terminal Tax on goods and passengers carried by " road". Under our scheme Terminal Taxes on goods
and passengers carried by road will be a matter which will be exclusively within the
jurisdiction of the different States. That is the principal objection why I cannot accept
his amendment. You will remember. Sir, that he tried to
move a similar amendment on another occasion which had been rejected by the House.
Now
with regard to Mr. Sidhva, this matter again was debated
last time and I said that although these taxes were leviable
by the Center, the proceeds of all of them would be distributable among the different
Provinces. The Center would not claim any interest. If the Provinces after getting the proceeds want to pass on any part of those proceeds to the local bodies they are free to do so. It is not
possible in this Constitution to make a provision for any matter of taxation that may be
available to a local authority. That is a matter inter
se between the State and the local authority and
therefore it is not possible now to alter this entry either by way of amending it or by
way of transferring it to List No. II.
(Shri
R. K. Sidhva and Dr. P. S. Deshmukh
withdrew their amendments)
"
That in entry 83 of List I, after the word ' railway ' a comma and the word ' sea ' be
inserted."
[The amendment
of Dr. Ambedkar was adopted. Entry No. 83, as amended, was added to
the Union List.]
(Amendment
No. 54 was not moved)
[f5]
The
Honorable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar:
Sir, I move :
"
That in entry 86 of List I, the words ' non-narcotic drugs
' be deleted." The proposed list put non-narcotic drugs in the concurrent List.
***
[f6]
The
Honorable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar:
It is quite true, Sir, that at present this entry is in the provincial list. But, there
are two facts to be recognised. One is that no province has at any time so far levied any
tax on these items. Therefore, it has not been exploited by
the provinces for their financial purposes. Secondly, even when the
matter becomes concurrent, and any legislation is made by
the Center, which has a revenue aspect, the revenue will be liable to be distributable
under the provisions of clause (2) of article
253. Consequently, so far as finances are concerned, there is really no loss to the
provinces at all. Then, it is necessary that we should have an All-India Drugs Act
operating throughout the area. That cannot happen unless
non-narcotic drugs are put in the Concurrent List. That also saves the power of the
Provinces to make such local legislation as they may like with regard to these drugs.
Mr. President: I put the amendment moved by Dr. Ambedkar. The question is:
[The amendment was adopted. Entry 86, as amended, was added to the Union List.]
[f7]
Shri H. V. Kamath
: I do not know
if the medical and scientific terminology used in my amendment has been misunderstood. This terminology will be found in any standard book on
Pharmacology.
The
Honorable Dr. B. R.
Ambedkar:
We have got the power. It is covered by entry 20 which we are going to put in the
Concurrent List.
(The
amendment of Shri H. V. Kamath was negatived).
***
[f8]
The
Honorable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar:
I hope my friends is not going to read that 4-pages printed
judgement of the Supreme Court of the United States. It has been circulated to everybody.
Shri
Deshbandhu Gupta
: It is wrong for my friend to presume that the whole
judgement will be read. Of course, if it is necessary to read some extracts I will do so.
I am only referring to the parts which are relevant to point raised by me. I wish to point
out that exeption was taken by those publishers on the
ground that the tax violated the Federal Constitution in
two particulars (1) that it abridges the freedom of the press in contravention of the due
process clause contained in Section I of the Fourteenth Amendment; (2) that it denies
appellees the equal protection of the laws in contravention of the same amendment.
The
Honorable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: I
am also rising on a point of order.
Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad :
There could not be two points of order at the same time.
The
Honorable Dr. B. R.
Ambedkar:
My point of order, is an elementary one whether my friend
who is a signatory to this amendment—his name is mentioned here after Shri Sitaram Jajoo—having already given notice of this amendment can
he now say that this is not in order? '-
Shri
Deshbandhu Gupta
: My friend has amended his own amend-ments hundred times.
The
Honorable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar:
If he was to propose an amendment to his amendment, that would be in order.
Shri Deshbandhu Gupta :
I have every right to change my opinion just as my friend has done very often.
Mr.
President:
Even if he has signed the notice, I do not know whether he signed for 88A.
The
Honorable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar:
His name is Shri Deshbandhu Gupta.
***
[f9]
Mr. President:
I
should like to hear the Members on the main question. But before I do that, I would like
to know whether the Drafting Committee would reconsider this item...
The
Honorable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar:
We should like to hear the various points of view as expressed in this House, and then if
the House or you. Sir, find that it is not possible to come
to any definite conclusion right now, then the matter may be remitted to the Drafting
Committee so that the Committee, in view of the various expressions
of opinion, might find out some formula acceptable to the House. But I do not think, as it
is, it is any use trying to recast it We have got here very
definite amendments. One is by my friend here and there is another by my Friend Mr. Jhunjhunwala—quite definite amendments.
Mr. President: There are really two point to be
considered. One is whether the amendment which is proposed to be moved by Mr. Goenka is in order, in view of the previous article which we
have already passed. And the second is...
The
Honorable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar:
Sir, If I may say so, this matter cannot be decided on the basis of whether something will
be ultra virus or whether something will not be ultra virus. This
House is not competent to decide that. That is a judicial matter. All that the House must
decide is whether we want to give protection to the newspapers from the various entries
which are included, either in List I, List II or List III; and if we want to give them any
exemption from these entries, then to what extent we should
give sure about. We cannot give any assurance to any newspaperman
here and now that we have made a case which is foolproof and knave-proof. We cannot give
that assurance. So we had better
decide the particular question whether we do want to give protection to newspapers from
the operation of the various entries. That is the main question.
[f10]
Mr. President:
You should also consider the question whether it does not
offend against Article 13.
The
Honorable Dr. B. R.
Ambedkar:
On that we have some views and if you are prepared to hear, I will submit them.
[f11]
The
Honorable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar:
Sir, I should like at the
outset to slate what the point of order is, or how I have understood it, because I should
like to be corrected at the outset, if I am wrong. The
point of order seems to be this that in view of the fact that this Assembly has passed
article 13 which is a part of the Fundamental Rights and which says that all citizens
shall have the right to freedom of speech or
expression,—in view of this, as it open to this House to pass an article which would
curtail the fundamental right given by article 13 ? I take it that is the point that we have now to consider.
In
support of the proposition that this House is now debarred from considering any proposal
which would have the effect of limiting freedom of speech, there has been cited a
judgement of the Supreme Court of the United States in which—1 have not read the
whole thing, but only parts— it has been said that any tax levied on the press is ultra vires, in view of the fact—1 am using
the language of the United States—that it abridges the freedom of the press.
Shri
Deshbandhu Gupta:
Barring income-tax. It is stated in the judgement itself
The
Honorable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar:
Now, Sir, it is not clear from the statement of fact of that particular
case what the nature of the particular tax was which was called in question, nor is it
clear as to the severity of that particular tax which was called in question. In my judgement,
apart from the levy of the tax, the severity of the tax
also would be an element in considering whether the lax was ultra virus or not.
As I said, there, is no reference to this important
fact in this judgement. I am therefore not prepared to go by that judgement
I
am proceeding along other lines of arguments which I think
are substantial and are not open to any criticism. The first point I want to submit is
this: that, notwithstanding the fact that the
constitutional guarantees which were given in the Constitution of the United Slates, the United States Supreme Court itself has
held that these fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution are not absolute and
that the Congress of the United States has, notwithstanding
the language used in the Constitution, the right to impose reasonable restrictions on
those fundamental rights. In fact I may remind the House that, in the opening speech which
I made in support of the motion that this House do proceed to take into consideration the
Draft Constitution, I devoted a considerable part to the consideration of this matter, because I had
noticed some criticisms in papers and by others, to whom I was bound to pay a certain
amount of respect and attention, that our fundamental rights were of no value at all, as
they were subjected to various limitations which were enumerated in propositions that follow article 13, namely clauses (2), (3), (4) and (5).
In
order to meet those criticisms, I took some trouble to examine the decisions of the Supreme Court on this matter. I did so because at one time I felt
that in view of the fact that the constitutional guarantees which were called fundamental
rights were enunciated in the Constitution of the United States in absolute terms without
any qualifications, it may not have been open to the Supreme
Court of the United States to limit those provision. But to my great surprise I found that
the United States Supreme Court had taken the very same attitude that we have taken in the framing of the Constitution, namely that fundamental
rights, however fundamental they may be, could not be absolute rights. They must be
subject to certain limitations.
Now,
if the House will permit me I shall quote only one passage from my speech. This is what I
said.
"
In Gitlow vs. New
York, in which the issue was the constitutionaly of a New
York, ' criminal anarchy '
law which purported to punish utterances calculated to bring about violent change, the
Supreme Court said :
"
It is a fundamental principle, long established that the freedom of speech and of the
press, which is secured by the Constitution, does not confer an absolute right to speak or
publish, without responsibility whatever one may choose, or an unrestricted and unbridled
licence that gives immunity
for every possible use of language and prevents the punishment of those who abuse this freedom '."
And
I quoted many other cases. My whole point is this: that
even in the United States itself, it is an acknowledged proposition that there must be
some limitations upon the fundamental rights. On that there can be no question at all, in
my judgement. Therefore, in so far as our entry—1 am not going into the amendments
for the moment— deals with tax on advertisements, my submission is that that entry
could not be questioned as an entry which is ultra
vires of this House, because
it is going to put some kind of limitation upon the freedom of the press if it is acted
upon by the provincial Governments. I entirely refuse to
accept that interpretation that any tax levied under the head "
Advertisements ' would be ultra vires because
it would infringe article 13.
The
proposition which I submit could be enunciated and which is plausible and which may be
accepted is this: that any imposition upon a newspaper of a
tax of a severe nature which will result in wiping it out altogether, such an exercise of
the taxation power, would be ultra vires,
because if would completely wipe out the freedom of speech which has been guaranteed by
article 13. In so far as the taxation imposed upon advertisements is not of a reasonable
nature and is discriminatory, that is to say, it is merely confined to newspapers and all
other forms of advertisements are exempted, then I can understand that that would violate
article 15 under which we propose to give equal protection to all. Therefore my submission is that any argument which goes to the
length of saying that anything which affects newspapers and the freedom of speech or
writing in a newspaper would be ultra vires, I take the liberty to say, is not an argument which I am
prepared to accept and which, I hope, this House will not accept.
Now
I come to the other question. It is quite true that, in view of certain circumstances
which have come to the surface in certain provinces, it may be necessary to transfer this particular entry
regarding newspapers from List I to List II or place it in List III. That is a matter not
of constitutional law. That is a matter of policy and a matter
of confidence; whether you are prepared to put more confidence in the Center or whether
you are prepared to put more confidence in the provinces or whether you are prepared to
put confidence in the provinces but would like to reserve to the Center a certain amount
of liberty and power to correct any wrong that a province might do is a matter which of
course is open for discussion. That is what we have been discussing; whether any
particular entry should remain in List I or part in List I and part in List II or in List
III.
On
that the House has got perfect liberty to decide, because it is a matter on which the
House has got complete freedom, and nobody is going to suggest that the House has its
hands tied down by reason of article 13 and that it cannot do anything to impose any kind
of limitation upon the newspapers. I repudiate that argument absolutely.
Now,
Sir, I should like to deal with the various amendments. If you will permit me, I would like to deal with them because those who may
follow me may criticise what I am saying. It seems to me that the friends who are
interested in newspapers are really trying to get complete
immunity, so to say, from any kind of taxation that may be levied by the provinces. The
first amendment moved by my Friend, Mr. Goenka, and several
others—there are some fifty • or sixty names—is that it should be
transferred to the Union List, List 1. In doing that, they have done something which we
ourselves had not done. Our newspaper entry is not connected with taxation. Those members who have closely watched the arrangement in List
I and List II will realise that we have separated the entries into two parts, entries which are purely legislative and entries which are
taxational. You will remember that newspapers, although they are mentioned in List III,
they are mentioned only among the legislative entries. Now,
the amendment moved by my Friend Mr. Goenka, has done the worst from his point of view,
viz., he has put the newspapers
in that part of List I which deals with taxation. It means that it would be open now for
the Center to levy a tax on newspapers. (Hear, hear.) I do not like newspapers and I am not
interested in either injuring them or in protecting them. I am prepared to place the whole
matter in the hands of the House to do what it likes.
The
second amendment moved by my friend, Mr. Jhunjhunwala, does
what? He thinks that, although newspapers may be
transferred to List I, newspapers as goods open to sale, will still remain in List .11
because the entry in that list is a very broad entry and would cover newspapers as goods
and therefore he feels that there is no purpose served by merely accepting the amendment
of Mr. Goenka because they would be liable to be taxed by
the provinces under the entry relating to taxes on sale of goods. Therefore he has moved
his amendment to get the newspapers out of the Sales Tax Act.
Now,
the question to be considered is whether the provinces would agree that so important a
part of what I may call the base of their taxation as constituted by the newspapers should
be altogether eliminated from the field of provincial taxation. It is a matter which has
to be considered. Sir, being a financial matter, I do not think that the Drafting
Committee would be prepared to take the responsibility on its own shoulders without
consultation either with the Finance Ministry or with the Finance Ministers of the
Provinces. We have been taking a great deal of responsibility so far as purely legislative
entries are concerned. When the question of finance is
concerned, we have a sort of
standing convention that we should always consult the Central Finance Ministry as well as
the Finance Ministers of the various provinces.
Therefore
these are the difficulties that are involved in these amendments. Now I do not know if you
transfer the entry on newspapers to the Union List, the Center may levy a tax on
newspapers as manufacturers, because the Center is entitled
to put an excise duty on any goods manufactured in any part of India. It seems to me therefore that it would be difficult for the newspapers to escape
taxation. All these things have to be taken into
consideration. That is to say, these are extraneous matters to which I have given
expression at this stage because I think that every Member who wants to take part in the
debate, ought to know what the difficulties are. All that I am interested in at the moment is this that there is
no bar to the House considering any kind of limitation, notwithstanding that we have passed article 13. The proposition which is being sought to be
placed before the House for its acceptance is in my judgement a very dangerous
proposition. It would eliminate even taxation absolutely. Even article 24 could not be
there. Many either complications would arise. If you say
that because fundamental rights are guaranteed therefore the taxation power should also
not be exercised because that would result in the limitation or the destruction of the
fundamental rights, it is too large a proposition and I do not think that anybody will ever accept this.
***
Pandit
Thakur Das Bhargava:
Supposing there is not complete destruction of this right, but there is material
curtailment or abridgement, will it not be covered by this?
The Honorable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar:
What is reasonable the Court will decide.
Shri
Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar:
I have nothing to add to my speech.
(At
this stage Shri Deshbandhu Gupta rose to speak.)
Mr. President: I do not think there is any right of reply in a
matter like this.
Shri
Deshhandhu Gupta
: On a point of order, I want to clear one or two points
which seems to have created confusion.
Mr. President: No. It is a question whether you
have the right to reply or not.
An
Honorable Member:
The President has already said that the Honorable Member
has no right of reply.
Shri Deshbandhu Gupta :
Sir, as some points have been raised and I would request you to explain these points
particularly as no speaker from this side has spoken after Shri Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar
raised the points.
Mr. President: I think a larger number of people
spoke from your side and from your point of view.
I
have understood the point of order that has been raised. I shall have to consider it and I
will give my ruling later, but in the meantime I would ask Dr. Ambedkar to consider the
other point which he himself has raised, supposing I rule that it is in order, then in
that case I would expect him to be ready with the answer on the merits also as to whether
you will have it in the form in which it is sought to be moved by Mr. Goenka or sought to be amended by Mr. Jhunjhunwala.
[f12]
The Honorable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar:
In that case, they should withdraw the amendment.
Shri
Deshbandhu Gupta:
The amendment has not been moved. I took exception to the moving of the amendment.
Mr. President: I shall give my ruling later. We
shall take up the other items now. Certain new items have been proposed. Some are in the
printed list. Before we go to that, let us go through the other entries.
[f13] Mr. Naziruddi Ahmad:
I
shall not move the amendment; but I shall speak on the entry
itself.
The
Honorable Dr. B. R.
Ambedkar:
Why not present the baby with the song? Why the song only? You may move the amendment and
make a speech.
***
[f14]
The
Honorable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar:
Mr. President, I propose to deal with the objection raised by my friend Sardar Hukam Singh. I do not think he has realised what is the purpose of
entry 91 and I should therefore like to state very clearly what the purpose of 91 in List
is. It is really to define a limit or scope of List I and I think we could have dealt with
this matter, viz., of the definition of and scope of Lists
II and III by adding an entry such as 67 which would read:
"
Anything not included in List II or III shall be deemed to
fall in List I. "
That
is really the purpose of it. It could have been served in two different ways, either having an entry such as the one 91 included in List I or
to have an entry such as the one which I have suggested— '
that anything not included in List II or III shall fall in List I '. That is the purpose of it. But such an entry is necessary
and there can be no question about it. Now I come to the other objection which has been
repeated if not openly at least whispered as to why we are
having these 91 entries in List I when as a
matter of fact we have an article such as 223 which is called residuary article which is " Parliament has exclusive power to make any law with respect to any matter not enumerated in the Concurrent List or
State List ". Theoretically
I quite accept the proposition that when anything which is
not included in List II or List III is by a specific article of the Constitution handed over to the Center, it is unnecessary to
enumerate these categories which we have specified in List 1. The reason why this is done
is this. Many States people, and particularly the Indian States
at the beginning of the labours of the Constituent Assembly, were very particular to know
what are the legislative powers of the Center. They wanted to know categorically and
particularly; they were not going to be satisfied by saying that the Center will have only
residiary powers. Just to allay the fears of the Provinces
and the fears of the Indian States, we had to particularize what is included in the
symbolic phrase "residuary powers". That is the reason why we had to undergo
this labour, notwithstanding the fact that we had article 223.
I
may also say that there is nothing very ridiculous about this, so far as our Constitution
is concerned, for the simple reason that it has been the
practice of all federal constitutions to enumerate the powers of the Center, even those
federations which have got residuary powers given to the Center. Take for instance the
Canadian constitution. Like the Indian constitution, the Canadian constitution also gives
what are called residuary powers to the Canadian Parliament. Certain specified and
enumerated powers are given to the Provinces. Notwithstanding this fact, the Canadian
constitution. I think in article 99, proceeds to enumerate certain categories and certain
entries on which the Parliament of Canada can legislate. That again was done in order to
allay the tears of the French Provinces which were going to be part and parcel of the
Canadian Federation. Similarly also in the Government of India Act; the same scheme has
been laid down there and section 104 of the Government of
India, Act, 1935 is similar to article 223 here. It also lays down the proposition that
the Central Government will have residuary powers. Notwithstanding that, it had its List
1. Therefore, there is no reason, no ground to be over critical about this matter. In
doing this we have only followed as I said, the requirements of the various Provinces to
know specifically what these residuary powers are, and also we have followed well-known
conventions which have been followed in any other federal constitutions. I hope the House
will not accept either the amendment of my Friend Sardar Hukam Singh nor take very
seriously the utterings of my Friend Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad. [All amendments were negatived. Entry 91 was added
to the Union List.]
[f15]
Mr. President:
I
think it is not necessary to have any further discussion on this point. However, if Dr. Ambedkar has anything to say about it, I would hear him; but
otherwise I do not think any discussion is necessary on a point like this.
The
Honorable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar:
No discussion is necessary. I do not wish to say anything.
Shri
Brajeshwar Prasad
: I would like to withdraw my amendment. [The amendment of Shri Brajeshwar Prasad was not
allowed to be withdrawn. It was put to vote and negatived.]
LIST
I
[f16]
Mr. President:
Has Dr. Ambedkar anything to say on this?
The
Honorable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar:
No, Sir, I have nothing to say in reply. Young men and young women are capable of taking
care of themselves. Why bother about them?
[The
amendment was negatived. Similar amendment by Prof. S. L. Saksena was also negatived.]
[f17]
Shri
Raj Bahadur:
.. .We have got to realise
the seriousness of the problem. As I said, I would not move any of the other amendments,
because I feel somewhat discouraged to see that the Honorable Chairman of the Drafting
Committee is not even taking the trouble to reply to most of the amendments moved by other
members suggesting new entries.
Shri
T. T. Krishnamachari: He is engaged in studying the amendment
moved by you.
Shri
Raj Bahadur:
I would be very fortunate if I get a reply to my motion.
The
Honorable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar:
Sir, as my friend expects a reply from me, I would just say one or two words.
The
question of control and eradication of beggary is a matter which has been already provided
for in List III in entry 24 ' Vagrancy ' which includes beggary. The only point is whether it should
remain there or should be brought in List 1. I think it will be better to leave it in List
III so that both the Provinces and the Center could operate upon that entry.
[The
amendment of Shri Raj Bahadur was withdrawn.]
[f18]
Mr.
President: Do you want to say anything. Dr. Ambedkar ?
The
Honorable Dr. B. R.
Ambedkar:
I do not want to say anything.
Shri
Brajeshwar Prasad
: I withdraw
my amendment.
Mr. President: The House evidently is not in a
mood to give permission for this amendment to be withdrawn. I will put it to the vote. The
question is:
"
That entry I of List II be transferred to List I as new entry 2A ".
(The
amendment was negatived.)
Mr.
President:
There is an amendment by Dr. Ambedkar, amendment No. 63.
The
Honorable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar:
Sir, I move :
"
That in entry I of List II, the following words be deleted :
'
preventive detention for reasons connected with the maintenance of public order; persons
subjected to such detention.' "
It
is proposed that this entry should be put in List III. That is the reason why I propose
that these words be deleted.
Sardar
Hukam Singh :
Sir, I move :
"
That in entry I of List H, after the words " naval,
military or air forces " the words " or any other armed forces of the Union " be inserted."
My
purpose in moving this amendment is that I feel that it is a lacuna, an omission on the
part of the Drafting Committee. If I am told that it has been deliberately omitted...
The
Honorable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar:
I am prepared to accept this amendment.
[The
amendment was adopted. Entry I, as amended was added to the State List,]
[f19]
The Honorable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar:
Sir, I move :
"
That for entry 2 of List H, the following entry be substituted :—
'
2, The administration of justice, constitution and organisation of all courts except the
Supreme Court and the High Courts; fees taken in all courts except the Supreme Court. ' "
The
only change made is that the High Courts have been brought in because as I explained
yesterday so far as the constitution and organization of High Courts are concerned, they
are completely under the control of the Center.
[Entry
2 as amended, was added to the State list.]
[f20]
Shri Brajeshwar Prasad:
I
will move my amendment without offering any comment, i.e„ I will
not deliver any speech. Sir, I move:
"
That for amendment No. 3589 of the List of Amendments, the following be substituted:—
'
That entry 4 in List II be omitted from that List and be
included in List I.' "
Sir,
I may with your permission say that instead of List I the entry should be included in List
III. It will meet the objection of Mr. T. T. Krishnamachari. Sir, I
regard " Police "
as a vital subject and I think it should be included in the concurrent powers and thus
brought under the Center.
Shrimati
Purnima Banerji
(United Provinces : General) :
I want to ask whether you are satisfied that ' Police '
includes the Home Guards and the Pranthiya Raksha Dal.
The Honorable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar:
That depends upon any legislation made by the province. If under the Police Act they enrol
a certain person, he is a police for that purpose or if they enrol under some other Act
and they are given the powers of the Police, that will also be police.
Shri
Mahavir Tyagi :
May I ask whether the Home Guards and the Pranthiya Raksha Dal go under the residuary
powers of the Government of India or be controlled by the local Government? Where will they go?
The
Honorable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar:
If it is not Police, then it will go under the Central government. " Police " is used in
contradiction to " Army ".
Anything which is not " army " is Police.
Shri
Mahavir Tyagi :
Let that go down as your ruling within questions.
Pandit
Hirday
Nath Kunzru: If Dr. Ambedkars'
interpretation is correct, then a province can raise an army without calling it by that
name.
The
Honorable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar:
No, I do not think they can do it.
Dr.
P. S. Deshmukh
: That is what is happening already.
The
Honorable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar:
An army is enrolled under the Indian Army Act 1911 and there are stringent conditions laid
down as to enrolment in that Act. A province has no right to legislate on that entry
atall.
Pandit Hirday Nath Kunzru: A
province will not legislate with regard to the creation of an army at all. But, it can
raise a force and give it military training without calling it an army.
Shri
T. T. Krishnamachari:
I might mention. Sir, that there are special armed police
in the provinces. They are recruited under the powers given under the Police Act. They are considered to be a police force even
though they are on a quasi
military basis.
Shri
Mahavir Tyagi :
Why don't you add the word home Guard and make it clear?
The Honorable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar:
There are armed police; there are unarmed police.
Mr.
President:
The question put by Pandit Kunzru is whether a province
will be able to raise an army, without calling it an army, but calling it police.
The
Honorable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: I
am sure if a province is going to play a fraud on the Constitution, the Center will be
strong enough to see that that fraud is not perpetrated.
[Amendment
of Mr. Brijeshwar Prasad was
withdrawn. Entry 4 was added to the State list.]
***
[f21]
The Honorable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar:
Sir, I move:
"
That after entry 7 of List II, the following entry be
inserted :—
'
7-A. State pensions, that is to say, pensions payable by the State or out of the
Consolidated Fund of the State.' "
This
is merely a corresponding entry to what we have already done so far as List I is
concerned.
(List
7-A was added to the State List)
***
[f22]
The
Honorable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar:
Sir, I move :
"
That for entry 9 of List II, the following entry be
substituted :—
'
9. Acquisition or requisitioning of property except for the purposes of the Union, subject
to the provisions of entry 35 of List III.' "
The
only change is that the underlined words are now put in the Concurrent List and it is
therefore necessary to omit them from this entry. This is also what we have done with
regard to a similar entry in List 1.
[Dr.
Ambedkar's motion was adopted. Entry
9, as amended, was added to the State List.]
[f23]
The Honorable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar:
Sir, I move :
"
That after entry 10 of List II,
the following entry be inserted :—
'
10-A. Ancient and Historical Monuments other than those
specified in entry 60 of List I.' "
We
have distributed this entry, kept apart in List I and the other part is now placed in List
II.
(Entry
10-A was added to the State List)
[f24]
The Honorable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar:
Sir, I move :
"
That for entry 12 of List II, the following entries be substituted :—
'
12. The salaries and allowances of Ministers for the State, of the Speaker and Deputy
Speaker of the Legislative Assembly, and if there is a Legislative Council, Council of the
Chairman and Deputy Chairman thereof; the salaries and allowances of the members of the
Legislature of the State.'
'
12-A. The priviledges, immunities and powers of the
Legislative Assembly and of the members and the Committees thereof and if there is a
Legislative Council, of that Council and of the members and the Committees thereof.' "
This
is merely a counterpart of what we have done so far as List I is concerned regarding the Center.
(Entries
12 and 12-A were added to the State List)
[f25]
Mr.
President:
Now the question is whether we should have an additional entry as " Regulation and control of Houses and Rents ". Mr. Tyagi, you move it
as a separate entry.
The Honorable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar:
Yes, he may move it as a separate entry.
Shri
Mahavir Tyagi
: I am
grateful to you and also to Dr. Ambedkar. He has for the
first time been generous to me.
Sir,
I do submit that it is really embarrassing to move an amendment to the list which has been
submitted by the Drafting Committee, for the Drafting Committee is always very resourceful
and it is very difficult to struggle with them successfully.
Mr. President: But you are moving an additional
entry.
Shri
Mahavir Tyagi:
Yes, Sir, but the acceptance of the Drafting Committee has to be sought. After all it is
primarily they who accept suggestions, and if they accept them, then the House readily
agrees to them.
The
House has already agreed to one entry which says that all the residuary powers will go to
the Center, all that is not mentioned in List II or List III. I submit that the control of
Houses in urban areas and the control of rents of those houses are an important matter
today. It was not in the original list of the Government of India Act 1935, because at
that time the control over the houses and their rents was
not needed and it was not prevalent in India. But...
The
Honorable Dr. B. R.
Ambedkar:
I understand the Honorable Member's argument and I could
reply to him in a few minutes.
Shri
Mahavir Tyagi:
Yes, and I therefore only submit that this subject of control of the houses and the control of the rents should be there. I would even go
further and say that the control of good grains also should come in. If the House agrees,
it may be brought in as an independent item somewhere.
The
Honorable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar:
Sir, there are, I think three distinct questions, although they have not been stated by
Mr. Tyagi in that form. The first question is whether the Provincial legislature should or
should not have any power to regulate and control houses and house-rent. I think on that issue, there can be no difference of opinion,
that the Provincial Governments must have such power. The
question then is whether the Draft Constitution and the entries in the list make any
provision lor the provincial legislatures to exercise powers for the purpose of regulating and controlling the houses and the rents. Now, my
submission is that the specific entry as proposed by Mr. Tyagi is quite unnecessary,
because there are two other entries, namely entry 24 of
List II which deals with " land, rights in or over
land, land tenures including the relation of land-lord and tenant, and the collection of
rents, etc. etc." That is one entry. Then there is another entry No. 8 in List III
about transfer of property other than agricultural land; registration of deeds and documents. These two entries have been
found to be quite sufficient to enable the Provincial Governments to make laws relating to
the regulation and control of Houses and rents,—My
Friend Mr. Tyagi knows also, that notwithstanding the fact that such an entry does not
exist even today, under List II of the Government of India Act, none-the-less, the
Provinces have enacted laws in this matter. Therefore entry 24 relating to land and the
other entry. No. 8 about transfer of property are quite sufficient to give the power which
Mr. Tyagi wants that they should have.
Another
difficulty in the way of accepting the amendment of Mr. Tyagi is this. Suppose we were now
to include this entry, it would cause a certain amount of doubt on the laws that have
already been made by the provinces for the purpose of regulation of houses and the control
of rents. It would appear that the legislature itself felt that the entry as it already existed, was not sufficient for the
purpose of giving the legislature power to make laws for this purpose. And therefore it
was necessary specifically to give this power. I think we would unnecessarily casting doubts upon the validity of laws already made. Therefore, this is
an additional ground against accepting the amendment. In the first place, as I have said
it is unnecessary because the provinces have got sufficient power to make such laws and
the other is this question of validity of laws made.
Now
I come to the third part. My Friend Mr. Tyagi has been
struggling to some extent when I was dealing with the question of cantonments to remove
the power of allowing cantonments to regulate rents and the premises within their areas.
If my friend's intention is that by getting this entry
accepted, it would be possible for the provinces to nullify the power which has already
been given by the entry in List I, as it has been already passed, then I think, he is
completely under a mistake. Notwithstanding the fact that this entry may become part of
the Constitution, the entry which we have already passed would be valid; notwithstanding
any power vested in the Provinces, the Cantonments will have the power to make regulations
with regard to the premises and the rent of the premises situated in that area. Therefore,
I submit to my Friend mr. Tyagi that his purpose is already
served and it is unnecessary to have this entry, especially because it would be causing a
certain amount of doubt on the validity of the laws already made under these entries as
they stand.
***
[f26]
Shri Mahavir Tyagi :
...Suppose the owner of a house takes objection on the ground that the provincial
government has no right to control rents, then what happens?
The Honorable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar:
No, he cannot because under the General Clauses Act, land includes the buildings.
Shri
Mahavir Tyagi :
It is a new interpretation of the law, that land includes the building.
The
Honorable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar:
It is new because law is not the profession of Mr. Tyagi.
[f27]
The
Honorable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar:
Sir, I move:
"
That in entry 15 of List II, the words ' registration of
births and deaths ' be deleted." This is transferred
to the concurrent List.
***
[f28] The Honorable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar:
I do not accept any of the amendments moved.
[Amendments
by Shri Kamath and Brijeshwar Prasad were.
rejected. The motion of Dr. Ambedkar was adopted. Entry 15, as amended, was added to the
State List.]
[f29]
The
Honorable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar:
Sir, I move :
"That
for entry 18 of List II, the following entry be substituted:—
'
18. Education including universities, subject to the provisions of entries 40, 40-A, 57 and 57-A of List I and entry 17-A of List II.' "
[All
amendments to Entry 24 were rejected by Dr. Ambedkar and were negatived by the House. Entry 24 was added to the State List.]
***
Sardar
Hukam Singh
(East Punjab : Sikh) : Sir,
Now, that Pandit Bhargava has moved this amendment that
this entry should be transferred to the Concurrent List
there is no need for me to move my amendment and I wholeheartedly
support Pandit Bhargava's amendment.
***
[f30]
The
Honorable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar:
Sir, I am prepared to accept this amendment (of Pandit Bhargava as below) :
"
That with reference to amendment No. 3626 of the List of Amendments, entry 43 in List II
be transferred to List III as entry 9-A."
(The
motion was adopted.)
Entry
43 of List II was transferred to the Concurrent List.
***
[f31]
The
Honorable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar:
Sir, I am very much afraid that both my friends, Mr. Shibban
Lal and Mr. Sahu, have
entirely misunderstood the purport of this entry 45 and
they are further under a great misapprehension that if this
entry was omitted, there would be no betting or gambling in
the country at all. I should like to submit to them that if
this entry was omitted, here would be absolutely no control of belting and gambling at
all, because if entry 45 was there it may either be used
for the purpose of permitting betting and gambling or it may be used for the purpose of
prohibiting them. If this entry is not there, the provincial governments would be
absolutely helpless in the matter.
I
hope that they will realise what they are doing. If this entry was omitted, the other consequence would be that this subject
will be automatically transferred to List I under entry 91. The result will be the same,
viz., the Central Government may either permit gambling or
prohibit gambling. The question therefore that arises is this whether this entry should
remain here or should be omitted here and go specifically as a specified item in list I or
be deemed to be included in entry 91. If my friends are
keen that there should be no betting and gambling, then the proper thing would be to
introduce an article in the Constitution itself making betting and gambling a crime, not
to be tolerated by the State. As it is, it is a preventive thing and the State will have
lull power to prohibit gambling. I hope that with this explanation they will with draw
their objection to this entry.
[The
motion was adopted. Entry 45
was added to the State List.]
[f32]
The Honorable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar:
May I request you to go back to entry 38 and to amendment No. 311 standing in the name of Pandti Lakshmi Kanta Maitra? I heard. Sir, that you were pleased to direct Mr. T. T. Krishnamachari to have this entry held back, but I am prepared
to accept the amendment suggested by my Honorable Friend, Pandit Maitra.
Mr. President: Very well. The question is :
" That entry 38 of List II be
transferred to List III."
(The
amendment was adopted.)
Entry
38 was transferred to the Concurrent List.
***
[f33]
The
Honorable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar:
I cannot accept this amendment. As our system of revenue assessment
is at present regulated, it would upset the whole of the provincial administration. The
matter may, at a subsequent stage be investigated either by Parliament or by the different
provinces, and if they come to some kind of an arrangement as to the levy of land revenue
and adopt the principles which are adopted in the levy of income-tax, the entry may be
altered later on but today it is quite impossible. The matter was considered at great
length in the Conference
with the Provincial Premiers and they were wholly opposed
to any change of the place which has been given to this entry.
[Two amendments were negatived.
The motion was adopted. Entry 46 was added to the State List.]
Shri
Brajeshwar Prasad
: Sir, I beg to move:
"That
in amendment No. 3631 of the List of Amendments, for the word '
deleted ' the words and figure
' transferred to List I ' be
substituted."
Prof.
Shibban Lal Saksena
: I also move my
amendment No. 316 :
"
That entry 48 of List II be transferred to List III."
The
Honorable Dr. B. R.
Ambedkar: I
do not accept that.
[Both
amendments were rejected. Entry 48 was added to the State Listed.]
***
[f34]
The Honorable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar:
For the reasons which I have given while dealing with entry 46, I do not accept the
amendment.
Mr. President: The question is :
"
That in amendment No. 3632 of the List of Amendments, for
the word ' deleted ' the words and figure ' transferred to List I ' be substituted."
The
amendment was negatived.
Mr. President: The question is :
"
That entry 49 of List II be transferred to List III."
[The
amendment was negatived. Entry 49 was added to the State List.]
[f35]
The
Honorable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar:
Sir, I move:
"
That in entry 50 of List II, the words ' or roads ' be added at the end."
The
Honorable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: I
do not accept the amendment.
"
That in entry 50 of List II, the words ' or roads ' be
added at the end."
[The
amendment of Dr. Ambedkar was adopted. The motion was adopted. Entry 50, as amended, was
added to the State List.]
***
[f36]
The
Honorable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar:
Sir, I move :
"
That in entry 52 of List H, the words ' non-narcotic drugs ' be omitted."
This
is merely consequential.
[The
amendment was adopted. The motion was adopted. Entry 52, as amended was added to the State
List.]
[f37]
Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena:
Sir, I move :
"
That entry 56 of List II be transferred to List III and the following explanation be added
at the end :—
'
Explanation.—Nothing in this entry will be
construed as limiting in any way the authority of the Union to make laws with respect to
taxes on income accruing from or arising out of professions, trades, callings and
employments.' "
***
[f38]
The
Honorable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar:
Sir, I think this amendment is rather based upon a misconception. This entry is a purely
provincial entry. It cannot limit the power of the Center to levy Income-tax. On the other
hand, this entry 56 may be so worked as to become an encroachment upon Income-tax that is
leviable only by the Center. You may recall. Sir, that I introduced an amendment in article 256 to say that any taxes
levied by the local authorities shall not be deemed to be Income-tax. This amendment is
not necessary.
Prof.
Shibban Lal Saksena :
I do not press the amendment.
Sir.
(The
amendment was, by leave of the Assembly, withdrawn.)
[Entry 56 was added to the State List.]
[f39]
The
Honorable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar:
Sir, I move :
"
That for entry 58 of List II, the following entries be substituted :—
'
58. Taxes on the sale or purchase of goods. 58-A. Taxes on advertisements.' "
We
are trying to cut out the word ' turnover '.
***
[f40]
Shri V. L. Muniswamy Pillay
(Madras : General) : I move :
"
That with reference to amendment No. 3638 of the List of Amendments, in entry 58 of List II,
after the words ' purchase of goods ' the words ' other than Newspapers ' and after the
words ' taxes on advertisements ' the words ' other than
those appearing in Newspapers ' be inserted respectively."
Shri
Deshbandhu Gupta
(Delhi): I suggest this may
be also held over.
Mr.
President:
This was a question which was raised yesterday. I held it
over for my ruling.
The Honorable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar:
I
suggest that amendment No. 122 might be treated as an independent thing which may be
brought in by an additional entry. Then subsequently the Drafting Committee may work the two things together if accepted. Subject to
that, this entry may go. Those interested in 122 may be permitted to bring in this in the
form of an additional entry.
Mr. President: Your point is not touched so far as
newspaper and advertisement is concerned.
Shri
Deshbandhu Gupta:
If it is felt that the Drafting Committee should provide this somewhere else then it would
become difficult to revise the past, once a decision is taken
by the House on this entry.
The
Honorable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar:
Before we conclude discussion of the three Lists this matter may be brought up.
Mr. President: I am prepared to allow this to be
taken up separately when we take up 88-A which we held over
yesterday. So the position is that the question relating to advertisement is held over,
but apart from that, this entry is to be put to vote, as
amended by Dr. Ambedkar.
Prof.
Sibban Lal Saksena
: When a ruling is pending how can it be passed?
Shri Deshbandhu Gupta :
It will be simpler if it is held over.
Mr. President: Well, let it be held over. We will
take it up along with 88-A which we held over yesterday.
Entry
58 of List II was held over.
[f41] Mr. President: Entry 59.
The
Honorable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar:
I move :
"
That in entry 59 of List II, the following be added at the end :—
'
Subject to the provinces of entry 21 of List III.' "
In
List III we are going to say that the Center should have the power to lay down the
principle of taxation.
[The
motion of Dr. Ambedkar was adopted. Entry 59,
as amended, was added to the State List.]
[f42]
The
Honorable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar:
Sir, I move:
"
That entry 64 of List II be deleted."
That
is taken in the Concurrent List.
[The
motion was adopted. Entry 64 of List II was deleted from the State List.]
***
[f43]
The Honorable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar:
Sir, this matter will be covered by the Part of the Constitution which we propose to add
to the existing Draft, the part where all the payments that are to be made to the rulers
will be dealt with, and for the present. I do not see any necessity for any such
amendment. I think my Friend, after seeing that part which we propose to introduce by way
of an amendment, may see whether his object is carried out by our proposal. If not, he may
be quitre in order in moving an amendment to that part when
that part comes before the House.
Kaka
Bhagwant Roy
:
Sir, I wish to withdraw my amendment.
(The amendment was, by leave of the Assembly, withdrawn.)
***
[f44]
Mr.
President: Then we come to entry 2-A. Dr. Ambedkar.
The
Honorable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar:
Sir, I move :
"
That after entry 2 of List III, the following entry be inserted :—
'
2A. Preventive detention for reasons connected with stability of the Government
established by law and the maintenance of public order and services or supplies essential
to the life of the community; persons subjected to such detention.' "
***
SEVENTH
SCHEDULE—(conld.)
(CONCURRENT
LIST)
[f45]
Mr.
Voice-President: (Shri V. T.
Krishnamachari) : We are now
doing entry 2-A of the Concurrent List.
Mr.
Naziruddin Ahmad
: (West Bengal : Muslim) : Mr. Vice-President, Sir I
would seek your permission to make a verbal change in my amendment No. 290. No. 289 has
been moved by Mr. Kamath. I wish to move the next entry and
I seek your permission to make a slight verbal alteration. I know that the amendment will
never be accepted—that it will not even be considered.
So there is no harm in making the amendment look better. May I have your permission to
substitute for the words " overthrow of the Government
by force " in my amendment, the words " security of the State "?
The wording " security of the State " seems to be more proper and the change is only verbal.
Mr.
Vice-President:
Yes.
Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad :
Sir, I beg to move ...
The
Honorable Dr. B. R.
Ambedkar:
(Bombay : General) : Sir,
may I suggest to my Friend that if he is prepared to accept the wording as I suggest now,
namely, " connected with the security of the State " instead of the words "
connected with stability of the Government established by law "
I shall be prepared to accept it, because I find that that is exactly the language we have
used in amended entry 3 in List I—We have used the word "
security of India " there. If my Friend is satisfied
with the wording I have now suggested I shall be prepared
to accept it.
Mr.
Naziruddin Ahmad :
I am grateful to Dr. Ambedkar, but this is exactly the
change which I was asking to the Vice-President to permit
me to make.
The
Honorable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar:
Your words were different.
Mr.
Naziruddin Ahmad :
I was going to move an amended amendment and that is exactly on the lines, word for word, as the one that Dr. Ambedkar now suggests.
The
Honorable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar:
Then there is nothing to speak about it. If my Honorable Friend will move the amendment as
I have suggested then I am prepared to accept it.
Mr.
Naziruddin Ahmad :
I must move my amendment.
Mr. Vice-President: As. Dr. Ambedkar is accepting
it, is it necessary for the Honorable Member to move the amendment and speak on it?
Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad :
If my Honorable Friend fails to recognize that I was going to move an amendment which is
correct and exactly corresponds to his ideas, I cannot help it. But let me move my
amendment.
Sir,
I beg to move:
"
That in amendment No. 124 of List I (Sixth Week), in the
proposed new entry 2-A of List III, for the words "
stability of the Government " the words " security of the State "
be substituted."
The
expression " stability of the Government " is not proper...
The
Honorable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: I
do not think any argument is needed as I am accepting the
amendment.
Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : I know. But there is the House. I will say only
one or two words. The expression " stability of the
Government " is rather vague in the context of the new
entry proposed by Dr. B. R. Ambedkar, namely, "
preventive detention for reasons connected with the stability of the Government ". " Government " and " State " are
different things.
The Honorable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar:
That is the reason why I have accepted it.
Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad :
But, Sir, he has not made it clear as to why he has accepted it.
The
Honorable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar:
I have said that " security of the State" is the
proper expression. So there is no necessity of an argument.
Mr.
Vice-President:
The amendment proposed by the Honorable Member having been accepted, there is no need for
elaborate arguments.
Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad :
But the House should know. Why should there be so much nervousness about the exposure of
bad drafting? That is the point.
The
Honorable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar:
If my Honorable Friend is satisfied with an admission on my part that I have made a
mistake I am prepared to make it.
Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad :
It should be appreciated not merely by the House but by the world at large. Drafted as it
is, " stability of the Government " may mean insecurity of the Ministry for which they
might imprison the opposition.
The
Honorable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar:
Very well, we have bungled. Is that enough?
***
[f46]
The Honorable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar:
Sir, the amendment as amended has to be put and not as in the Notice Paper.
Mr. Vice-President: I will now put amendment No.
124 as revised by Dr. Ambedkar. The question is :
"
That after entry 2 of List III, the following entry be inserted :—
'
2-A. Preventive-detention for reasons connected with the security of the State and the
maintenance of public order and services or supplies essential to the life of the
community; persons subjected to such detention.' "
(The
motion was adopted.)
Entry
2-A, as amended, was added to the Concurrent List
[f47]
The
Honorable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar:
Sir, I move :
"
That for entry 3 of List III, the following entry be substituted :—
'
3. Removal from one State to another State of prisoners, accused persons and persons
subjected to preventive detention for reasons specified in entry 2A of this List.' "
Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad:
I am not moving amendment No. 291.
Mr. Vice-President: Amendment No. 292. The Member
is not present and the amendment is not therefore moved.
I
will put Dr. Ambedkar's amendment to vote.
[The
amendment was adopted. Entry
3, as amended, was added
to the Concurrent List.]
[f48]
The Honorable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: I
Move :
"
That in entry 4 of List III, the words and figures ' for the time being specified in Part
I or Part II of the First Schedule ' be deleted."
[Entry 4 as amended, by Dr. Ambedkar's
amendment was added to the Concurrent List.]
***
[f49]
The
Honorable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar:
Sir, there can be no doubt that the amendment of my Honorable Friend, Dr. Deshmukh, in so far as it seeks to interpolate certain word's dealing with the protection of children in entry 6 are out
of place because entry 6 no doubt refers to infants and minors, but it has to be borne in mind that taking the entry as a whole, that entry deals
with status. In so far as the status of infants and minors are concerned, these categories are included in entry 6, but " care and protection of destitute and abandoned children
and youth " are not germane to their status.
Dr.
P.
S. Deshmukh : That was exactly why I had wanted to introduce an
independent entry. There is an amendment already in my name which seeks to have an
additional entry separately.
The
Honorable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: I
was just going to deal with the amendment moved by him. These words could not be
interpolated in this entry 6, without seriously damaging the structure of that entry No.
6. Therefore at this stage I certainly cannot accept the proposition of interpolating
these words.
Now,
Sir, I will deal with the general question of the protection of children. There can be no
doubt about it that every Member in the House including myself and the members of the
Drafting Committee could ever take any exception to the protection of children being
provided for by the State, and there can by no difference
of opinion; but the only question is whether in the list as
framed by the Drafting Committee that matter is not already
covered. In framing these entries, what we have done in to mention and categorize subjects
of legislation and not the objects of purposes of legislation.
Protection
of children is a purpose which a legislature is entitled to
achieve if in certain circumstances it thinks that it must do so. The question is whether
under any of these entries, it would not be possible for
the State to achieve that purpose, namely, the protection of children.
It
seems to me that any one of these entries which are included in List II could be employed
by the State for the purpose of framing laws to protect
children. For instance, under entry 2 of List II, administration of justice, it would be
open for the State to establish juvenile courts for children.
Dr.
P.
S. Deshmukh : That is not what I meant. I never referred to juvenile Courts.
The Honorable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar:
For instance, take prisons and reformatory and Borstal institutions, they may be empowered
to establish special kinds of prisons where there would be, not the principle of
punishment, but the principle of reformation. Take the case of education.
Shrimati
G. Durgabai:
May I submit. Sir, the case of delinquent children stands
absolutely on different footing and from destitute and abandoned children?
The
Honorable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar:
As I was saying entry 18, which deals with
education in List II, could be used by the State for the purpose of establishing special
kinds of schools for children including even abandoned children. Under entry 42, dealing
with the incorporation of societies and so on, it would be open to the State to register
societies for the purpose of looking after children or they may themselves start some kind
of corporation to do this.
Therefore,
if my friends contend that the statement, which I am making in all sincerity, that there
is every kind of provision which the State may make for the purpose of protecting children
under the entries which are included in List II, I think there is no purpose, in having a
separate entry dealing with the protection of children. As
I stated, protection of children cannot be a subject of legislation; it can be the object,
purpose of legislation.
Dr.
P. S. Deshmukh
: You have made provision for the protection of wild birds,
even!
The Honorable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar:
I
can quite see both of my Friends are very persistent in this matter. I would therefore
request them to withdraw their amendment on the assurance that the Drafting Committee in
the revising stage will go into the matter and if any such entry can be usefully put in
any of the Lists, they will consider that matter and bring a proposal before the House. At
this stage, I find it rather difficult to accept it because I have not had sufficient time
to devote myself to a full consideration of the subject
which is necessary before such an entry is introduced.
Mr. Vice-President: Does Dr. Deshmukh wish to press his amendment?
Dr.
P.
S. Deshmukh : I would like to request Dr. Ambedkar
at least to say that by the time my next amendment for in independent entry is reached, he
will be able to say something more favourable than he has been able to say now.
The
Honorable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar:
I will consider the whole matter.
[The
amendment was withdrawn. Entry 6 was added to the
Concurrent List.]
[f50]
The Honorable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar:
Sir, I move :
"
that for entry 15 of List 131, the following entry be substituted :—
The
words which I seek to omit are really unnecessary.
(The
motion was adopted. Entry 15 as amended was added to the Concurrent List.)
***
[f51]
The
Honorable Dr.B. R. Ambedkar:
Sir, I move :
"
That after entry 17 of List III, the following entry be inserted :—
'
17-A. Vocational and technical training of labour '."
[Entry 17-A as amended was added to
the Concurrent List.]
[f52]
The
Honorable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar:
Sir, I move:
"
That for entry 20, the following entry be submitted :
'
20. Drugs and poisons, subject to the provisions in entry 62 of List I with respect to
opium '." (Mr. Kamath did not move his amendment.)
(The
amendment was adopted.)
(Entry
20, as amended, was added to the Concurrent List.)
The
Honorable Dr. B. R.
Ambedkar:
Sir, I move :
"
That for entry 21 of List III, the following entry be substituted :—
'
21. Mechanically propelled vehicles including the
principles on which taxes on such vehicles are to be levied '."
(The
amendment was adopted.)
Entry
21, as amended, was added to the Concurrent List.
[f53]
The Honorable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar:
Sir, I move :
"
That after entry 25 of List III, the following new entry he inserted :—
'
25-A. Vital statistics including registration of births and deaths '."
[The
motion was adopted. Entry
25A was added to the Concurrent List.]
[f54]
The
Honorable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar:
Sir, I beg to move :
"
That for entry 26 of List III the following entry be substituted :—
'
26. Welfare of labour including conditions of work, provident funds, employers liability,
workmen's compensation, invalidity and old age pensions and maternity
benefits '."
[The
amendment was adopted. Entry 26, as amended, was added to the Concurrent List.]
***
[f55]
The Honorable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar:
Sir, I move :
"
That after entry 26 of List III, the following entry be inserted :—
'
26-A. Social insurance and social security '." (Entry
26-A was added to the Concurrent List.)
NEW
ENTRY 26-B
***
[f56]
The
Honorable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar:
Sir, may I explain? There seems to be a certain amount of confusion and misunderstanding about the entries in the List.
With regard to my Friend Dr. Deshmukh's amendment, he wants
welfare of peasants, farmers and agriculturists of all
sorts. Well, I would like to have some kind of a clear conception of what these omnibus
words, " agriculturists of all sorts " mean. Does he want that the State should also undertake
the Welfare of zamindars who pay Rs.
5 lakhs as land revenue?
Shri
R. K. Sidhva :
You can drop those words.
[f57]
The Honorable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar:
It will also include malguzars. Before I accept any entry,
I must have in my mind a clear and consistent idea as to what the words mean. The word " agriculturists "
has no precise meaning. It may mean a rack-renter. It may mean a person who is actually a cultivator. It may mean a person who has got two acres.
It may also mean a person who has five thousand acres, or
five lakhs acres.
Dr.
P.
S. Deshmukh : I am prepared to
omit that particular expression.
The
Honorable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar:
That is one difficulty I find. The second point is my Friend Dr. Deshmukh does not seem to
pay much attention to the different entries and what they mean. So far as agriculture is
concerned, we have got two specific entries in List
II—No. 21 which is Agriculture and No. 24 which is Land. If he were to refer to these
two entries he will find... [f58]
Dr. P. S. Deshmukh :
What fallacious arguments are being advanced ! For that
matter. Labour welfare is a specific entry and yet you
wanted separate provision for their vocational training? Do not advance fallacious
arguments.
The
Honorable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar:
It is not my business to answer questions relating to the faults of administrations. I am
only explaining what the entries mean. As I said, we have already got two entries in List
II. Entry 21 is there for Agriculture " including
agricultural education and research, protection against pests and prevention of plant
diseases ".
Dr. P. S. Deshmukh :
Then why do you want " welfare of labour "?
The
Honorable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar:
Why can't you have some patience? I know my job. Do you mean to say I do not know my job?
I certainly know my job.
Dr.
P.
S. Deshmukh : I know your attitude also. Do not try to fool
everybody!
The
Honorable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar:
There is already an entry which will empower any State to do any kind of welfare work not
merely with regard to agriculture but with regard to agriculturists as well. In addition
to that we have entry 24 where it is provided that laws may be made with regard to " rights in or over land, land tenures including the
relation of land-lord and tenant ". All the economic
interests of the peasants can be dealt with under this
entry. Therefore, so far as entries are concerned there is nothing that is wanting to
enable the Provincial Governments to act in the matter of welfare of agricultural classes.
Then
I come to the question raised by my Friend Mr. Sidhva
which, I think, is a very legitimate question. Hill question was what was the connotation
of the word " labour "
and he asked me a very definite question whether ' labour ' meant both
industrial as well as agricultural labour. I think that was his question. My answer is
emphatically that it includes both kind's of labour. The
entry is not intended to limit itself to industrial labour. Any kind of welfare work
relating to labour, whether the labour is industrial labour or agricultural labour, will
be open to be undertaken either by the Center or by the Province under entry 26.
Similarly,
conditions of work, provident funds, employers' liability workmen's
compensation, health insurance, including invalidity pensions—-all these
matters—would be open to all sorts of labour, whether it is industrial labour or
agricultural labour. Therefore, so far as this entry. No.
26, is concerned, it is in no sense limited to industrial
labour and therefore the kind of amendment which has been proposed by my Friend Dr. Deshmukh is absolutely unnecessary, besides its
being—what I might call—vague and indefinite, to
which no legal connotation can be given.
Dr.
P. S. Deshmukh
: Is there no class of
persons except agricultural labour in this country? Has Dr. Ambedkar
ever heard of a class called " farmers " and " peasants "?
The Honorable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar:
Their welfare will be attended to under entries 21 and 24 of the Provincial List, as I
have already explained.
[Dr.
P. S. Deshmukh''s amendment was negatived. Dr. Ambedkar's
amendment was adopted. Entry 27, as amended was added to
the Concurrent List.]
[f59]
The Honorable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar:
Sir, I move :
"
That for entry 27 of List III, the following entry be substituted :—
'
27. Employment and unemployment
' ".
The
amendment was adopted.
Entry
27, as amended, was added to the Concurrent List.
***
***
[f60]
Mr. Vice-President: I
will now put the question.
The
Honorable Dr. B. R.
Ambedkar: I
want to say a word. The words " trade union " with regard to welfare of labour have a very wide
connotation and may include trade unions not only of industrial organisations but may also
include trade unions of agricultural labour. That being so, I am rather doubtful whether
by introducing the word ' industrial ' here, we are not trying to limit the scope and meaning of
the term ' trade union '. But I am not moving any amendment. I would like to reserve an
opportunity to the Drafting Committee to examine the term and to consider this. I want the
entry to stand as it is now. I have expressed my doubt that
in view of the wide connotation of ' trade union ', a part of the entry may require
amendment.
Mr. Vice-President: Subject to what Dr. Ambedkar
says, I put entry 28 to vote. The question is :
"
That entry 28 stand part of List III.
(The
motion was adopted.)
Entry
28 was added to the Concurrent List.
[f61]
The
Honorable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: I
move :
"
That after entry 28 of List III, the following new entry be
inserted :—
'
28-A. Commercial and industrial monopolies, combines and trusts
'." The motion was adopted. Entry 28-A was added to
the Concurrent List.
[f62]
Mr.
Vice-President: As there is no amendment to entry 29, I will put it to vote. Entry 29
was added to the Concurrent List.
Dr.
P. S. Deshmukh
: Sir, a part of this
amendment of mine was very kindly accepted yesterday. But, so far as the wording is concerned, we have yet to decide it. When we were discussing .the State List, it was decided that we should transfer '
adulteration food ' to List III and therefore it would probably be relevant if we take up
the wording of this entry at this stage. At the same time I would like that the first
amendment of mine should also be accepted.
The Honorable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar:
May I draw attention to the fact that the introduction of
entry 29A has already been covered by entry 61 A in List I which has been passed by the
House in much wider terms? The words used are " goods " which will include agricultural products, etc.
Similarly 29B was accepted yesterday on the motion of Mr. Maitra
and it is now entry 20A in List III.
Dr.
P.
S. Deshmukh : I accept the first part of my friend's
suggestion. I do not move for additing 29A. But I am not
clear whether it is the mere transposition of the entry as it stood in List II that is
proposed?
The
Honorable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar:
It is transferred to Concurrent List as 20A. That was the motion passed by the House.
Dr. P. S. Deshmukh :
Would it not be better to enlarge its scope?
The
Honorable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar:
' Adulteration of food ' includes everything, I think.
Dr.
P. S. Deshmukh :
If that is so, I do not move this amendment.
Mr. Vice-President: Then I will put entries 30 and
31 to vote. Entries 30 and 31 were added to the Concurrent List.
[f63]
The Honorable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: I
move :
"That
after entry 31, the following new entry be inserted:—
'31-A.
Ports, subject to the provisions of List I with respect to major ports '."
[Motion
was adopted. Entry 31-A was added to the Concurrent List.]
[f64]
The
Honorable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: I move :
"
That entry 32 of List III be deleted." This has been
transferred to List 1. Entry 32 was deleted from the Concurrent List.
[f65]
The
Honorable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: I
move :
"
That entry 33 of List m be deleted."
As
I said, this also has been transferred to List 1.
Entry
33 was deleted from the Concurrent List.
ENTRIES
33A and 33B
[f66] The Honorable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar:
Sir, I move :
"
That after entry 33 of List III, the following new entries be inserted :—
'
33A. Custody, management and disposal of property (including agricultural land) declared
by law to be evacuee property.
33B.
Relief and rehabilitation of persons displaced from their original place of residence by
reason of the setting up of the Dominions of India and Pakistan.'
"
(Amendment
No. 296 was not moved.)
[Entries
33A and 33B were added to the Concurrent List.]
[f67]
Shri
Brajeshwar Prasad:
...Sir, there is another aspect of the question to which I
would like to draw the attention of the House. Entry 34 reads thus:
"
Economic and social planning."
What
about political planning?
Some Honorable Member :
It will be too disastrous.
The
Honorable dr. B. R. Ambedkar:
It can be done by way of amendment of the Constitution.
***
[f68]
The
Honorable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar:
Sir, I am very sorry but I cannot accept this amendment moved by Shrimati Purnima Banerji. The introduction
of the word " education "
seems to me to be quite unnecesary. The word " social " is quite
big enough to include anything that relates to society as a whole
except, of course, religious planning, and a contradiction
would be only between ' social '
and ' religious '. What the State would not be entitled to plan would be ' religions '; everything else would be open to the State.
With
regard to the observations of my Honorable Friend Shri Rohini Kumar Chaudhuri, I think
he will realize that this entry finds a place in the Concurrent List and the State also
would have the freedom to do its own planning in its own way. It is only when the Center begins to
have a plan and if that plan conflicts with the plan
prepared by the State that the plan prepared by the State will have to give way and this
is in no sense an encroachment upon the planning power of the State and therefore, this
entry, I submit, should stand in the language in which it stands now.
Mr. Vice-President: The question is :
"
That for entry 34 of List III, the following be substituted :—•
'
34. Economic, educational and social planning '." The
amendment was negatived.
[Entry 34 was added to the Concurrent List.]
ENTRY
34-A
[f69]
The Honorable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar:
Sir, I move :
"
That after entry 34 of List III. the following new entry be inserted :—
'
34A. Archaeological sites and remains.' This would be
Concurrent.
[Entry
34A was added to the Concurrent List.]
[f70]
The
Honorable dr. B. R. Ambedkar:
Sir, I move :
"
That for entry 35 of List III, the following entry be
substituted :—
'
35. The principles on which compensation for property acquired or requisitioned for the
purposes of the Union or of a State or for any other public purpose is to be determined
and the form and the manner in which such compensation is to be given.' "
(The
amendment was adopted)
Entry
35, as amended was, added to the concurrent List.
ENTRY
35-A
[f71]
The
Honorable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar:
Sir, I move:
"
That after entry 35 of List III, the following new entry be
inserted :—
'
35A. Trade and commerce in and the production, supply and distribution of the products of
industries where the control of such industries by the Union is declared by Parliament by law to be expedient in the public interest.'
(The
motion was adopted.)
Entry
35A was added to the Concurrent List.
[f72]
The
Honorable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar:
Sir, I move :
"
That for entry 36 of List III, the following entry be substituted :—
'
36. Industries and statistics for the purposes of any of the matters specified in list II or List III.'
Mr. President: There is no amendment.
[Entry
36 was added to the Concurrent List.]
NEW
ENTRY
[f73]
Mr. President:
There is new entry proposed by Pandit Govind Ballabh Pant.
(Amendment
No. 144 was not moved)
[f74]
Dr.
P. S. Deshmukh :
Sir, I move:
"
That the following new entry be added in List III :—
'
Protection of children and youth from exploitation and
abandonment, vide article of (vi).' "
Sir,
I had moved similar amendments on two occasions...
The
Honorable Dr. B. R.
Ambedkar:
This amendment was considered along with other amendments
and I gave a reply telling my friend that this matter will
be considered by the Drafting Committee. He was then
agreeable.
Dr.
P. S. Deshmukh
: My only submission is that the wording may be altered as
the Drafting Committee may decide but provisionally the entry may be accepted as proposed
by me. It should not merely be left to be considered by the Drafting Committee. Any
wording that may be suitable may be put in; but there should be an entry which refers to
the protection of children and youth from exploitation and
abandonment. I hope Dr. Ambedkar will kindly accept this.
The
Honorable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar:
I have told my friend that if I find that the purpose which he has in mind is not covered
by any of the other entries, I will do my best to introduce some such entry. I have given
him that assurance.
Dr. P. S. Deshmukh :
This is a question to which I and at least some Members of
the House attach very considerable importance. . ..I hope. Sir, no damage will
be done if we have an entry like the one I have proposed in the case of children.
The
Honorable dr. B. R. Ambedkar:
I will give my best consideration to the matter. I am in entire
sympathy with its object. What more can I say?
***
[f75]
Mr.
Naziruddin Ahmad :
One speaker has just now given out that prostitution should be entirely prohibited...
The
Honorable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar:
Is this a question which we need debate? The only question is whether there is power with
the State or with the Center or should it be Concurrent.
How the power is to be exercised whether to permit partially or prohibit completely is a
matter for each Legislature, which we must leave to the legislature.
Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad :
My submission is that it is relevant. The amendment provides for "regulation and
control of prostitution."...
Shri
V. I. Muniswamy Pillay
(Madras : General) : I wish
to speak, Sir.
Mr. President: Closure has been moved. The
question is :
"
That the question be now put ".
The
motion was adopted.
The
Honorable Dr. B. R.
Ambedkar:
Sir, there is enough power given to the State under these entries to regulate these
matters, namely, either for dealing with public houses or having some large-scale farming.
If my Friend, Dr. Deshmukh were to refer to List II, entry
I, which deals with public order, and entry 4 which deals with police and the Concurrent
entry which deals with criminal law, he will find that there is more than enough power
given to regulate these matters. If he were to refer to entry 24 dealing with land, entry
21 dealing with agriculture in the State List, he will find that there is more than enough
power in the States to have state farms or whatever they like.
Therefore,
the only question that remains, is this, whether this subject relating to the creation of
farms and the regulation of public houses should be in the Concurrent List. In my
judgement, the criterion to decide whether this matter should be in the Concurrent List or
in the State List is whether these matters are of all-India concern or of purely local concern.
In my judgement prostitution, the regulation of public houses, and creation of farms are
matters of local concern and it is therefore better to leave them to be dealt with by the
States. They have got more than enough power for that. I do not know how the Center can do
the job. The Center has not got any agricultural land. If the Center wants to establish a
farm, the Center has to acquire the property from the farmers. The same thing could be
done by the State. I do not see what purpose would be served by having these entries in
the Concurrent List; and it must also be remembered that
our States which we call States are far bigger than many States in Europe.
Shrimati
G. Durgabai:
Will Dr. Ambedkar make one point clear? The entry speaks of
regulation or prohibition of prostitution. I do not understand the meaning of " regulation " here,
and I think it should be complete prohibition.
The
Honorable Dr. B. R.
Ambedkar:
The States can regulate them and also prohibit them. The States can do it.
(All
amendments were negatived)
NEW
ENTRY 88-A
[f76]
The Honorable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar:
I am prepared to accept the amendment moved by the 58
gentlemen.
Shri
Mahavir Tyagi :
May I inform you. Sir, that a large .section of the House would like the deletion of the entry and
so you might kindly agree to hold over the item for further consideration of the Drafting Committee?
The
Honorable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar:
Sir, if the mover of this amendment cares to move it. I am prepared to accept it.
Shri
Ramnath Goenka (Madras
: general) : Sir, the other
day, you requested Dr. Ambedkar to be ready with his alternative proposal.
The
Honorable dr. B. R. Ambedkar:
He did not say anything of that kind.
Shri
Ramnath Goenka:
This item will take some time. Sir.
The
Honorable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar:
Sir, the amendment is here.
Shri
Ramnath Goenka:
What I suggest is that we could get in touch with the Drafting Committee and come to a formula acceptable to all.
The
Honorable dr. B. R. Ambedkar:
This is a formula which you have proposed.
Shri
Ramnath Goenka:
We will have the benefit of consultation with you.
The
Honorable dr. B. R. Ambedkar:
Sir, I am prepared to accept entry 88A if they move it.
Shri
S. Nagappa:
It has been moved.
The
Honorable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar:
It has not been moved yet. That was entry 88A in List I—not in the State List.
Objection was taken that it was not in order and it was not moved. Therefore, if Mr.
Goenka wishes to move it...[f77]
Shri Deshbandhu Gupta:
Sir, I formally move that the matter be held over.
The
Honorable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar:
Why? We tried to finish the whole list. That is why we
hurried up, not allowing many Members to speak to the extent they used to. Now that we have got a clear-cut
amendment signed by many people I do not see why it should be held over.
Shri
Deshbandhu Gupta:
It is not in a clear-cut form as Dr. Ambedkar himself saw
something objectionable in the draft and was prepared to help as with a better draft.
Mr.
President:
As I understood Dr. Ambedkar the other day, the only
question was whether it should be in List I or List II. He said the question of policy had
to be decided.
The Honorable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar:
If you want to put it in List I, I am prepared to accept
it.
The
President:
So far as the particular place where this entry will go, that is to be left to the
Drafting Committee.
The Honorable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar:
The whole trouble is this. This entry was originally in
List II. There objection was that it would not be in List II but it should be in this form in List 1. I am prepared to accept that if they want it.
***
[f78]
Shri Deshbandhu Gupta:
Sir, on a point of information, may I inquire as to what will happen to entry No. 58 in
the second List which was held over yesterday?
Mr.
President:
It would go.
Shri
Deshbandhu Gupta:
It was held over yesterday because these two go together.
Mr. President: It was held over because there was
an amendment which wanted to transfer this to List II. If it is passed in List I then that amendment will be out of order.
Shri
Deshbandhu Gupta:
There are two amendments. There is one that this may be transferred to List I and there is
another defining the scope of entry 58. The amendment was held over yesterday becuase this matter was not before the House at that time.
They must go together.
The Honorable dr. B. R. Ambedkar:
I
am not bound to accept it. They do not go together. I refuse to accept that.
Mr.
President:
There was an amendment. No. 122, consideration of which was
held over because of this amendment. If the amendment which
has been just moved is accepted then in that case amendment No. 122 becomes out of order,
and the only proposition before the House will be Dr. Ambedkar's
proposition namely amendment No. 121.
Shri
Ramnath Goenka:
Will there not be a consequential amendment in List II? In
the State List certain powers are given to the Slate for taxes on sale as well as on
advertisement. If this is transferred to List I, then the consequential amendment of which
we have given notice...
Mr.
President:
The notice is that it be included in List 1. If it is taken in List I then it goes out.
Shri Ramnath Goenka :
But the exception will have to be provided for in List II in the entry; sale of goods
excepting newspapers.
Mr.
President:
It is not necessary.
The Honorable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar:
It is not a consequential amendment at all. Both the amendments are quite independent. One
amendment is that the entry should be expanded by the addition of a new entry to be called 88-A. Then there is another
amendment which is amendment to my amendment to entry 58 in
List II dealing with sales tax. That amendment says that the word " goods " should be
so qualified as to exclude newspapers. That will be dealt
with on its own merits. The immediate question we have to
deal with is whether List I is to be expanded, by the addition of entry 88-A in terms as moved here.
Shri
Ramnath Goenka:
The position is this. We have proposed an entry in List I
that taxes on newspapers including advertisements therein, should be transferred to List I and that the Provinces should not have the
authority to levy and taxes on newspapers. Therefore the amendment No. 57 is a
consequential amendment to the amendment No. 122 in entry
58 in List II. So both these amendments will have to be taken together. Yesterday when
this question of entry 58 in List II came before us, you put it off until you gave a
ruling and said a decision could be taken together on these
entries.
The
Honorable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar:
Take them one by one. Let both the amendments be put one after the other.
Shri
Ramnath Goenka:
May I suggest. Sir, that we put entry 58 in List II first
and then 88-A?
The Honorable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar:
You can have it in any way you like, but I want to tell you that voting in a particular
manner on the second amendment would be inconsistent with voting on the first in another
manner. It will be open to the House to accept the one and reject the other.
Shri
Ramnath Goenka:
I would like to have your ruling on this matter. If you transfer the taxes on newspapers
to List I then it cannot have any place in List II also. If
it has a place in List I then it necessarily goes out from List II.
The Honorable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar:
It will go out of List II only so far as taxes are concerned. But so far as the sale of
goods is concerned it would remain. You want to get that out also? Your object, if I understand, is two fold,
namely, that the newspapers should not be liable to any duty and should not be liable to
any tax under the Sales Tax Act also. I am not prepared to give you both the advantages,
to be quite frank.
Shri
Ramnath Goenka :
May I request you. Sir, to hold this matter over till Monday morning
so that we can put our heads together and come to you, because whatever the interpretation, what is said, is the object of our
amendment. If that object is not carried we will have to put in other amendments. But that
is our intention. We are only laymen and we will be guided
by Dr. Ambedkar. The entire taxation should be taken away
from the Provinces to the Center. If that purpose is not being carried out I am afraid
some other amendment will have to be moved which will have the effect of carrying out our intentions. These are our intentions.
Mr.
President:
Dr. Ambedkar, will you object if the matter is held over?
The Honorable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar:
I
will be quite frank about it. I have a mandate to accept entry 88A.
I am prepared to follow that mandate and accept entry 88A. I have no .such mandate with regard to the other thing (amendment No.
122). I am sure that it will be difficult to accept it. To have a complete exemption from
any kind of taxation on newspapers is to me an impossible proposition.
Shri
Ramnath Goenka:
It is not so. I want taxation to be left to the Center and
not the Provinces. If I may tell Dr. Ambedkar, the mandate
was that it should be taken away from the Provinces.
The Honorable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar:
You are not to interpret the mandate for me. I know what it is. It is quite clear to me.
Shri Ramnath Goenka :
As it is, I am interpreting it to you. (Interruption).
Shri Deshbandhu Gupta:
Since Dr. Ambedkar has referred to the mandate I may make
it clear that when this question was taken up with the authority which gave the mandate,
it was absolutely clear that the two amendments went together. We wanted this tax to
remain a Central tax and not a Central as well as a provincial tax.
The Honorable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: It is not right to
refer here to matters discussed elsewhere. But, as I said, I am quite prepared .to abide by that
mandate. The other matter was brought in surreptitiously by our friends after they heard
what I said in another place as to what a mess they had made by bringing in this
amendment.
Shri
Ramnath Goenka: As Dr.
Ambedkar suggests that we have made a mess we want a way out of the mess.
(Interruption)
Mr. President: I find
there is a much feeling in the matter. So we had better take it up on some other day when
the feelings are a bit cooler....
[f79] Mr. President: We will
take up the Fifth Schedule.
The Honorable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: (Bombay :
General) :
Sir, I move::
That for the Fifth Schedule, the following Schedule be substituted:—
[f1]CAD,
Vol. IX, 1st September 1949, p. 833.
[f2]Ibid.,
p. 835.
[f3]Ibid.,
p. 836.
[f4]CAD,
Vol. IX, 1st September 1949, p. 837.
[f5]Ibid..
p. 838.
[f6]Ibid.,
p. 839.
[f7]CAD,
Vol. IX, 1st September 1949, p. 840.
[f9]CAD,
Vol. IX, 1st September 1949, pp. 843-844.
[f10]AD,
Vol. IX, 1st September 1949. p. 845.
[f11]Ibid.,
pp. 848-851.
[f12]CAD,
Vol. IX, 1st September 1949, p. 853.
[f13]CAD,
Vol. IX, 1st September 1949, p. 854.
[f14]Ibid,
pp. 856-857.
[f15]CAD,
Vol. IX. 1st September 1949, p. 859.
[f16]CAD,
Vol. IX, 1st September 1949, pp. 860-861.
[f17]Ibid.,
p. 863.
[f18]Ibid,
p. 865.
[f19]CAD,
Vol. IX, 1st September 1949, p. 866.
[f20]lbid.,
pp. 867-868.
[f21]CAD,
Vol. IX, 1st September 1949, p. 869.
[f22]Ibid.,
pp. 869-870.
[f23]Ibid..
p. 871.
[f24]CAD.
Vol. IX, 1st September 1949, p. 871.
[f25]Ibid.,
pp. 873-874.
[f26]CAD,
Vol. IX, 1st September 1949, pp. 874-875.
[f27]Ibid.,
p. 875.
[f28]CAD,
Vol. IX, 2nd September 1949, p. 880.
[f29]Ibid..
p. 881.
[f30]Ibid
p. 914.
[f31]Ibid.,
pp. 917-918.
[f32]CAD,
Vol. IX, 2nd September 1949, p. 918.
[f33]Ibid.,
p. 919.
[f34]CAD,
Vol. IX, 2nd September 1949, p. 920.
[f35]Ibid.,
p. 920.
[f36]lbid.,
p. 922.
[f37]CAD,
Vol. IX, 2nd September 1949, p. 923.
[f38]Ibid..
p. 923.
[f39]Ibid..
p. 923.
[f40]Ibid.,
p. 924.
[f41]CAD.
Vol. IX, 2nd September 1949, p. 924.
[f42]Ibid.,
p. 925.
[f43]CAD,
Vol. IX, 2nd September 1949, p. 926.
[f44]lbid.,
p. 926.
[f45]Ibid.,
3rd September 1949, pp. 929-930.
[f46]CAD,
Vol. IX, 3rd September 1949, p. 831.
[f47]bid.,
p. 931.
[f48]CAD,
Vol. IX, 3rd September 1949, p. 931.
[f49]Ibid..
pp. 935-936.
[f50]CAD,
Vol. IX, 3rd September 1949, p. 937.
[f51]lbid.,
p. 939.
[f52]Ibid.,
p. 939.
[f53]CAD,
Vol. IX, 3rd September 1949, p. 940.
[f54]lbid.,
p. 940.
[f55]lbid.,
p. 940.
[f56]lbid.,
p. 944.
[f57]CAD,
Vol. IX; 3rd September 1949, pp. 944-946.
[f58]Dots
indicate interruption in original.
[f59]CAD,
Vol. IX, 3rd September 1949, p. 946.
[f60]CAD.
Vol. IX, 3rd September 1949, p. 947.
[f61]lbid..
p. 947.
[f62]Ibid.,
p. 948.
[f63]CAD,
Vol. IX, 3rd September 1949, p. 948.
[f64]Ibid.,
p. 949.
[f65]Ibid.,
p. 949.
[f66]CAD,
Vol. IX, 3rd September 1949, p. 949.
[f67]lbid.,
p. 950.
[f68]Ibid.,
p. 952.
[f69]CAD,
Vol. IX, 3rd September 1949, p. 952.
[f70]Ibid.,
p. 953.
[f71]Ibid.,
p. 953.
[f72]Ibid.,
p. 953
[f73]CAD,
Vol. IX, 3rd September 1949, p.954.
[f74]Ibid.,
p. 954.
[f75]Ibid,
pp. 957-958.
[f76]CAD,
Vol. IX, 3rd September 1949, p. 960-963.
[f77]Dots
indicate interruption.
[f78]Dots
indicate interruption.
[f79]CAD,
Vol. IX, 5th September 1949, pp. 965-967.