Vol. 13 · pages 446–450

Assembly, as well as the Drafting Committee, was placed under a very serious limitation. On the one hand it was realised that there would be no use and no purpose served in forming an AllIndia Union if trade and commerce throughout India was not free. That was the general view. On the other hand, it was found that so far as the position of the States was concerned, to which I have already made a reference, they were not prepared to allow trade and commerce throughout India to be made subject to the legislative authority of the Union Parliament. Or to put it briefly and in a different language, they were not prepared to allow trade and commerce to be included as an entry in List No. I. If it was possible for us to include trade and commerce in list I, which means that Parliament will have the executive authority to make laws with regard to trade and commerce throughout India, we would not have found it necessary to bring trade and commerce under article 16, in the fundamental rights. But as that door was blocked, on account of the basic considerations which operated at the beginning of the Constituent Assembly, we had to find some place, for the purpose of uniformity in the matter of trade and commerce throughout India, under some head. Alter exercising a considerable amount of ingenuity, the only method we found of giving effect to the desire of a large majority of our people that trade and commerce should be free throughout India, was to bring under fundamental rights. That is the reason why, awkward as it may seem, we thought that there was no other way left to us, except to bring trade and commerce under fundamental rights. I think that will satisfy my friend Mr. Subramaniam why we gave this place to trade and commerce in the list of fundamental rights, although theoretically, I agree, that the subject is not germane to the subject-matter of fundamental rights. With regard to the other argument, that since trade and commerce have been made subject to article 244, we have practically destroyed the fundamental right, I think I may fairly say that my friend Mr. Subramaniam has either not read article 244, or has misread that article. Article 244 has a very limited scope. All that it does is to give powers to the provincial legislatures in dealing with inter-State commerce and trade, to impose certain restrictions on the entry of goods manufactured or transported from another State, provided the legislation is such that it does not impose any disparity, discrimination between the goods 413DRAFT CONSTITUTION

manufactured within the State and the goods imported from outside the State. Now, I am sure he will agree that that is a very limited law. It certainly does not take away the right of trade and commerce and intercourse throughout India which is required to be free. Shri C. Subramaniam : The clause says that it shall be lawful for any State to impose by law such reasonable restrictions on the freedom of trade, commerce or intercourse... as may be required in the public interests. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Yes, but reasonable restrictions do not mean that the restrictions can be such as to altogether destroy the freedom and equality of trade. It does not mean that at all. Sir, I therefore, submit that the article as it stands is perfectly in order and I commend it to the House. Article 16 was adopted and added to the Constitution. ARTICLE 17 *Mr. Vice-President : Now we come to article 17. The motion before the House is that article 17 form part of the Constitution. There are a number of amendments to this article, and they will be gone through now. The first in my list is No. 543. It is a negative one and is therefore ruled out. There is an amendment to this amendment, that is No. 93 in List V, standing in the name of Shri Ram Chandra Upadhyaya. (Interruption by Mr. Kamath). ***** †The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Mr. Vice-President, I should like to state at the outset what amendments I am prepared to accept and what, I am afraid, I cannot accept. Of the amendments that have been moved, the only amendment which I am prepared to accept is the amendment by Prof. K. T. Shah, No. 559, which introduces the word “only” in clause (2) of article 17 after the words “discrimination on the ground”. The rest of the amendments, I am afraid, I cannot accept. With regard to the amendments which, as I said, I cannot accept one is by Prof. K. T. Shah introducing the word ‘devadasis’ ! Now *CAD, Vol. VII, 3rd December 1948. p. 803. †Ibid., pp. 812-13. 414 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

I understand that his arguments for including ‘devadasis’ have been replied to by other members of the House who have taken part in this debate and I do not think that any useful purpose will be served by my adding anything to the arguments that have already been urged. With regard to the amendment of my Honourable Friend, Mr. H. V. Kamath, he wants the words ‘social and national’ in place of the word ‘public’. I should have thought that the word ‘public’ was wide enough to cover both ‘national’ as well as ‘social’ and it is, therefore, unnecessary to use two words when the purpose can be served by one, and I think, he will agree that that is the correct attitude to take. With regard to the amendment of my Honourable Friend Shri Damodar Swamp Seth, it seems to be unnecessary and I, therefore,do not accept it. With regard to the amendment of Sardar Bhopinder Singh Man, he wants that wherever compulsory labour is imposed by the State under the provisions of clause (2) of article 17 a proviso should be put in that such compulsory service shall always be paid for by the State. Now, I do not think that it is desirable to put any such limitation upon the authority of the State requiring compulsory service. It may be perfectly possible that the compulsory service demanded by the State may be restricted to such hours that it may not debar the citizen who is subjected to the operation of this clause to find sufficient time to earn his livelihood, and if, for instance, such compulsory labour is restricted to what might be called ‘hours of leisure’ or the hours, when, for instance, he is not otherwise occupied in earning his living, it would be perfectly justifiable for the State to say that it shall not pay any compensation. In this clause, it may be seen that non-payment of compensation could not be a ground of attack ; because the fundamental proposition enunciated in sub-clause (2) is this : that whenever compulsory labour or compulsory service is demanded, it shall be demanded from all and if the State demands service from all and does not pay any, I do not think the State is committing any very great inequity. I feel, Sir, it is very desirable to leave the situation as fluid as it has been left in the article as it stands. Shri H. V. Kamath : On a point of information, Sir, is Dr. Ambedkar’s objection to my amendment merely on the ground that 415DRAFT CONSTITUTION

it consists of two words in place of one ? In that case, I shall be happy if the wording is either ‘social’ or ‘national’ in place of ‘public’. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : It is better to use a wider phraseology which includes both. Shri Rohini Kumar Chaudhuri (Assam : General) : May I know, Sir, does the Honourable Member accept amendment No. 548, which deals with prostitution, and which was moved by Giani Gurmukh Singh Musafir ? The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : I understand it was not moved. Mr. Vice-President : It was not moved. I shall now put the amendments to vote one by one. Amendment No. 544 standing in the name of Kazi Syed Karimuddin was negatived. Amendment No. 545 standing in the name of Shri Damodar Swarup Seth was negatived. Amendment No. 546 standing in the name of Professor K. T. Shah was also negatived. Amendment No. 560 standing in the name of Sardar Bhopinder Singh Man was withdrawn. [Amendment No. 556 standing in the name of Mr. Kamath was negatived.] Amendment No. 559 standing in the name of Professor K. T. Shah, was accepted by Dr. Ambedkar and was adopted. “That in clause (2) of article 17. after the words “discrimination on the ground “the word” only “ be added.” Article 17, as amended was adopted and added to the Constitution. ARTICLE 18 ***** *The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : I do not accept the amendment moved by Mr. Damodar Swarup—No. 564. The amendment was negatived. Article 18 was adopted and addded to the Constitution. *CAD, Vol. VII, 3rd December 1948, p. 815. 416 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

ARTICLE 19 *Mr. Vice-President : Amendment No. 596, Dr. Ambedkar. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar (Bombay : General) : Sir, I beg to move : “That in clause (2) of article 19. for the word “preclude” the word “prevent” be substituted.” This is only for the purpose of keeping symmetry in the language that we have used in the other articles. ***** †The Honourable Shri K. Santhanam : Sir, we have adopted a directive asking the State to endeavour to evolve a uniform civil code, and this particular amendment is a direct negation of that directive. On that ground also, I think this is altogether inappropriate in this connection. Mr. Vice-President: Would you like to say anything on this matter, Dr. Ambedkar ? I should value your advice about this amendment being in order or not, on account of the reasons put forward by Mr. Santhanam. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : I was discussing another amendment with Mr. Ranga here and so ………… The Honourable Shri K. Santhanam : Amendment No. 612 about personal law is sought to be moved. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : This point was disposed of already, when we discussed the Directive Principles, and also when we discussed another amendment the other day. ***** ‡Mr. Vice-President: I have on my list here 15 amendments, most of which have been moved before the House. I should think that they give the views on this particular article from different angles. We had about seven or eight speakers giving utterance to their views. I think that the article has been sufficiently debated. I call upon Dr. Ambedkar to reply. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Mr. Vice-President, Sir, I have nothing to add to the various speakers who have spoken in support of this article. What I have to say is that the only amendment I am prepared to accept is amendment No. 609. *CAD, Vol. VII, 6th December 1948, p. 826. †Ibid., pp.. 829-30. †Ibid., p. 838. 417DRAFT CONSTITUTION