Vol. 13 · pages 466–470

substantial number was available or not should be dragged into a court of law, to be determined by the court ? I cannot see any other way out of the difficulty. Either you must leave the interpretation of the word “substantial” to the Executive or to the judiciary and in my judgment neither of the methods would be a safe method to enable the minority to achieve its object. Therefore my submission is that we should be satisfied with the fact that it is such a universal principle that no provincial government can justifiably abrogate it without damage to a considerable part of the population in the matter of its educational rights. Therefore, I submit that the article as amended should be accepted by the House. ***** [Following 3 amendments were adopted. Six amendments were negatived.] (1) “That in clause (1) of article 23, for the words “script and culture” the words “script or culture” he substituted “. (2) That in clause (3) of article 23, the word “community” wherever it occurs be deleted. (3) That for clause (2) of article 23, the following be substituted :— “No citizen shall be denied admission into any educational institution maintained by the State or receiving aid out of State funds on grounds only of religion, race, caste, language or any of them” ; and sub-clauses (a) and (b) of clause (3) of article 23 be renumbered as new article 23-A.” [Article 23, as amended was adopted and added to the Constitution.] ***** ARTICLE 24 *Shri T. T. Krishnamachari (Madras : General) : It is the desire of many Honourable Members of this House that this article should not be taken up now, but taken up later, because we are really considering various amendments to it so as to arrive at a compromise and Dr. Ambedkar will bear me out in regard to this fact. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar (Bombay : General) : Yes, Sir, I request that article No. 24 be kept back. Mr. Vice-President : Is that the wish of the House ? Hoonourable Members : Yes. Mr. Z. H. Lari (United Provinces : Muslim) : Then what about article 15, Sir? *CAD, Vol. VII, 9th December 1948, p. 930. 433DRAFT CONSTITUTION

Mr. Vice-President : The consideration of that article has been postponed for the time being. ***** ARTICLE 25 *The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Sir, I do not think that because this article is subject to the provisions of the other articles to which my Honourable Friend, Mr. Karimuddin has referred, it is not possible for us to consider this article now, because, as will be seen, supposing we do make certain changes in article 285 or others relating to that matter, we could easily make consequential changes in article 25. Therefore, it will not be a bar. Therefore, it is perfectly possible for us to consider article 25 at this stage without any prejudice to any consequential change being introduced therein. Supposing some changes were made in the articles that follow ...... Kazi Syed Karimuddin : Then why not postpone this ? The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : No. Mr. Vice-President : I am going to put this amendment to vote, because if it is carried, then the consideration of all the amendments will be postponed. Mr. Vice-President : The question is : “That the consideration of this clause be postponed till the consideration of Part XI of this Draft Constitution.” The motion was negatived. ***** †Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : Perhaps there is some mis-print; I do not know. If there is no mis-print it is certainly open to the comment that it is vague. The only point that I had in mind was that the right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings is guaranteed. I wanted to allow the people to move other Courts also. If there is a fundamental right granted here, and if any poor man is forced to move the Supreme Court The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : See sub-clause (3). Mr. Naziruddrn Ahmad : That sub-clause empowers some other specified Courts to deal with this subject ; but I wanted to make it more general, that the fundamental rights should be capable of being enforced by a motion in any Court.... *CAD, Vol. VII, 9th December 1948, p. 931. † Ibid., 931. 434 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

***** Shri H. V. Kamath : ...I hope that Dr. Ambedkar will tell us why he thinks it necessary to specify the particular writs here and not just leave it to the Supreme Court to decide what particular writs or orders or directions it should issue in any particular case. I hope he will not merely send or prestige or some such consideration will give satisfactory and valid reasons why we should insist on mentioning these particular writs in this clause of the article. *The Honourable B. R. Ambedkar : Sir, I understand that Mr. M. A. Baig is not in the House. Will you permit me to move 789. I am going to accept this amendment. It shall have to be moved formally. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : I desire to move it if that is acceptable to the House. Mr. Vice-President: Does the House permit Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad to move this ? Honourable Members : Yes. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : Sir, I move: “That in clause (2) of article 25, for the words ‘in the nature of the writs of the words ‘or writs, including writs in the nature of’ be substituted.” Sir, this is a red letter day in my life in this House, that this is a single amendment which is going to be accepted. This amendment is a foster-child of mine and that is why perhaps the Honourable Member is going to accept it. It requires no explanation. Shri H. V. Kamath : On a point of order. Is my Friend right in saying it is going to be accepted when it is only moved. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : I heard a rumour that it is going to be accepted. Mr. Vice-President : Nos. 791 and 792 are disallowed as verbal amendments. (Amendment No. 793 was not moved.) Mr. Vice-President : Nos. 794, 795 and 799 are similar and are to be considered together. 794 is allowed to be moved. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : With your permission I will just make one or two corrections to some words which crept into the drafting by mistake. Sir, with those corrections, my amendment will read as follows : * “That for the existing sub-clause (3) of article 25, the following clause be substituted : ‘Without pejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by clause (1) and (2) of this article. Parliament may by law empower any other Court to exercise within the local limits of its jurisdiction all or any of the powers exercisable by the Supreme Court under clause (2) of this article.’ ” *CAD. Vol. VII, 9th December 1948, p. 933. 435DRAFT CONSTITUTION

The reason for inserting these clauses (1) and (2) is because clauses (1) and (2) refer to the Supreme Court. ***** The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Mr. Vice-President, Sir, of the amendments that have been moved to this article I can only accept amendment No. 789 which stood in the name of Mr. Baig but which was actually moved by Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad. I accept it because it certainly improves the language of the draft. With regard to the other amendments I shall first of all take up the amendment (No. 801) moved by Mr. Tajamul Husain and the amendment (No. 802) moved by Mr. Karimuddin. Both of them are of an analogus character. The object of the amendment moved by Mr. Tajamul Husain is to delete altogether sub-clause (4) of this article and Mr. Karimuddin’s amendment is to limit the language of sub-clause (4) by the introduction of the words ‘in case of rebellion or invasion’. Now, Sir, with regard to the argument that clause (4) should be deleted, I am afraid, if I may say so without any offence, that it is a very extravagent demand, a very tall order. There can be no doubt that while there are certain fundamental rights which the State must guarantee to the individual in order that the individual may have some security and freedom to develop his own personality, it is equally clear that in certain cases where, for instance, the State’s very life is in jeopardy, those rights must be subject to a certain amount of limitation. Normal peaceful times are quite different from times of emergency. In times of emergency the life of the State itself is in jeopardy and if the State is not able to protect itself in times of emergency, the individual himself will be found to have lost his very existence. Consequently, the superior right of the State to protect itself in times of emergency, so that it may survive that emergency and live to discharge its functions in order that the individual under the aegis of the State may develop, must be guaranteed as safely as the right of an individual. I know of no Constitution which gave fundamental rights but which gives them in such a manner as to deprive the State in times of emergency to protect itself by curtailing the rights of the individual. You take any Constitution you like, where fundamental rights are guaranteed ; you will also find that provision is made for the State to *CAD, Vol. VII, 9th December 1948, p. 950. 436 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

suspend these in times of emergency. So far, therefore, as the amendment to delete clause (4) is concerned, it is a matter of principle and I am afraid I cannot agree with the Mover of that amendment and I must oppose it. Now, Sir, I will go into details. My Friend Mr. Tajamul Husain drew a very lurid picture by referring to various articles which are included in the Chapter dealing with Fundamental Rights. He said, here is a right to take water, there is a right to enter a shop, there is freedom to go to a bathing ghat. Now, if clause (4) came into operation, he suggested that all these elementary human rights which the Fundamental part guarantees—of permitting a man to go to a well to drink water, to walk on the road, to go to a cinema or a theatre, without any let or hindrance—will also disappear. I cannot understand from where my friend Mr. Tajamul Husain got this idea. If he had referred to article 279 which relates to the power of the President to issue a proclamation of emergency, he would have found that clause (4) which permits suspension of these rights refers only to article 13 and to no other article. The only rights that/ would be suspended under the proclamation issued by the President under emergency are contained in article 13 ; all other articles and the rights guaranteed thereunder would remain intact, none of them would be affected. Consequently, the argument which he presented to the House is entirely outside the provisions contained in article 279. Shri H. V. Kamath : What about article 280 ? The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : All that it does is to suspend the remedies. I thought I would deal with that when I was dealing with the general question as to the nature of these remedies, and therefore I did not touch upon it here. Taking up the point of Mr. Karimuddin, what he tries to do is to limit clause (4) to cases of rebellion or invasion. I thought that if he had carefully read article 275, there was really no practical difference between the provisions contained in article 275 and the amendment which he has proposed. The power to issue a proclamation of emergency vested in the President by article 275 is confined only to cases when there is war or domestic violence. Kazi Syed Karimuddin : Even if war is only threatened ? 437DRAFT CONSTITUTION