Vol. 13 · pages 431–435

(ii) in clause (6) of article 13, after the words ‘in particular’ the words ‘nothing in the said clause shall affect the operation of any existing law in so far as it prescribes or empowers any authority to prescribe, or prevent the State from making any law’ be inserted.” Syed Abdur Rouf (Assam : Muslim) : On a point of order, Sir, I think that Dr. Ambedkar’s amendment cannot be an amendment to amendment No. 454. Amendment No. 454 seeks to delete clauses (2), (3), (4), (5) and (6), whereas Dr. Ambedkar’s amendment seeks to insert some words in those clauses and cannot therefore be moved as an amendment to an amendment. Mr. Vice-President : It seems to me that what Dr. Ambedkar really seeks to do is to retain the original clauses with certain qualifications. Therefore I rule that he is in order. Shri H. V. Kamath : This will have the effect of negativing the original amendment. Mr. Vice-President : Kindly take your seat. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : From the speeches which have been made on article 13 and article 8 and the words “existing law” which occur in some of the provisos to article 13, it seems to me that there is a good deal of misunderstanding about what is exactly intended to be done with regard to existing law. Now the fundamental article is article 8 which specifically, without any kind of reservation, says that any existing law which is inconsistent with the Fundamental Rights as enacted in this part of the Constitution is void. That is a fundamental proposition and I have no doubt about it that any trained lawyer, if he was asked to interpret the words “existing law” occurring in the sub-clauses to article 13, would read “existing law” in so far as it is not inconsistent with the fundamental rights. There is no doubt that that is the way in which the phrase “existing law” in the sub-clauses would be interpreted. It is unnecessary to repeat the proposition stated in article 8 every time the phrase “existing law” occurs, because it is a rule of interpretation that for interpreting any law, all relevant sections shall be taken into account and read in such a way that one section is reconciled with another. Therefore the Drafting Committee felt that they have laid down in article 8 the full and complete proposition that any existing law, in so far as it is inconsistent with the Fundamental Rights, will stand abrogated. The Drafting Committee did not feel it necessary to incorporate some such qualification in using 398 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

the phrase “existing law” in the various clauses where these words occur. As I see, many people have not been able to read the clause in that way. In reading “existing law”, they seem to forget what has already been stated in article 8. In order to remove the misunderstanding that is likely to be caused in a layman’s mind, I have brought forward this amendment to sub-clauses (3), (4), (5) and (6) I will read for illustration sub-clause (3) with my amendment. “Nothing in sub-clause (b) of the said clause shall affect the operation of any existing law in so far as it imposes, or prevent the State from making any law, imposing in the interests of public order.” I am accepting Mr. Bhargava’s amendment and so I will add the word “reasonable” also. “Imposing in the interests of public order reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub-clause.” Now, the words “in so far as it imposes” to my mind make the idea complete and free from any doubt that the existing law is saved only in so far as it imposes reasonable restrictions. I think with that amendment there ought to be no difficulty in understanding that the existing law is saved only to a limited extent, it is saved only if it is not in conflict with the Fundamental Rights. Sub-clause (6) has been differently worded, because the word there is different from what occurs in sub-clauses (3), (4) and (5). Honourable Members will be able to read for themselves in order to make out what it exactly means. Now, my friend, Pandit Thakur Dass Bhargava entered into a great tirade against the Drafting Committee, accusing them of having gone out of their way to preserve existing laws. I do not know what he wants the Drafting Committee to do. Does he want us to say straightaway that all existing laws shall stand abrogated on the day on which the Constitution comes into existence ? Pandit Thakur Dass Bhargava : Not exactly. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : What we have said is that the existing law shall stand abrogated in so far as they are inconsistent with the provisions of this Constitution. Surely the administration of this country is dependent upon the continued existence of the laws which are in force today. It would bring down the whole administration to pieces if the existing laws were completely and wholly abrogated. Now, I take article 307. He said that we have made provisions that the existing laws should be continued unless amended. Now, I should 399DRAFT CONSTITUTION

have thought that a man who understands law ought to be able to realize this fact that after the Constitution comes into existence, the exclusive power of making law in this country belongs to Parliament or to the several local legislatures in their respective spheres. Obviously, if you enunciate the proposition that hereafter no law shall be in operation or shall have any force or sanction, unless it has been enacted by Parliament, what would be the position ? The position would be that all the laws which have been made by the earlier legislature, by the Central Legislative Assembly or the Provincial Legislative Assembly would absolutely fall to pieces, because they would cease to have any sanction, not having been made by the parliament or by the local legislatures, which under this Constitution are the only body which are entitled to make law. It is, therefore, necessary that a provision should exist in the Constitution that any laws which have been already made shall not stand abrogated for the mere reason that they have not been made by Parliament. That is the reason why article 307 has been introduced into this Constitution. I, therefore, submit, Sir, that my amendment which particularises the portion of the existing law which shall continue in operation so far as the Fundamental Rights are concerned, meets the difficulty, which several Honourable Members have felt by reason of the fact that they find it difficult to read article 13 in conjunction with article 8, I, therefore, think that this amendment of mine clarifies the position and hope the House will not rind it difficult to accept it. [After this clarification several amendments were not moved.] ***** *The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Sir I move— “That in clause (4) of article 13, for the words ‘the general public’ the words ‘public order or morality’ be substituted.” These words are inappropriate in that clause. Mr. Vice-President : 477 is identical. 479, 480 and 486 are of similar import. (Amendments Nos. 479, 480 and 486 were not moved.) ***** *CAD, Vol. VII, 1st December 1948, p. 744. 400 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

*The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Mr. Vice-President, Sir, I move : “That in clause (5) of article 13. for the word ‘aboriginal’, the word ‘scheduled’ he substituted.” When the Drafting Committee was dealing with the question of Fundamental Rights, the Committee appointed for the Tribal Areas had not made its Report, and consequently we had to use the word ‘aboriginal’ at the time when the Draft was made. Subsequently, we found that the Committee on Tribal Areas had used the phrase “Scheduled Tribes” and we have used the words “scheduled tribes” in the schedules which accompany this Constitution. In order to keep the language uniform, it is necessary to substitute the word “Scheduled” for the word “aboriginal”. Mr. Vice-President : There is, I understand, an amendment to this amendment, and that is amendment No. 56 of List I, standing in the name of Shri Phool Singh. (Amendment No. 56 of list I was not moved.) Mr. Vice-President : That means this amendment No. 491 stands as it is. Then we come to amendment No. 488. (Amendment No. 488 was not moved.) The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Sir, I move : “That in clause (6) of article 13, for the words ‘public order, morality or health’, the words ‘the general public’ be substituted.” The words ‘ public order, morality or health ‘ are quite inappropriate in that particular clause. ***** †Shri M. Ananthasayanan Ayyangar : ...Now, therefore, except the amendments which are acceptable to Dr. Ambedkar, the others should not be accepted. They are objectionable and ought not to find a place in the Constitution. Shri Satyanarayan Sinha (Bihar: General): I move that the question be now put. Mr. Vice-President : An enquiry was made of me as to how I have tried to conduct the proceedings of this House. I refused to supply the information at that time, because I thought it might be left to my discretion to explain how I conduct the proceedings. I see that I have not been able to satisfy all the members who desire to speak. At the *CAD, Vol. VII. 1st December 1948. p. 746. †Ibid., 2nd December 1948, pp. 779-83. 401DRAFT CONSTITUTION

present moment I have here 25 notes from 25 different gentlemen all anxious to speak. There is no doubt that each one of them will be able to contribute something to the discussion. But the discussion cannot be prolonged indefinitely. This does not take into account those other gentlemen equally competent to give their opinion who stand up and who have denied to themselves the opportunity of sending me notes. I have tried to get the views of the house as a whole. If Honourable Members will kindly go through the list of speakers who have already addressed the House they will find that every province has been represented and every so-called minority from every province has been represented. In my view, in spite of what Pandit L. K. Maitra says Bengalees are a majority. In my view therefore the question has been fully discussed. But, as always, I would like to know whether it is the wish of the House that we should close this discussion. Honourable Members : Yes, yes; Mr. Vice-President : Then I call upon Dr. Ambedkar to reply. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar (Bombay : General) : Mr. Vice-President, Sir, among the many amendments that have been moved to this article 13, I propose to accept amendment No. 415, No. 453 as amended by amendment No. 86 of Mr. Munshi, and amendment No. 49 in list I as modified by Mr. Thakur Dass Bhargava’s amendment to add the word ‘ reasonable’. Mr. Vice-President : Will you kindly tell us how you proposed to accept amendment No. 415 ? The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : The amendment which seeks to remove the words ‘subject to the other provisions of this article’. Mr. Vice-President : And then ? The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Then I accept No. 453 as modified by amendment No. 86, and amendment No. 49 in List I as modified by the amendment of Pandit Thakur Dass Bhargava which introduces the word ‘reasonable’. Now, Sir, coming to the other amendments and the point raised by the speakers in their speeches in moving those amendments, I find that there are just a few points which call for a reply. With regard to the general attack on article 13 which has centred on the sub-clauses to clause (1), I think I may say that the House now 402 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES