Vol. 13 · pages 441–445

a case where a community which has hitherto been treated as an Adibasi Comunity is not included in the list of scheduled tribes, we have added, as may be seen in the draft Constitution, an amendment whereby it will be permissible for the local government by notification to add any particular community to the list of scheduled tribes which have not been so far included. I think that ought to satisfy my friend, Mr. Jaipal Singh. He asked me another question and it was this. Supposing a member of a scheduled tribe living in a scheduled area or a member of a scheduled tribe living in a tribal area migrates to another part of the territory of India, which is outside both the scheduled area and the tribal area, will he be able to claim from the local government, within whose jurisdiction he may be residing, the same privileges which he would be entitled to when he is residing within the scheduled area or within the tribal area ? It is a difficult question for me to answer. If that matter is agitated in quarters where a decision on a matter like this would lie, we would certainly be able to give some answer to the question in the form of some clause in this Constitution. But, so far as the present Constitution stands, a member of a scheduled tribe going outside the scheduled area or tribal area would certainly not be entitled to carry with him the privileges that he is entitled to when he is residing in a scheduled area or a tribal area. So far as I can see, it will be practically impossible to enforce the provisions that apply to tribal areas or scheduled areas, in areas other than those which are covered by them. Sir, I hope I have met all the points that were raised by the various speakers when they spoke upon the amendments to this clause, and I believe that my explanation will give them satisfaction that all their points have been met. I hope that the article as amended will be accepted by the House. Mr. Vice-President : I shall now put the amendments which have been moved, which number thirty, to the vote one by one. [Following amendments were accepted by Dr. Ambedkar and were adopted by the House. Rest 28 amendments were negatived.] (i) “That in clause (1) of article 13. the words “Subject to the other provisions of this article” he deleted.” (ii) That for clause (2) of article 13, the following he substituted :— “(2) Nothing in sub-clause (a) of clause (1) of this article shall affect the operation of any existing law in so far as it relates to. or prevent the 408 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

State from making any law relating to libel, stander, defamation or any matter which offends against decency or morality or which undermines the security of, or tends to overthrow, the State.” (iii) “That with reference to amendment No. 454 of the List of amendments— (i) in clauses (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 (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.” (iv) “That in clauses (3), (4), (5) and (6) of article 13, before the word “restrictions” the word “resonable “ be inserted.” (v) “That in clause (4) of article 13, for the words “the general public” the words “public order or morality” be substituted.” (vi) “That in clause (5) of article 13, for the word “aboriginal” the word “Scheduled” be substituted.” (vii) “That in clause (6) of article 13. for the words “morality or health” the words “the general public” be substituted.” Article 13 was added to the Constitution. ***** ARTICLE 14 *Shri T. T. Krishnamachari (Madras : General) : Mr. VicePresident, Sir, the point I have to place before the House happens to be a comparatively narrow one.... I recognise that I am rather late now to move an amendment. What I would like to do is to word the clause thus : ‘No person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once.’ If my Honourable Friend Dr. Ambedkar will accept the addition of the words ‘prosecuted and’ before the word ‘punished’ and if you. Sir. and the House will give him permission to do so, it will not merely be a wise tiling to do but it will save a lot of trouble for the Governments of the future. That is the suggestion I venture to place before the House. It is for the House to deal with it in whatever manner it deems fit. Mr. Vice-President: Does the House give the permission asked for by Shri T. T. Krishnamachari ? Honourable Members : Yes. Mr. Vice-President : Now I will call upon Dr. Ambedkar to move the amendment suggested by Shri T. T. Krishnamachari. *CAD. Vol. VII. 2nd December, 1948. pp. 795-97. 409DRAFT CONSTITUTION

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Mr. Vice-President, Sir, with regard to the amendments that have been moved to this article, I can say that I am prepared to accept the amendment moved by Mr. T. T. Krishnamachari. Really speaking, the amendment is not necessary but as certain doubts have been expressed that the word ‘punished’ may be interpreted in a variety of ways, I think it may be desirable to add the words “prosecuted and punished.” With regard to amendments Nos. 506 and 509 moved by my friend, Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad ………….. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : It is No. 510. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Anyhow, I have examined the position the whole day yesterday and I am satisfied that no good will be served by accepting these amendments. I am however prepared to accept amendment No. 512 moved by Mr. Karimuddin. I think it is a useful provision and may find a place in our Constitution. There is nothing novel in it because the whole of the clause as suggested by him is to be found in the Criminal Procedure Code so that it might be said in a sense that this is already the law of the land. It is perfectly possible that the legislatures of the future may abrogate the provisions specified in his amendment but they are so important so far as personal liberty is concerned that it is very desirable to place these provisions beyond the reach of the legislature and I am therefore, prepared to accept his amendment. With regard to amendment No. 513 moved by my friend, Mr. Kakkan ………….. An Honourable Member : It was not moved. Mr. Vice-President : What about amendments Nos. 505 and 506 ? The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : I have already said that I am not prepared to accept amendment Nos. 506 and 510. Mr. Vice-President : Have you anything to say about amendment No. 505, the second part of it as modified by amendment No. 92 in List V ? perhaps you have overlooked it. It is in the name of Pandit Thakur Dass Bhargava. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : I accept the amendment moved by him. Mr. Vice-President : I am putting the amendments one by one to the vote. 410 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

Amendment No. 505 as modified by amendment No. 92 of List V. I understand that Dr. Ambedkar accepts it. The question is: “That in clause (1) of article 14, for the words ‘ under the law at the time of the commission ‘the words’ under the law in force at the tune of the commission ‘ be substituted. “ The amendment was adopted. [Two amendments were negatived.] ***** Mr. Vice-President : Amendment No. 512 moved by Kazi Syed Karimuddin and accepted by Dr. Ambedkar. The question is : That in article 14, the following be added as clause (4):— “(4) The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause supported by oath or affirmation and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.” I think the ‘Ayes’ have it. Shri T. T. Krishnamachari : The Noes have it. Mr. Vice-President : I will again put it to the vote. I think the ‘ Ayes ‘ have it. Shri T. T. Krishnamachari : No, Sir, the ‘Noes’ have it. Mr. Vice-President : I shall first of all call for a show of hands. (The Division Bell was rung.) Shri Mahavir Tyagi (United Provinces : General) : May I proposed that this question might be postponed for the time being and a chance be given for the Members to confer between themselves and arrive at a decision. Even the British House of Commons, sometimes converts itself into a committee to give various parties a chance to confer and arrive at an agreed solution. Mr. Vice-President : I am prepared to postpone the voting on this amendment provided the House gives me the requisite permission. I would request the House to be calm. This is not the way to come to decisions which must be reached through co-operative effort and through goodwill. Does the House give me the necessary power to postpone voting on this ? The Honourable Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru : Mr. Vice-President, Sir, as apparently a slight confusion has arisen in many members’ minds on this point, I think. Sir, that the suggestion made is eminently desirable, that we might take up this matter a little later, and we may 411DRAFT CONSTITUTION

proceed with other things. It will be the wish of the House that will prevail of course. I would suggest to you, Sir, and to the House that your suggestion be accepted. Dr. B. V. Keskar (United Provinces : General) : Can it be done after the division bell has rung ? Mr. Vice-President : I never go by technicalities. I shall continue to use common-sense as long as I am here. I have little knowledge of technicalities, but I have some knowledge of human nature. I know that in the long run it is good sense, it is common-sense, it is goodwill which alone will carry weight. I ask the permission of the House to postpone the voting. Honourable Members : Yes. ***** ARTICLE 16 *The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Mr. Vice-President, what I understood from Mr. Subramaniam, if I have understood him correctly is not that he objects to article 16, but his objection is directed to the place which this article finds. He says that although there may be utility and necessity so far as this article is concerned, it ought not to find a place in the fundamental rights. And his second point, if I have understood him correctly is that as this article is made subject to article 244, article 16 may be completely nullified, and to use his own words, no residue of it might be left if the powers given under article 244 were exercised. I think I am right in thus summarising what he said. Now, I quite appreciate the argument that this article 16 is out of place in the list of fundamental rights, and to some extent, I agree with Mr. Suhramaniam. But I shall explain to him why it was found necessary to include this matter in the fundamental rights. My Friend, Mr. Suhramaniam will remember that when the Constituent Assembly began, we began under certain limitations. One of the limitations was that the Indian Stales would join the Union only on three subjects-foreign affairs, defence and communications. On no other matter they would agree to permit the Union Parliament to extend its legislative and executive jurisdiction. So he will realise that the Constituent *CAD, Vol. VII. 3rd December 1948, pp. 802-03. 412 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES