Vol. 13 · pages 531–535

provision for tilling casual vacancies. There is no necessity for making any provision for casual vacancies because under article 75, sub-clause (1) there is always the Deputy Chairman who is there to step in whenever there is any casual vacancy. Consequently such an amendment is unnecessary. Sir, I hope that with this explanation, the House will accept the article as it stands. Mr. Vice-President : I may now put the amendments, one by one to vote. [All the amendments were negatived. Article 56 was adopted and added to the Constitution.] ***** ARTICLE 57 *The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : I am afraid Prof. K. T. Shah has not considered the matter as fully as he ought to have before moving his amendment. The omission of the Vice-President from article 57 is a very deliberate one, because as my friend Mr. Tajamul Husain has just now pointed out, his main functions, which are those of the Chairman of the Council of States, have been amply provided for by article 75 (1) where there is a Deputy Chairman who will function in his absence. It is therefore unnecessary to introduce any such amendment in article 57. My friend Prof. Shah said that I was really borrowing very liberally from the amendments of other friends whenever I found that the Draft was in some way defective. I think Prof. K. T. Shah, if I may say so, has indirectly paid me a compliment because, as Emerson has said, “A genius is the most indebted man” and I am certainly most indebted to my friends. Mr. Vice-President : I am now putting the amendments to vote. The question is : “That in article 57, after the words ‘the functions of President’ the words ‘or Vice-President’ be added.” The amendment was negatived. Mr. Vice-President : There are no other amendments. The question is : “That article 57, stand part of the Constitution.” The motion was adopted. Article 57 was added to the Constitution. * CAD, Vol. VII, 29th December 1948, p. 1117. 498 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

[Article 58 was added to the Constitution without any amendment.] ARTICLE 59 *Mr. Vice-President : Does Dr. Ambedkar wish to say anything on this amendment moved by Mr. Tajamul Husain ? The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Yes, Sir. It might be desirable that I explain in a few words in its general outline the scheme embodied in article 59. It is this : the power of commutation of sentence for offences enacted, by the Federal Law is vested in the President of the Union. The power to commute sentences for offences enacted by the State Legislatures is vested in the Governors of the State. In the case of sentences of death, whether it is inflicted under any law passed by Parliament or by the law of the States, the power is vested in both, the President as well as the State concerned. This is the scheme. With regard to the amendment of my friend Mr. Tajamul Husain, his object is that the power to commute sentences of death permitted to the Governor should be taken away. Now, sub-clause ( 3) embodies in it the present practice which is in operation under which the power of commuting the death sentences is vested both in the Governor as well as in the President. The Drafting Committee has not seen any very strong arguments for taking away the power from the Governor. After all, the offence is committed in that particular locality. The Home Minister who would be advising the Governor on a mercy petition from an offender sentenced to death would be in a better position to advise the Governor having regard to his intimate knowledge of the circumstances of the case and the situation prevailing in that area. It was therefore felt desirable that no harm will be done if the power which the Governor now enjoys is left with him. There is, however, a safeguard provided. Supposing in the case of a sentence of death the mercy petition is rejected, it is always open under the provisions of this article, for the offender to approach the President with another mercy petition and try his luck there. I do not think there is any great violation of any fundamental principle involved or any inconvenience that is likely to arise if the provisions in the draft article are retained as they are. Mr. Vice-President: Now I will put the amendment of Mr. Tajamul Husain to vote. The question is : “That clause (3) of article 59 be deleted.” The amendment was negatived. *CAD, Vol. VII, 29th December 1948, pp. 1119-20. 499DRAFT CONSTITUTION

Mr. Vice-President: I shall now put article 59 to vote. The question is : “That article 59 stand part of the Constitution.” Article 59 was adopted and added to the Constitution. ARTICLE 60 ***** *The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar (Bombay : General) : Mr. Vice-President, Sir, I am sorry that I cannot accept either of the two amendments which have been moved to this proviso, but I shall state to the House very briefly the reasons why I am not in a position to accept these amendments. Before I do so, I think it is desirable that the House should know what exactly is the difference between the position as stated in the proviso and the two amendments which are moved to that proviso. Taking the proviso as it stands it lays down two propositions. The first proposition is that generally the authority to excute laws which relate to what is called the Concurrent field, whether the law is passed by the Central Legislature or whether it is passed by the Provincial or State Legislature, shall ordinarily apply to the Province or the State. That is the first proposition which this proviso lays down. The second proposition which the proviso lays down is that if in any particular case Parliament thinks that in passing a law which relates to the Concurrent field, the execution ought to be retained by the Central Government, Parliament shall have the power to do so. Therefore, the position is this ; that in all cases, ordinarily, the executive authority so far as the Concurrent List is concerned will rest with the units, the Provinces as well as the States. It is only in exceptional cases that the Centre may prescribe that the execution of a Concurrent law shall be with the Centre. The amendments which have been moved are different in their connotation. The first amendment is that the Centre should have nothing to do with regard lo the administration of a law which relates to matters placed in the Concurrent field. The second amendment which has been moved by my Honourable Friend, Pandit Kunzru, although it does not permit the Centre to take upon itself the execution of a law passed in the Concurrent field, is prepared to permit the Centre issue directions, with regard to matters falling within Items *CAD, Vol. VII, 30th December 1948, pp. 1136-40. 500 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

25 and 37, to the Provincial Governments. That is the difference between the two amendments. The first amendment really goes much beyond the present position as set out in the Government of India Act, 1935. As Honourable Members know, even under the present Government of India Act, 1935, it is permissible for the Central Government at least to issue directions to the Provinces, setting out the method and manner in which a particular law may be carried out. The first amendment I say even takes away that power which the present Government of India Act, 1935, gives to the Centre. The amendment of my Honourable Friend, Pandit Kunzru wishes to restore the position back to what it now found in the Government of India Act, 1935. Pandit Hirday Nath Kunzru : I go a little beyond that. The second part of my amendment goes beyond any power which the Government of India now enjoy under the Government of India Act, 1935. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Well, that may be so. That I said is the position as I understand it. Now, Sir, I will deal with the major amendment which wants to go back to a position where the Centre will not even have die power to issue directions, and for that purpose, it is necessary for me to go into the history of this particular matter. It must have been noticed—and I say it merely, as a matter of fact and without any kind of insinuation in it at all,—that a large number of members who have spoken in favour of the first amendment are mostly Muslims. One of them, my Friend Mr. Pocker, thought that it was a sacred duty of every Member of this House to oppose the proviso. I have no idea………* B. Pocker Sahib Bahadur : I have not said that. Sir. I only said that it is the duty of every Member to act according to his conscience. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: By which I mean, I suppose that every Member who has conscience must oppose the proviso. It cannot mean anything else. ( Laughter.) B. Pocker Sahib Bahadur : Certainly not. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Now, Sir. this peculiar phenomenon of Muslim members being concerned in this particular proviso, as I said, has a history behind it, and I am sorry to say that my Honourable Friend, Pandit Kunzru forgot altogether that history ; I have no doubt about it that he is familiar with that history as I am myself. *Dots in the original debates indicate interruption. 501DRAFT CONSTITUTION

This matter goes back to the Round Table Conference which was held in 1930. Everyone who is familiar with what happened in the Round Table Conference, which was held in 1930 will remember that the two major parties who were represented in that Conference, namely the Muslim League and the Indian National Congress, found themselves at loggerheads on many points of constitutional importance. One of the points on which they found themselves at loggerheads was the question of provincial autonomy. Of course, it was realised that there could not be complete provincial autonomy in a Constitution which intended to preserve the unity of India, both in the matter of legislation and administration. But the Muslim League took up such an adamant attitude on this point that the Secretary of State had to make certain concessions in order to reconcile the Muslim League to the acceptance of some sort of responsible Government at the Centre. One of the things which the then Secretary of State did was to introduce this clause which is contained in Section 126 of the Government of India Act which stated that the authority of the Central Government, so far as legislation in the concurrent field was concerned, was to be strictly limited to the issue of directions and it should not extend to the actual administration of the matter itself. The argument was that there would have been no objection on the part of the Muslim League to have the Centre administer a particular law in the concurrent field if the Central Government was not likely to be dominated by the Hindus. That was so expressly stated, I remember, during the debates in the Round Table Conference. It is because the Muslim League Governments which came into existence in the provinces where the Muslims formed a majority, such as for instances in the North-West Frontier Province, the Punjab, Bengal and to some extent Assam, did not want it in the field which they thought exclusively belonged to them by reason of their majority, that the Secretary of State held to make this concession. I have no doubt about it that this was a concession. It was not an acceptance of the principle that the Centre should have no authority to administer a law passed in the concurrent field. My submission therefore is that the position stated in Section 126 of the Government of India Act, 1935, is not to be justified on principle ; it is justified because it was a concession made to the Muslims. Therefore, it is not proper to rely upon Section 126 in drawing any 502 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES