Vol. 13 · pages 666–670

633DRAFT CONSTITUTION I do not know how many Members really have a conception of what is meant by privilege. Now the privileges, which we think of, fall into two different classes. There are first of all, the privileges belonging to individual members, such as for instance freedom of speech, immunity from arrest while discharging their duty. But that is not the whole thing covered by privilege. Dr. P. S. Deshmukh : We do not want any enumeration of the privileges nor any lecture on how they are exercised. What we want to know is whether it is not possible to embody them into the Constitution. That is the real question. Mr. President : He is dealing with the matter. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : I am mentioning the difficulty. If we were only concerned with these two things, namely freedom of speech and immunity from arrest, these matters could have been very easily mentioned in the article itself and we would have had no occasion to refer to the House of Commons. But the privileges which we speak of in relation to Parliament are much wider than the two privileges mentioned and which relate to individual members. The privileges of Parliament extends, for instance, to the rights of Parliament as against the public. Secondly, they also extend to right as against the individual members. For instance, under the House of Commons’ powers and privileges it is open to Parliament to convict any citizen for contempt of Parliament and when such privilege is exercised the jurisdiction of the court is ousted. That is an important privilege. Then again, it is open to Parliament to take action against any individual member of Parliament for anything that has been done by him which brings Parliament into disgrace. These are very grave matters—e.g., to commit to prison. The right to lock up a citizen for what Parliament regards as contempt of itself is not an easy matter to define. Nor is it easy to say what are the acts and deeds of individual members which bring Parliament into disrepute. Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava : We are only concerned with the privileges of members and not with the privileges of Parliament. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Let me proceed. It is not easy, as I said, to define what are the acts and deeds which may be deemed to bring Parliament into disgrace. That would require a considerable amount of discussion and examination. That is one reason why we did not think of enumerating these privileges and immunities.

634 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES But there is not the slightest doubt in my mind and I am sure also in the mind of the Drafting Committee that Parliament must have certain privileges, when that Parliament would be so much exposed to calumny, to unjustified criticism that the parliamentary institution in this country might be brought down to utter contempt and may lose all the respect which parliamentary institutions should have from the citizens for whose benefit they operate. I have referred to one difficulty why it has not been possible to categorise. Now I should mention some other difficulties which we have felt. It seems to me, if the proposition was accepted that the Act itself should enumerate the privileges of Parliament, we would have to follow three courses. One is to adopt them in the Constitution, namely to set out in detail the privileges and immunities of Parliament and its members. I have very carefully gone over May’s Parliamentary Practice which is the source book of knowledge with regard lo the immunities and privileges of Parliament. I have gone over the index to May’s Parliamentary Practice and I have noticed that practically 8 or 9 columns of the index are devoted to the privileges and immunities of Parliament, So that if you were to enact a complete code of the privileges and immunities of Parliament based upon what May has to say on this subject, I have not the least doubt in my mind that we will have to add not less than twenty or twenty-five pages relating to immunities and privileges of Parliament. I do not know whether the members of this House would like to have such a large categorical statement of privileges and immunities of Parliament extending over twenty or twenty-live pages. That I think is one reason why we did not adopt that course. The other course is to say, as has been said in many places in the Constitution, that Parliament may make provision with regard to a particular matter and until Parliament makes that provision the existing position would stand. That is the second course which we could have adopted. We could have said that Parliament may define the privileges and immunities of the members and of the body itself, and until that happens the privileges existing on the date on which the Constitution comes into existence shall continue to operate. But unfortunately for us, as Honourable Members will know, the 1935 Act conferred no

635DRAFT CONSTITUTION privileges and no immunities on Parliament and its members. All that it provided for was a single provision that there shall be freedom of speech and no member shall be prosecuted for anything said in the debate inside Parliament. Consequently that course was not open, because the existing Parliament or Legislative Assembly possesses no privilege and no immunity. Therefore we could not resort to that course. The third course open to us was the one which we have followed, namely, that the privileges of Parliament shall be the privileges of the House of Commons. It seems to me that except for the sentimental objection to the reference to the House of Commons I cannot see that there is any substance in the argument that has been advanced against the course adopted by the Drafting Committee. I therefore suggest that the article has adopted the only possible way of doing it and there is no other alternative way open to us. Thai being so, I suggest that this article be adopted in the way in which we have drafted it. Dr. P. S. Deshmukh : The honourable Member has said nothing about my other suggestion. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : As I said, if you want to categorise and set out in detail all the privileges and immunities it will take not less than twenty-five pages….* Mr. President: Dr. Deshmukh’s suggestion was that in this article which deals with the legislatures of the States we might only say that the members of a State legislature will have the same privileges as Members of our Parliament. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : That is only a drafting suggestion. For instance, it can be said that most of the articles we are adopting for the State Legislatures are more or less the same articles which we have adopted for the Parliament at the centre. We might as well say that in most of the other cases the same provisions will apply to the State Legislature but as we have not adopted that course, it would be rather odd to adopt it in this particular case. Mr. President : I shall first put the amendment of Mr. Jaspat Roy Kapoor to the House. “That in clause (4) of article 169 alter the words ‘a House of the Legislature of a State’ the words ‘or any committee thereof’ be inserted.” The amendment was adopted. Article 169, as amended, was added to the constitution. ***** *Dots indicate interruption

636 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES ARTICLE 170 *Shri L. Krishnaswami Bharathi (Madras : General) : Sir, I beg to move : “That in article 170, after the winds ‘so made’ the words ‘salaries and’ he inserted.” ***** †Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : We have not had notice that article 109 will be taken up today. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : What does it matter ***** ARTICLE 109 ‡The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Mr. President, Sir, I move : “That in article 109 for the words ‘if in so far as’ the words ‘if and in so far as’ be substituted.” (Amendments Nos. 1896 and 1897 were not moved.) ***** #The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : I do not think it is necessary to say anything. I accept Mr. T. T. Krishnamachari’s amendment (The amendment was as under):— “That for the proviso to article 109, the following he substituted :— ‘Provided that the said jurisdiction shall not extend to a dispute to which any State is a party, if the dispute arises out of any provision of a treAty agreement, engagement, sanad or other similar instrument which provides that the said jurisdiction shall not extend to such dispute.” [The amendment was adopted along with that of Dr. Ambedkar as shown earlier.] Article 109, as amended, was added to the Constitution. ARTICLE 110 ***** @ Mr. President: Does No. 111 cover cases of criminal nature also ? Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : No. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : We are making provision for that by a separate article. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : I am very grateful to you Sir, for pointing out that article 111 does not make any provision for criminal case…… ***** *CAD, Vol. VIII, 3rd June 1948, p. 584. †Ibid., p. 588. ‡Ibid., p. 588. #Ibid., p. 590. @Ibid., pp. 593-94.

637DRAFT CONSTITUTION *The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : I move : “That in clause (3) of article 110, for the words ‘not only on the ground that any such question as aforesaid has been wrongly decided, hut also, the words on the ground that any such question as aforesaid has been wrongly decided and with the leave of the Supreme Court,’ be substituted.” The existing language is somewhat awkward and that is the reason why we are putting it in a different way so that it may read without any difficulty. The clause now will read as follows :— “Where such a certificate is given, or such leave is granted, any party in the case may appeal to the Supreme Court on the ground that any such question as aforesaid has been wrongly decided, and with the leave of the Supreme Court, on any other ground.” ***** †The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Sir, I cannot help saying that the debate has really gone off the track and the Members have really wandered far away from the immediate point raised by my Friend Mr. Naziruddin Ahmed in his amendments Nos. 1904 and 1907. All that is before us is amendment No. 1904. According to that amendment what my friend Mr. Naziruddin Ahmed wants to do is to suggest that the last few words of sub-clause (1) of article 110, namely the words as to the interpretation of this Constitution should be deleted. I am sorry I was not able to hear exactly the grounds which he urged for the deletion of the phrase ‘as to’ the interpretation of this Constitution’. Although I tried hard to catch his very words, all that I could hear him say as the reason for moving amendment No. 1904 was that he felt that those words were words of limitation, and that if those words remained there would be no provision for an appeal to the Supreme Court in cases where a question of constitutional law did not arise. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : I believe I am right. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : No question of certificate arises. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : You wanted to delete that yesterday. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : I think my honourable Friend Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad has probably n(H grasped the scheme of the articles which deal with the Supreme Court. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : That is your stock argument. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : We have in this Draft Constitution made separate provision for appeal in cases where *CAD, Vol. VIII, 3rd June 1948, p. 595. †Ibid., pp. 612-14.