Vol. 13 · pages 426–430

30 per cent as open to general competition would be satisfactory from the point of view of giving effect to the first principle, namely, that there shall be equality of opportunity ? It cannot be in my judgment. Therefore the seats to be reserved, if the reservation is to be consistent with sub-clause (1) of Article 10, must be confined to a minority of seats. It is then only that the first principle could find its place in the Constitution and effective in operation. If Honourable Members understand this position that we have to safeguard two things, namely, the principle of equality of opportunity and at the same time satisfy the demand of communities which have not had so far representation in the State, then, I am sure they will agree that unless you use some such qualifying phrase as “backward” the exception made in favour of reservation will ultimately eat up the rule altogether. Nothing of the rule will remain. That I think, if I may say so, is the justification why the Drafting Committee undertook on its own shoulders the responsibility of introducing the word ‘backward’ which, I admit, did not originally find a place in the fundamental right in the way in which it was passed by this Assembly. But I think Honourable Members will realise that the Drafting Committee which has been ridiculed on more than one ground for producing sometimes a loose draft, sometimes something which is not appropriate and so on, might have opened itself to further attack that they produced a Draft Constitution in which the exception was so large, that it left no room for the rule to operate. I think this is sufficient to justify why the word “backward” has been used. With regard to the minorities, there is a special reference to that in Article 296, where it has been laid down that some provision will be made with regard to the minorities. Of course, we did not lay down any proportion. That is quite clear from the section itself, but we have not altogether omitted the minorities from consideration. Somebody asked me : “What is a backward community” ? Well, I think any one who reads the language of the draft itself will find that we have left it to be determined by each local Government. A backward community is a community which is backward in the opinion of the Government. My Honourable Friend Mr. T. T. Krishnamachari asked me whether tills rule will be justiciable. It is rather difficult to give a dogmatic answer. Personally I think it would be a justiciable matter. If the local 393DRAFT CONSTITUTION

Government included in this category of reservations such a large number of seats; I think one could very well go to the Federal Court and the Supreme Court and say that the reservation is of such a magnitude that the rule regarding equality of opportunity has been destroyed and the court will then come to the conclusion whether the local Government or the State Government has acted in a reasonable and prudent manner. Mr. Krishnamachari asked : “Who is a reasonable man and who is a prudent man ? These are matters of litigation”. Of course, they are matters of litigation, but my Honourable Friend Mr. Krishnamachari will understand that the words “reasonable persons and prudent persons” have been used in very many laws and if he will refer only to the Transfer of Property Act, he will find that in very many cases the words “a reasonable person and a prudent person “have very well been defined and the court will not find any difficulty in defining it. I hope, therefore that the amendments which I have accepted, will be accepted by the House. Mr. Vice-President : I am now going to put the amendments to vote, one by one. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : I am sorry I forgot to say that I accept amendment No. 342. [Following amendments were accepted by Dr. Ambedkar and adopted by the House.] “(i) That in clause (1) of article 10, for the words ‘in matters of employment’, the words ‘in mutters relating to employment or appointment to office’ be substituted.” (ii) That in clause (2) of article 10. after the words ‘ineligible for any’ the words ‘employment or ‘ be inserted.” (iii) “That in clause (2) article 10. after the words ‘place of birth’ the word ‘in India’ be added. (iv) “That in clause (2) of articles 10, after the word ‘birth’ the word ‘residence’ be inserted.” “(2a) Nothing in this article shall prevent Parliament from making any laws prescribing in regard to a class or classes of employment or appointment to an office under any State for the time being specified in the First Scheduled or any local or other authority within its territory any requirement as to residence within that State prior to such employment or appointment.” That after clause (2) of article 10, the following new clause be inserted :— (v) “That in clause (2 ) of article 10, after the word ‘ineligible’ the words ‘or discriminated against’ be inserted.” [Rest eight amendments were negatived.] Article 10, as amended, was added to the Constitution. 394 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

ARTICLE 12 *Shri T. T. Krishnamachari : Sir, I move : “That in clause (1) of article 12 after the word “title” the words ‘not being a military or academic distinction’ be inserted.” Sir, article 12 clause (1) will read, as amended, as follows: “No title not being a military or academic distinction shall be conferred by the State.” ***** †The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Sir, I accept the amendment moved by my friend Mr. T. T. Krishnamachari. With regard to the amendment moved by my friend Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad, he wanted the word “accepted” to be substituted by the word “recognised”. His argument was, supposing the citizen does accept a title, what is the penal provision in the Constitution which would nullify that act ? My answer to that is very simple : that it would be prefectly open under the Constitution for Parliament under its residuary powers to make a law prescribing what should be done with regard to an individual who does accept a title contrary to the provisions of this article. I should have thought that that was an adequate provision for meeting the case which he has put before the House. With regard to the second point of Mr. Kamath, if I have understood him correctly, he asked whether this is a justiciable right. My reply to that is very simple : it is not a justiciable right. The non-acceptance of titles is a condition of continued citizenship ; it is not a right, it is a duty imposed upon the individual that if he continues to be the citizen of this country then he must abide by certain conditions, one of the conditions is that he must not accept a title because it would be open for Parliament, when it provides by law as to what should be done to persons who abrogate the provisions of this article, to say that if any person accepts a title contrary to the provisions of article 12 (1) or (2), certain penalties may follow. One of the penalties may be that he may lose the right of citizenship. Therefore, there is really no difficulty in understanding tills provision as it is a condition attached to citizenship by itself it is not a justiciable right. Shri H. V. Kamath : My point is about recognition of existing titles by the State. *CAD, Vol. VII, 30th November 1948, p. 704. †Ibid., pp. 708-09 395DRAFT CONSTITUTION

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : As I said in reply to my friend Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad, it is open for Parliament to take such action as it likes, and one of the actions which Parliament may take is to say that we shall not recognise these titles. Shri H. V. Kamath : I want Dr. Ambedkar to accept the principle. Parliament can do what it likes later on. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Certainly it is just commonsense that if the Constitution says that no person shall accept a title, it will be an obligation upon Parliament to see that no citizen shall commit a breach of that provision. ***** *Mr. Vice-President (Dr. H. C. Mookherjee) : We shall try to meet the wishes of the House. We finished our discussion on Article 12 and Dr. ambedkar gave his reply. I am sorry I cannot accommodate those Members who want to reopen it. I shall now put the different amendments to the vote one after the other. Mr. Vice-President : The question is : “That in clause (1) of article 12, after the word ‘title’ the words ‘not being a military or academic distinction’ he inserted. “ The motion of Shri Krishnamachari was adopted. [Rest 4 amendments were negatived.] Article 12, as amended, was added to the Constitution. ***** ARTICLE 13 †Mahboob Ali Baig Sahib Bahdur: ...Anyhow I pose this question to the Chairman of the Drafting Committee whether in these circum stances, viz., where there is in existence a provision in the Constitution itself empowering the legislature or the executive to pass an order or law abridging the rights mentioned in clause (1), the court can go into the merits or demerits of the order or law and declare a certain law invalid or a certain Act as not justified. In my view the court’s jurisdiction is ousted by clearly mentioning in the Constitution itself that the State shall have the power to make laws relating to libel, association or assembly in the interest of public order, restrictions on the exercise of ……….. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar (Bombay : General) : Sir, if I might interrupt my Honourable Friend, I have understood his point *CAD, Vol. VII. 1st December 1948, p. 711. †Ibid., p. 735. 396 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

and I appreciate it and I undertake to reply and satisfy him as to what it means. It is therefore unnecessary for him to dilate further on the point. ***** *Pandit Thakur Dass Bhargva : ...Similarly, at present you have the right to assemble peaceably and without arms and you have in 1947 passed a law under which even peaceable assemblage could be bombed without warning from the sky. We have today many provisions which are against this peaceable assembling. Similarly in regard to ban on association or unions. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Is it open to my Honourable friend to speak generally on the clauses ? Mr. Vice-President : That is what I am trying to draw his attention to. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : This is an abuse of the procedure of the House. I cannot help saying that. When a member speaks on an amendment, he must confine himself to that amendment. He cannot avail himself of this opportunity of rambling over the entire field. Pandit Thakur Dass Bhargava : I am speaking on the amendment; but the manner in which Dr. Ambedkar speaks and expresses himself is extremely objectionable. Why should he get up and speak in a threatening mood or a domineering tone ? Mr. Vice-President: Everybody seems to have lost his temper except the Chair ( Laughter). I had given a warning to Mr. Bhargava and, just now, was about to repeat it when Dr. Ambedkar stood up. I am perfectly certain that he was carried away by his feeling. I do not see any reason why there should be so much feeling aroused. He has been under a strain for days together. I can well understand his position and I hope that the House will allow the matter to rest there. Now, I hope Mr. Bhargava realises the position. ***** †The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Sir, I move : “that with reference to amendment No. 454…………” Shri H. V. Kamath : On a point of order, Sir, has amendment No. 454 been moved ? Mr. Vice-President : Please continue. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : “with reference to amendment No. 454 of the List of Amendments— (i) in clause, (3), (4), (5) and (6) of article 13, after the words ‘ any existing law ‘ the words ‘ in so far as it imposes ‘ be inserted; and *CAD, Vol. VII, 1st December 1948, p. 738 †Ibid., pp. 740-42 397DRAFT CONSTITUTION