Vol. 13 · pages 1041–1045

1008 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES Consolidated Fund of the State cannot be made subject to any Appropriation Act. They will be left open to be drawn upon in such manner, for such purposes and at such times subject to such conditions as may be laid down by Parliament in that behalf specifically. It is, therefore, to enlarge the definition expressly of the Consolidated Fund and to separate the Consolidated Fund from other funds which go necessarily into the public account that these changes are made. There is no other purpose in these changes. The Finance Ministry drew attention to the fact that our provision in regard to the Appropriation Act was also made applicable to other moneys which generally went into the public account and that that was likely to create trouble. It is in order to remove these difficulties that these provisions are now introduced in the original article. [Motion was adopted. New article 263-A was added to the Constitution.] ABOLITION OF PRIVY COUNCIL JURISDICTION BILL *Mr. President : The first item on the Order Paper today is notice of a motion by Dr. Ambedkar to introduce a Bill to abolish the jurisdiction of His Majesty in Council. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : (Bombay : General) : Sir, I move for leave to introduce a Bill to abolish the jurisdiction of His Majesty in Council in respect of Indian appeals and petitions. Mr. President : The question is : “That leave be granted to introduce a Bill to abolish the jurisdiction of His Majesty in Council in respect of Indian appeals and petitions.” (The motion was adopted.) The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Sir, I introduce the Bill. ***** DRAFT CONSTITUTION NEW PART XIV-A—(contd.) †Mr. President : I think these are all the amendments. If I have left out any, the Member who has given notice of the amendments may point out otherwise they may be taken as withdrawn by leave of the Assembly. I shall now put the amendments moved by Mr. Munshi. But, there is an amendment by Mr. Tyagi to number the paragraphs. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : That is a matter we will look to later on. Shri Mahavir Tyagi : It has been accepted, Sir. *CAD, Vol. IX, 14th September 1949, p. 1425. †Ibid., p. 1485.

1009DRAFT CONSTITUTION ***** *Shri T. T. Krishnamachari : May I suggest, Sir, before adjourning the House, that you may put to vote articles 99 and 184 which this Chapter supersedes? The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : No; no. It is not in today’s Order Paper. Mr. President : This brings the proceedings of this evening to a close but before adjourning the House I desire just to say a few words of congratulation. I think we have adopted a Chapter for our Constitution which will have very far reaching consequences in building up the country as a whole. Never before in our history did we have one language recognised as the language of rule and administration in the country as a whole.... ***** NEW ARTICLE 112-B †The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : (Bombay : General) : Mr. President, Sir, I move : “That after article 112-A, the following new article be inserted : — ‘112-B. Until Parliament by law otherwise provides, the Supreme Court shall also have jurisdiction and powers with respect to matters other than those referred to in the foregoing provisions of this Chapter in relation to which jurisdiction and powers were exercisable by His Majesty in Council immediately before the commencement of this Constitution under any existing law’.” Sir, the position is this that according to the ruling of the Privy Council there is a distinction between civil matters and matters relating to Income-tax and, for instance, acquisition proceedings. It has been held that the proceedings relating to Income tax and to acquisition of property do not lie within the purview of what are called ‘civil proceedings.’ And it might therefore be held that unless a special provision was made the powers of the Supreme Court were confined to civil proceedings. In order to remove that doubt this article 112-B is now proposed to be introduced so as to give the Supreme Court full powers over all proceedings, including civil proceedings and other proceedings which are not of a civil nature. That is the reason why this article is sought to be introduced. ***** Jurisdiction and powers of His Majesty in Council under existing law in certain cases to be exercisable by the Supreme Court. *CAD, Vol. IX, 14th September 1949, p. 1489. †Ibid., 15th September 1949, p. 1493

1010 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES *Mr. President : Dr. Ambedkar, would you like to say anything? The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Sir, with regard to the amendment of my Friend, Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava, I do not think that that amendment is necessary if he is really enlarging the jurisdiction of the Court. The word “practice” is generally taken to cover matters of procedure, and article 112-B which I have proposed does not deal with procedure but deals with substantive matter of jurisdiction. Therefore his amendment “or practice” is unnecessary. With regard to the amendment of my Friend Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena, there are two points to which I would like to reply. The first is this, that if there is to be an appeal to the Supreme Court in matters of sentence of death passed by Courts-martial, then such a provision could be easily made by the Indian Army Act giving the accused person the right to appeal, and it has been provided, if I may draw my friend’s attention to clause (1) of article 114, that the Supreme Court shall have such further jurisdiction and power with respect to any matters in the Union List. It reads : — “114(1) The Supreme Court shall have such further jurisdiction and powers with respect to any of the matters in the Union List as Parliament may by law confer.” If Parliament thinks that such a power should be vested in the Supreme Court, there is no impediment in the way of Parliament making an appropriate provision in the Army Act conferring such a power on them. Again, I should like to draw attention to article 112 which deals with matters of special need. Under that it would be open to the Supreme Court to entertain an appeal against a Court-martial because therein the words used are— “any cause or matter made by any court or tribunal,” and therefore, the wording being so large, no Court or tribunal could escape from the special jurisdiction of the Supreme Court provided under article 112. Therefore, my submission is that his amendment is also quite unnecessary. With regard to the amendment of my friend Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad to omit the words “existing law”... Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : I have not moved that. Mr. President : He has not moved it, he has left it to the Drafting Committee. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : If he has left it to the Drafting Committee I am very glad, Sir. We shall certainly pay the best attention that his point deserves. *CAD, Vol. IX, 15th September 1949, pp. 1495-1496.

1011DRAFT CONSTITUTION Mr. President : Then I will put the amendments. Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena : In view of the assurances given, I would like to withdraw my amendments. Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava : I too am withdrawing my amendment, Sir. The amendments were, by leave of the Assembly, withdrawn. (Article 112B was added to the Constitution.) NEW ARTICLE 15A *Mr. President : Then we go back to New Article 15A. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Sir, I move : “That after article 15, the following article be inserted : — ‘15A. (1) No person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds for such arrest nor shall he be denied the right to consult a legal practitioner of his choice. (2) Every person who is arrested and detained in custody shall be produced before the nearest magistrate within a period of twenty-four hours of such arrest excluding the time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to the court of the magistrate and no such person shall be detained in custody beyond the said period without the authority of a magistrate. (3) Nothing in this article shall apply— (a) to any person who for the time being is an enemy alien; or (b) to any person who is arrested under any law providing for preventive detention : Provided that nothing in sub-clause (b) of clause (3) of this article shall permit the detention of a person for a longer period than three months unless— (a) an Advisory Board consisting of persons who are or have been or are qualified to be appointed as judges of a High Court has reported before the expiration of the said period of three months that there is in its opinion sufficient cause for such detention, or (b) such person is detained in accordance with the provisions of any law made by Parliament under clause (4) of this article. (4) Parliament may by law prescribe the circumstances under which and the class or classes of cases in which a person who is arrested under any law providing for preventive detention may be detained for a period longer than three months and also the maximum period for which any such person may be so detained’.” Sir, the House will recall that when at a previous session of this Assembly we were discussing article 15, there was a great deal of controversy on the issue as to whether the words should be “except according to procedure established by law”, or whether the words “due process” should be there in place of the words which now find a place Protection against certain arrests and detentions. *CAD, Vol. IX, 15th September 1949, pp. 1496-1498.

1012 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES in article 15. It was ultimately accepted that instead of the words “due process”, the words should be “according to procedure established by law”. I know that a large part of the House including myself were greatly dissatisfied with the wording of article 15. It will also be recalled that there is no part of our Draft Constitution which has been so violently criticised by the Public outside as article 15 because all that article 15 does is this, it only prevents the executive from making an arrest. All that is necessary is to have a law and the law need not be subject to any conditions or limitations. In other words, it was felt that while this matter was being included in the Chapter dealing with Fundamental Rights, we were giving a carte blanche to Parliament to make and provide for the arrest of any person under any circumstances as Parliament may think fit. We are therefore now, by introducing article 15A, making, if I may say so, compensation for what was done then in passing article 15. In other words, we are providing for the substance of the law of “due process” by the introduction of article 15A. Article 15A merely lifts from the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code two of the most fundamental principles which every civilised country follows as principles of international justice. It is quite true that these two provisions contained in clause (1) and clause (2) are already to be found in the Criminal Procedure Code and therefore probably it might be said that we are really not making any very fundamental change. But we are, as I contend, making a fundamental change because what we are doing by the introduction of article 15A is to put a limitation upon the authority both of Parliament as well as of the Provincial Legislature not to abrogate these two provisions, because they are now introduced in our Constitution itself. It is quite true that the enthusiasts for personal liberty are probably not content with the provisions of clauses (1) and (2). They probably want something more by way of further safeguards against the inroads of the executive and the legislature upon the personal liberty of the citizen. I personally think that while I sympathise with them that probably this article might have been expanded to include some further safeguards, I am quite satisfied that the provisions contained are sufficient against illegal or arbitrary arrests. As Members will see, the provisions contained in clauses (1) and (2) of article 15A are made subject to certain limitations which are set out in clause (3) which says that the provisions contained in clauses (1) and (2) of article 15A will not apply to any person who for the time being is