Vol. 13 · pages 721–725

688 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES NEW ARTICLE 183-A ‡Mr. President: There is a new article 183-A proposed by Dr. Ambedkar. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Sir, I beg to move : “That after article 183, the following new article be inserted:— Regulation by law of procedure in the Legislature of the State in rela tion to financial business. ‘183-A. The Legislature of a State may, for the purpose of the timely completion of the financial business, regulate by law the procedure of, and the conduct of business in, the House or Houses of the Legislature of the State in relation to any financial matter or to any Bill for the appropriation of moneys out of the Consolidated Fund of the State, and. if in so far as the provision of any law so made is consistent with any rule made by the House or either House of the Legislature of the State under the last preceding article or with any rule or standing order having effect in relation to the Legislature of the state under clause (2) of that article, such provision shall prevail.’” Mr. President : Does anyone wish to say anything ? The question is : “That new article 183-A be added to the constitution.” The motion was adopted. Article 183-A, was added to the Constitution. ***** ARTICLE 217 ***** *Mr. President: I have not seen any amendment. Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena : I gave notice of it this morning. I beg to move….. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar (Bombay : General): We have not got copies of his amendment. Shri L. Krishnaswami Bharathi (Madras : General): We cannot follow what he is moving. Mr. President : He gave notice of his amendment a few minutes before we actually sat. But I am told it is more or less word for word the same as No. 2741. ***** †Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena : Sir, I feel that articles of this fundamental importance should not go unnoticed in this House merely because certain amendments are not moved by Members who gave notice of them. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : I would like to raise one or two points about this. This seems to be a rather important matter. The first thing I want to know is whether this is an amendment or an amendment to an amendment. If it is an amendment to an amendment, it cannot be moved unless the main amendment is moved. *CAD, Vol. VIII, 13th June 1949, p. 793. † Ibid., p. 794.

689DRAFT CONSTITUTION Mr. President : It is an amendment to amendment No. 2743 which has been moved by Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad. The Honourable Member in his notice says that his amendment is an amendment to Nos. 2741, 2742, 2743, 2744 or 2745. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : If it is to be taken as an amendment to No. 2743, then obviously, as this goes far beyond the scope of 2743, it cannot be moved unless the Member satisfies you that he is not substantially changing the original amendment. As it is, it is a pure reproduction of the amendment which stands in the names of Messrs. Santhanam, Ananthasayanam Ayyangar and others. Following amendments moved by Mr. T. T. Krishnamachari were adopted. “That in clause (2) of article 217, after the word and figure ‘Part I’ the words and figures ‘or Part III’ be inserted.” “That in clause (3)ofarticle217,after the word and figure ‘Part ’ the words and figures “or Part III’ be inserted.” The amendments were adopted Article 217, as amended, was added to the Constitution. ***** ARTICLE 224 *The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : I wish that article 224 and 225 be held over. Mr. President : Article 224 and 225 are held over. ARTICLE 226 The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : I formally move amendment No. 2775. Then I move an amendment to this. Sir I move: “That for amendment No. 2775 of the List of Amendments, the following be substituted :— “That article 226 be renumbered as clause (1) of article 226, and (a) at the end of the said clause as so renumbered the words ‘while the resolution remains in force ‘be added : and (b) after clause (1) of article 226, as so renumbered, the following clauses be added :— (2) A resolution passed under clause (1) of this article shall remain in force for such period not exceeding one year as may be specified therein : Provided that if and so often as a resolution approving the continuance in force of any such resolution is passed in the manner provided in clause (1) of this article, such resolution shall continue in force for a further period of one year from the date on which under this clause it would otherwise have ceased to be in force. (3) A law made by Parliament which Parliament would not but for the passing of a resolution under clause (1) of this article have been competent to make shall to the extent of the incompetency cease to have effect on the expiration of a period of six months after the resolution has ceased to be in force, except as respects things done or omitted to be done before the expiration of the said period’.” ***** †Mr. President : Before I put the amendment to the vote, do you wish to say anything, Dr. Ambedkar ? *CAD, Vol. VIII, 13th June 1949, pp. 799-800. † Ibid., p. 809.

690 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Much has already been said. Unless you desire me to speak, 1 would rather not say anything. Mr. President : That is your choice. [Article 226, as amended by Dr. Ambedkar’s amendment was adopted and added to the Constitution.] ***** ARTICLE 229 ***** *The Honourable dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Sir, I move : “That with reference to amendments Nos. 2781 and 2783 of the List of Amendments, for clause (1) of article 229, the following clause be substituted :— ‘(1) If it appears to the Legislatures of two or more States to be desirable that any of the matters with respect to which Parliament has no power to make laws for the States except as provided in article 226 and 227 of this Constitution should he regulated in such States by Parliament bylaw, and resolutions to that effect are passed by the House or. where there are two Houses, by both the Houses of the Legislature of each of the States, it shall be lawful for Parliament, to pass an Act for regulating that matter accordingly and any Act so passed shall apply to such States and to any other State by which it is adopted afterwards by resolution passed in that behalf by the House or. where there are two Houses, by each of the Houses of the Legislature of that State.’” I would like to explain this amendment in a few brief sentences. The original article as it stood said : “If it appears to the Legislature or Legislatures of one or more States to be desirable, etc.” The new amendment said “if it appears to the Legislatures of two or more States to be desirable etc.” Under the new amendment it would be open to invoke the aid of Parliament to make a law only if two or more States join, and sent a resolution. The other changes in sub-clause (1) of article 229 are merely consequential to this principal amendment, namely, that the power can be invoked only if two or more States desire, but not by a single State. ***** †The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Sir, I quite appreciate the point raised by my Honourable Friend Mr. Santhanam; but 1 think he has not carefully read sub-clause (2). The important words are : ‘in like manner’, so that if the State legislatures in whose interest this legislation is passed in like manner, that is to say by resolution, agree that such legislation be amended or repealed. Parliament would be bound to do so. The Honourable Shri K. Santhanam : “May be amended”. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : ‘May’ means shall. There is no difficulty at all. [Dr. Ambedkar’s amendment was adopted. Article 229 as amended, was added to the Constitution.] *CAD, Vol. VIII, 13th June 1949, p. 811. †Ibid., p. 512.

691DRAFT CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 230 *The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Sir, I move : “That in article 230, for the words ‘for any Slate or part thereof’, the words ‘for the whole or any part of the territory of India’ be substituted.” [The amendment was adopted without further discussion. Article 230, as amended, was added to the Constitution.] ARTICLE 231 †The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Sir, I move : “That with reference to amendment No. 2788 of the List of amendments, in clause (2) of article 231, after the word and figure ‘Part I’ the words and figures ‘or Pari III’ be inserted.” ***** ‡The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Sir, I agree that Mr. Thanu Pillai’s point requires explanation. Now the explanation is this. I am sure he will agree that the rule regarding repugnancy which is mentioned in article 231 must be observed so far as future laws made by Parliament are concerned. He will see that the wording in article 231 is ‘whether passed before or alter’. Surely with regard to laws made by Parliament after the commencement of this Constitution, the rule of repugnancy must have universal application with regard to laws made both by the States in Part I and by the States mentioned in Part III. With regard to the question of repugnancy as to the laws made before the passing of this Constitution, the position is this. As I have said so often in this House, it is our desire and I am sure the desire of the House that all articles in the Constitution should be made generally applicable to all States without making any specific differentiation between States in Part I and Part III. It is no good that whenever you pass an article you should have added to that article a proviso making some kind of saving in favour of States in Part III, although there is no doubt about it that some savings will have to be made with regard to laws made by States in Part III. That is proposed to be done, as I said, in a new Part or a new Schedule where the reservation in respect of States in Part III will be enacted, so that so far as laws made before the Constitution comes into existence are concerned, they would be saved by some provision enacted in that special form or special Schedule. I should like to add to that one more point viz., that while it is proposed to make reservations in that special part in favour of Part III States, nonetheless that reservation could not be absolute because the reservations made therein, at any rate some provisions in that special part, will be governed by article 307 which gives the President the power to make adaptations. Now that adaptation will apply both to States in Part I as well as to States *CAD, Vol. VIII, 13th June 1949, p. 813. † Ibid., p. 813. ‡ Ibid., pp. 814-15.

692 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES in Part III. Therefore so far as regards laws made by Parliament or the Legislatures of States in Part III before the commencement, they will in the first instance be saved from the operation of article 231 but they will also be subject to the provisions of article 307 dealing with adaptation. [Dr. Ambedkar’s amendment, as mentioned earlier was accepted. Article 231, as amended, was added to the Constitution.] ARTICLE 232 *Mr. President : We take up article 232. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Sir, I beg to move : “That the heading to article 232 ‘Restriction on Legislative Powers’ be omitted.” With your permission I move my new amendment: “(i) That after the word and figure ‘Part I’ the words and figures ‘or Part III’ be inserted ; and (ii) after clause (a) of article 232, the following clause be inserted :— ‘(aa) where the recommendation required was that of the Ruler, either by the Ruler or by the President’.” Now Sir, I have come to understand that there is some sentimental objection to the use of the word ‘ruler’. I am prepared to yield to that sentiment and what I therefore propose is that the House should accept this amendment for the moment and leave the matter to the Drafting Committee to find a better word to replace the word ‘ruler’. Otherwise the whole of the article would have to be unnecessarily held over for no other reason except that we cannot find at the moment a better word to substitute for the word ‘ruler’. [All the above amendments of Dr. Ambedkar were adopted. Article 232, as amended, was added to the Constitution.] ARTICLE 234 Mr. President : We take up No. 234. †The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Sir, I move : That the following new clause be added to article 234 :— (3) Where by virtue of any direction given to a State as to the construction or maintenance of any means of communication under the last precending clause of this article costs have been incurred in excess of those which would have been incurred in the discharge of the normal duties of the State if such direction had not been given, there shall be paid by the Government of India to the State such sum as may be agreed or, in default of agreement, as may be determined by an arbitrator appointed by the Chief Justice of India in respect of the extra costs so incurred by the State. [The amendment was adopted. Article 234, as amended was added to the Constitution.] ***** *CAD, Vol. VIII, 13th June 1949, p. 815. †Ibid., p. 816.