Vol. 13 · pages 1171–1175

the principle embodied in articles 280-A(5) and 306-B in the new article 365 it is with regard to some of the articles in which this fact was not positively stated. My submission is that when the Constitution does say that with respect to certain articles where the power to issue directions is given, the president shall be entitled or it shall be lawful for the President to deem that there has been a failure to carry on the Government in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution, it seems difficult to justify that certain other articles in which also the power to issue directions has been given should have been omitted from the purview of article 365. The object of article 365 is to make the thing complete and to extend the express provision contained in article 280-A and article 306-B which have been passed by the House already. Therefore, I submit that there is no innovation of any kind at all. It merely makes good the omission which had taken place with regard to some of the article which are, I submit, on the same footing as article 280-A, clause (5) and 306-B. Pandit Hirday Nath Kunzru : May I point out the reference by Dr. Ambedkar to article 280-A and 306-B in the Draft Constitution as amended by the Constituent Assembly is not to the point ? Article 280-A refers only to financial emergencies. The power conferred on the President under that article can be exercised only when he has declared that the financial stability or credit of India or any part thereof is threatened. The scope of that article therefore is very limited. There is another article in the Constitution which enables the President to issue a proclamation of emergency. Such a proclamation can be issued only when India is threatened by war or internal disturbances. But, these articles do not justify the extension of the power that the Central Executive may exercise in certain emergencies to all cases. Article 306-B is definitely limited to the case of State mentioned in Part B of the First Schedule. Such a provision was not made in the Constitution in refererence to States mentioned in Part A of the First Schedule. Dr. Ambedkar has himself admitted that he has extended the provisions of article 306-B and article 280-A. He has generalised them and brought even the States mentioned in Part A of the First Schedule under the wider exercise of the powers of the Central Executive referred to in articles 306-B and 280-A. I submit, Sir, that the analogy is unjustified and, in any case, incomplete. Whatever the Assembly may have done in the case of States mentioned in Part B of the First Schedule, it does not follow from this that the same provisions must be extended to the States mentioned in Part A of the first Schedule. I submit, therefore, that the language of article 365 goes beyond the 1138 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

express decisions of the Constituent Assembly. A certain difference has to be maintained between the States mentioned in Part A of the First Schedule and part B of the First Schedule. The difference cannot be obliterated simply because the Drafting Committee desires that they should be removed. Pandit Balkrishna Sharma (United Provinces : General) : May I offer some remarks ? Mr. President : On the point of order ? Pandit Balkrishna Sharma : Yes, Sir. Mr. President : Dr. Ambedkar has already replied. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : I would like to draw your attention that even in the present Government of India Act there is a provision to the same effect contained in section 126, which empowers the Governor-General to give directions to the provinces and if it appears to the Governor-General that effect has not been given to any such directions he can in his discretion issue orders to the Governor who was to act in his discretion in the matter of carrying out the directions given by the Governor-General. This provision, if I may say so, is very necessary because we all know—those of us who were Ministers during the time of the war—how these mere powers of giving directions turned out to be infructuous when the Punjab Government would not carry out the food policy of the Government of India. The whole Government can be brought to a standstill by a province not carrying out the directions and the Government of India not having any power to enforce those directions. This is a very important matter and I submit that the change made is not only consequential but very necessary for the very stability of the Government. ***** *Pandit Hirday Nath Kunzru : ...I should like Sir, to refer to one more point before I sit down. The Drafting Committee has referred to a number of articles in this Constitution in justfication of the language of article 365. Now, one of the articles so referred to this article 371 which corresponds to the old article 306-B. Had that article been omitted, then there might have been some justification for article 365, but article 306-B has not been omitted from this Constitution. It figures as article 371 but I have not been able to compare the languages of article 371 in the Constitution as revised by the Drafting Committee and article 306-B in the Constitution as amended by the Constituent Assembly last month.... *CAD, Official Report, Vol. X, 15th November 1949, p. 519. 1139DRAFT CONSTITUTION

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Before my honourable Friend proceeds further, I would like to point out that the words “and any failure to comply with such directions shall be deemed to be a failure to carry on the Government of the State in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution” have been omitted from article 371 which corresponds to the original article 306-B. Pandit Hirday Nath Kunzru : Then I stand corrected in that respect. If article 365 is deleted as proposed by my honourable Friend, Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava, then the Drafting Committee can revert to the old draft of article 306-B. Apart from this, Sir, since this question has been referred to by Dr. Ambedkar, I should like to point out that article 306-B in the Constitution as amended by the Constituent Assembly, which corresponds to article 371 in the present Draft of the Constitution that we are discussing now, is of limited duration. It will remain in operation for ten years only, and this provision cannot be referred to as a justification for introducing a new provision in the Constitution that will be permanent. Sir, I was referring to articles 353 and 360 when my honourable Friend, Dr. Ambedkar, pointed out to me the change that had been made in the draft of article 306-B. Shri H. V. Kamath : May I point out that article 371 provides for a period longer than ten years also ? The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : “Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution ‘during a period of ten years from the commencement thereof, or during such longer or shorter period as Parliament may be law provide...” etc.‡ ***** *Shri Mahavir Tyagi : Sir, I hope President means the President of the Constituent Assembly, and not the ‘Governmental President’. Mr. President: There is no other President except the President of the Union. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : I propose to explain this matter in my reply. Mr. Sidhva may conclude his remarks. ***** †The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Sir, I move : “That in sub-clause (b) of clause (1) of article 72, for the words ‘offence under any law’ the words ‘offence against any law’ be substituted.” ***** *CAD, Official Report, Vol. X, 15th November 1949, p. 525. †Ibid., p. 536. ‡Dots indicate interruption. 1140 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

*Shri R. K. Sidhva : If we get an answer to any doubts it will be helpful. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Sir, If my friend Mr. Sidhva were to refer to clause (12) of article 366 in the draft as revised by the Drafting Committee, he will notice that there is really nothing new in sub-clause ( 3) of article 367 which is the subject-matter of amendment No. 562-A. Article 366 is a definition article and clause (12) there attempts to define what a foreign State is within the meaning of the Constitution. It was felt that clause (12) of article 366 as passed by the Assembly was rather cryptic and too succinct and that it was desirable to give it a more elaborate shape and form. Consequently the Drafting Committee thought that the best way would be to delete clause (12) of article 366. This is done by amendment No. 497 and it is sought to be replaced now by the present amendment No. 562-A. In the draft as presented to the House with the report the main provision was that it was open to the President to declare by an order that a certain country was not a foreign State so far as India was concerned. The main part of clause (3) of article 367 is just the same. The only thing that has been added is that Parliament may legislate on this subject and, while legislating, endow the President with power to proclaim by an order what country is not a foreign State. It was further felt by the Drafting Committee that it was not desirable to confer this power in such rigid terms as would follow from the proviso if the words “for such purposes as may be specified in the order” were not there. The President and Parliament may then be confronted with two inescapable alternatives, either to say that a foreign country was a foreign State or to say that a certain country was not a foreign State with the result that the subjects of the country which is declared not to be a foreign State would become automatically citizens of India and be entitled to all the rights which the citizens of India are entitled to under this Constitution. It may be in the interests of this country that, while it might be desirable to recognize a certain foreign country as not a foreign State, it should be limited to such purposes as may be specified in the order so that while making the order the President would have his position made perfectly elastic enabling him to say that while we declare that a certain country is not a foreign State the subjects of that foreign State will be entitled only to certain rights and privileges which are conferred upon the citizens of India and not to all. It is for that purpose and in order to make a *CAD, Official Report, Vol. X, 15th November 1949, pp. 550-551. 1141DRAFT CONSTITUTION

provision for those other matters that we thought it desirable to transpose clause (12) of article 366 and bring it as clause (3) of article 367. ***** *Mr. President : Pandit Bhargava has suggested that there is still time between now and the 25th for the Members to come to an agreement on this question. If it is agreed to by them, that can be done. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : (Bombay: General) : I think the difficulty could be easily got over if this assembly before it closes its session on the 26th November could pass an Act amending the Government of India Act, 1935, section 290, permitting the Governor-General among other things which he is empowered to do to change also the name of a Province so that the President can act under article 391 and amend the schedule in order to carry out the action that has been taken by the Governor-General under the Government of India Act, as proposed. This matter cannot take more than a few minutes. It would be possible for the Drafting Committee or the Home Department to bring before this Assembly a Bill to amend the Government of India Act 1935, section 290. Such a Bill could be passed before the 26th January. The Honourable Shri K. Santhanam : Our difficulty is not objection to changing the name but only to ‘Aryavarta’. Similarly we cannot allow the Governor-General also to change the name to ‘Aryavarta’. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : It cannot be Aryavarta as the party has given its verdict on that. I am sure Babu Purushotam Das Tandon has taken note of that. The Honourable Pandit Govind Ballabh Pant (United Provinces : General) : What you have rejected will not be put forward by the U.P. Government nor accepted by the Governor-General. That we all accept. Mr. President : Then nothing has to be done at present. The Honourable Pandit Govind Ballabh Pant : On the understanding that an amending Bill of the nature suggested by Dr. Ambedkar will be passed before we disperse. Mr. President : That is for Dr. Ambedkar to do. ***** †Mr. President : ...Now, we have finished all the amendments, and there is no time for any further general discussion. But as a matter of fact, we have discussed everything which came up and which required discussion. So I would request Dr. Ambedkar to reply to the debate on the various amendments. *CAD, Official Report, Vol. X, 16th November 1949, p. 574. †Ibid., pp. 575-582. 1142 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES