Vol. 13 · pages 401–405

Mr. Vice-President : There are three amendments. One is by Mr. Mahavir Tyagi. That is No. 71 in List II. If I read the situation aright, that has been practically withdrawn. Am I right, Mr. Tyagi ? Shri Mahavir Tyagi : I have not withdrawn my amendment. I have only accepted the words which Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena intends to add to my amendment. Mr. Vice-President : I want to know whether you want that your amendment should be put separately to the vote. Shri Mahavir Tyagi : Yes, Sir, of course. As I have said, I want to abolish liquor altogether. He wants to add the words “except for medical purposes”. Therefore my amendment is the original amendment. Mr. Vice-President : I understand the situation. I shall now put to the vole the amendment of Mr. Mahavir Tyagi as modified by Professor Shibban Lal Saksena and further modified by Dr. Ambedkar. Shri Mahavir Tyagi: On a point of order, Dr. Ambedkar has added the word “particular” but he has not taken my permission. Mr. Vice-President : I take your permission on behalf of Dr. Ambedkar. Shri Mahavir Tyagi : I accept his amendment also, Sir. Mr. Vice-President: This particular amendment as amended is now put to the vote. The amendment was adopted. [Article 38 as amended, was added to the Constitution.] ***** ARTICLE 38-A. *Pandit Thakur Dass Bhargava (East Punjab : General) : †[Mr. President, the words of the amendment No. 72 which I am moving in place of amendment No. .1002, are as follows :— “That for amendment No. 1002 of the lists of amendments to 38-A the following he substituted :— “38-A. The State shall endeavour to organise agriculture and animal husbandry on modem and scientific lines and shall in particular take steps for preserving and improving the breeds of cattle and prohibit the slaughter of cow and other useful cattle, specially milch and draught cattle and their young stock At the very outset I would like to submit that this amendment... Shri S. Nagappa : (Madras : General) : Sir, on a point of order, my Honourable friend, who can speak freely in English, is deliberately *CAD, Vol. VII, 24th November 1948, p. 568. † Translation of Hindustani speech. 368 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

talking in Urdu or Hindustani which a large number of South Indians cannot follow. Mr. Vice-President : The Honourable Member is perfectly entitled to speak in any language he likes but I would request him to speak in English though he is not bound to speak in English. Pandit Thakur Dass Bhargava : I wanted to speak in Hindi which is my own language about the cow and I would request you not to order me to speak in English. As the subject is a very important one, I would like to express myself in the way in which I can express myself with greater ease and facility. I would therefore request you kindly to allow me to speak in Hindi. *[Mr. Vice-President, with regard to this amendment I would like to submit before the house that in fact this amendment like the other amendment, about which Dr. Ambedkar has stated, is his manufacture.... ***** *The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : I accept the amendment of Pandit Thakur Dass Bhargava. Mr. Vice-President : I shall now put the amendments one by one to the vote. The amendment of Pandit Thakur Dass Bhargava. That is No. 72 in List II. [The motion was adopted.] Article 38-A, as amended, was added to the Constitution. ARTICLE 39 †Mr. Vice-President : Shall we now go on to the next item in the agenda ? No. 1003 has been covered by one of the previous amendments. No. 1004 has also been disposed of. Then No. 1005. The first part of it cannot be moved, but the second part can be moved. (Not moved.) Then the motion before the House is that article 39 forms part of the Constitution. There are several amendments to this. (Nos. 1006, 1007 and 1008 were not moved.) No. 1009 by Dr. Ambedkar and his colleagues. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Sir, I move : “That in article 39, after the words ‘from spoliation’ the word ‘disfigurement’ be inserted.” *CAD, Vol. VII, 24th November 1048, p. 580. †Ibid, p. 581. 369DRAFT CONSTITUTION

Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena : Mr. Vice-President, Sir, I beg to move : “That in article 39, after the words ‘from spoliation’ the word ‘disfigurement’ be inserted, and all the words after the words ‘may he’ to the end of the article be deleted.” The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Why do you want to make a speech when I am going to accept it ? Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena : I am glad that Dr. Ambedkar is going to accept it. Because this article is to be a directive principle, it should not mention about laws of Parliament and so we must omit the words “to preserve and maintain according to law made by Parliament all such monuments or places or objects.” The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Sir, I accept the amendment. ***** Mr. Vice-President : I am now putting the amendments one by one. The motion was adopted. Mr. Vice-President : There is the amendment of Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena. Begum Aizaz Rasul : (United Provinces : Muslim) : May I know if Dr. Ambedkar has accepted Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena’s amendment ? If not, I wish to oppose the second part. Mr. Vice-President : There is no second part so far as I am aware. It only refers to deletion of certain words. The first part is the same. Begum Aizaz Rasul : I wish to oppose that motion. Mr. Vice-President : I am afraid it is too late now. The motion was adopted. Article 39, as amended, was added to the Constitution. ARTICLE 39-A *The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Mr. Vice-President, Sir, I move: “That after article 39, the following new article be inserted :— ‘39-A. That State shall take steps to secure that, within a period of three years from the commencement of this Constitution, there is separation of the judiciary from the executive in the public services of the State.’.” I do not think it is necessary for me to make any very lengthy statement in support of the amendment which I have moved. It has been the desire of this country from long past that there should be separation of the judiciary from the executive and the demand has been *CAD, Vol. VII, 24th November 1948, p. 582. 370 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

continued right from the time when the Congress was founded. Unfortunately, the British Government did not give effect to the resolutions of the Congress demanding this particular principle being introduced into the administration of the country. We think that the time has come when this reform should be carried out. It is, of course, realised that there may be certain difficulties in the carrying out of this reform ; consequently this amendment has taken into consideration two particular matters which may be found to be matters of difficulty. One is this : that we deliberately did not make it a matter of fundamental principle, because if we had made it a matter of fundamental principle it would have become absolutely obligatory instantaneously on the passing of the Constitution to bring about the separation of the judiciary and the executive. We have therefore deliberately put this matter in the chapter dealing with directive principles and there too we have provided that this reform shall be carried out within three years, so that there is no room left for what might be called procrastination in a matter of this kind. Sir I move. ***** ARTICLE 39-A *Mr. Vice-President (Dr. H. C. Mookherjee) : Notice of an amendment has been received from Dr. Ambedkar. Will you please move your amendment, Dr. Ambedkar ? The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar (Bombay : General) : Mr. Vice-President, I move: That in article 39-A delete the words beginning from “ secure” up to “separation of” and in their place substitute the word, “separate”. so that the article 39-A, with this amendment would read as follows :— “The State shall take steps to separate the judiciary from the executive in the public services of the State.” The House will see that the object of this amendment is to eliminate the period of three years which has been stated in the original article as proposed by 39-A. The reasons why I have been obliged to make this amendment are these. There is a section of the House which feels that in these directive principles we ought not to introduce matters of details relating either to period or to procedure. These directive *CAD. Vol. VII, 25th November 1948, pp. 585-86 371DRAFT CONSTITUTION

principles ought to enunciate principles and ought not to go into the details of the working out of the principles. That is one reason why I feel that the period of three years ought to be eliminated from article 39-A. The second reason why I am forced to make this amendment is this. The expression “three years” has again brought about a sort of division of opinion amongst certain members of the House. Some say, if you have three years period, then no government is going to take any step until the third year has come into duration. You are practically permitting the provincial legislatures not to take any steps for three years by mentioning three years in this article. The other view is that three years may be too short. It may be that three years may be long enough so far as provinces are concerned, where the administrative machinery is well established and can be altered and amended so as to bring about the separation. But we have used the word “State” in the directive principles to cover not only the provincial governments but also the governments of the Indian States. It is contended that the administration in the Indian States for a long time may not be such as to bring about this desired result. Consequently the period of three years, so far as the Indian States are concerned, is too short. All these arguments have undoubtedly a certain amount of force which it is not possible to ignore. It is, therefore, thought that this article would serve the purpose which we all of us have in view, if the article merely contained a mandatory provision, giving a direction to the State, both in provinces as well as in the Indian States, that this Constitution imposes, so to say, an obligation to separate the judiciary from the executive in the public services of the State, the intention being that where it is possible, it shall be done immediately without any delay, and where immediate operation of this principle is not possible, it shall, nonetheless, be accepted as an imperative obligation, the procrastination of which is not tolerated by the principles underlying this Constitution. I therefore submit that the amendment which I have moved meets all the points of view which are prevalent in this House, and I hope that this House will give its accord to this amendment. Prof. Shibhan Lal Saksena (United Provinces : General) : Sir, Dr. Ambedkar has already moved an amendment, that is he has added a new article No. 39-A. Is it permissible to a member to amend his own amendment ? 372 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES