Vol. 13 · pages 1066–1070

1033DRAFT CONSTITUTION *The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : As regards (b), I would just like to make one point. We are proposing to drop from the Constitution two Parts which we had originally proposed in which certain communities had been enumerated as Scheduled Castes and certain communities as Scheduled Tribes. We thought that was cumbering the Constitution too much and that this could be left to be done by the President by order. That is our present proposal. It seems to me that, in that event, it will be necessary to transfer the definition clauses of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes to some other part of the Constitution and make provision for them in a specific article itself, saying that the President shall define who are the Scheduled Castes and who are the Scheduled Tribes. Now it seems to me that the question has been raised with regard to article 296 and 299 which have been held over. It may be that the definition of ‘Anglo-Indian’ and ‘Indian Christian’ which is referred to in (b) and (c) may have to be reconsidered along with that proposition. I request you to hold them over for the present. Shri V. I. Muniswami Pillai (Madras : General) : The whole thing regarding the Scheduled Castes, etc. may be held over. Mr. President : I take it that the House agrees to hold over the consideration of items (b) and (c). [Sub-clauses (b) and (c) were held over.] Mr. President : There are no amendments to item (d). The question is : “That sub-clause (d) be adopted.” The motion was adopted. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Sir, I move : “That sub-clause (e) of clause (1) of article 303 be deleted.” Mr. President : There is no Chief Judge now. There used to be subordinate High Courts which were called Chief Courts and they used to have Chief Judges. ***** The amendment was adopted. Sub-clause (e) of clause (1) was deleted from article 303. (Amendment No. 3219 was not moved.) Mr. President : Then (f). There is no amendment to this. The question is : “That sub-clause (f) of clause (1) stand part of article 303.” The motion was adopted. *CAD, Vol. IX, 16th September 1949, pp. 1583.-1584.

1034 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Sir, I move : “That for sub-clauses (g) of clause (1) of article 303 the following sub-clause be substituted, namely :— ‘(g) ‘corresponding Province’, ‘corresponding Indian State’ or ‘corresponding State’ means in cases of doubt such Province, Indian State or State as may be determined by the President to be the corresponding Province, the corresponding Indian State or the corresponding State, as the case may be, for the particular purpose in question;’ ” We have only included Indian States. Shri H. V. Kamath : Are we still going to retain the distinction between ‘State’ and ‘Indian State’? The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : The distinction in this : A State now means a constituent part of the Union. An Indian State means a State which is outside the Union but under the paramountey or control of the Union. Shri R. K. Sidhva : Is the Cutch State which is now administered by the Centre an ‘Indian State’? So also Bhopal? The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : An Indian State is defined at a later stage. Mr. President : There is a definition of an Indian State given later on in amendment No. 140. Shri T. T. Krishnamachari : There seems to be some confusion in the minds of Members. The terms “corresponding province” and “corresponding Indian State” these are terms pertaining to the period before the commencement of the Constitution. The term “corresponding State” comes into existence after the commencement of the Constitution. The difference between the two is only this. I hope there will now be no confusion on this matter. [Amendment of Dr. Ambedkar was adopted. Sub-clause (g), of clause (1), as amended was added to article 303.] Mr. President : Then (h). There is no amendment to this. [Sub-clause (h) of clause (1) was added to article 303.] *The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Sir, I move : “That in sub-clause (i) of clause (1) of article 303, the words ‘but does not include any Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom or any Order in Council made under any such Act’ be omitted.” Such Acts as the Merchant Shipping Act might have to be retained until Parliament otherwise provides. Shri H. V. Kamath : With regard to this (i), there is evidently a slight lacuna. It speaks of laws and bye-laws. But only ‘rule’ is mentioned. Why not ‘bye-rule’ as well ? The Honourable Shri K. Santhanam : I have got an amendment to this... The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Whether a law is in force or not would depend upon various considerations. First of all, the merger itself may have provided that certain laws shall not be in operation. It may *CAD, Vol. IX, 16th September 1949, p. 1585-1586.

1035DRAFT CONSTITUTION be that the Bombay Government after that territory has been merged, may retain the laws for that particular territory known as Baroda, or its own legislation might abrogate it. Therefore any existing law means the law that is in force at the date of commencement of the Constitution. The Honourable Shri K. Santhanam : I do not press my amendment. [Above amendment of Dr. Ambedkar was adopted. Sub-clause (i) of clause (1), as amended, was added to article 303.] Mr. President : Then (j). There is no amendment to this. The question ist : “That sub-clause (j) of clause (1), stand part of article 303.” (The motion was adopted) Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Sir, I move : “That after sub-clause (j) of clause (1) of article 303, the following sub-clause be inserted : — ‘(jj)’ ‘foreign State’ means any State other than India but does not include a State notified in this behalf by the President.’ ” The Honourable Shri K. Santhanam : Would Dr. Ambedkar kindly explain what is meant by the latter portion of this sub-clause (jj)? Will he give an illustration of that ? ***** *The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Sir, the position is this : If one were to stop with the word “India”, it means what a Foreign State ordinarily means. Every State is foreign to another State. That is quite clear from the first part of the definition. Therefore, there can be no quarrel with that part of the definition. In fact that definition may not be necessary even, but in view of the fact that we have used the words “Foreign State” in some part of our Constitution and in view of the fact that it may be necessary for certain purposes to declare that a Foreign State, although it is a Foreign State in the terminological sense of the word, is not a Foreign State for certain purposes, it is necessary to have this definition and to give the power to the President to declare that for certain purposes a State of that kind will not be a Foreign State. The case of Malaya, I understand, is very much in point. Therefore, it really means that for certain purposes the President may declare that although a State is a Foreign State in the sense that it is outside India, for certain purposes will not be treated as a Foreign State. It is for that purpose that this definition is sought to be introduced. The Honourable Shri K. Santhanam : This sub-clause does not authorize the President to notify for certain purposes. It gives a definition. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : That will, of course be remembered duly by the President when he issues the notification. [The amendment of Dr. Ambedkar as shown above was adopted.] *CAD, Vol. IX, 16th September 1949, p. 1586.

SECTION SEVEN 17th September 1949 to 16th November 1949.