Vol. 13 · pages 746–750

713DRAFT CONSTITUTION Shri Mahavir Tyagi : What about the rest of the waters ? The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Anything below the air you get. Shri Mahavir Tyagi: What about waters beyond three miles ? Shri M. Ananthasayanam Ayyangar : May I ask Dr. Ambedkar if he is not aware that water is as much a property as anything else, if not better property and disputes over water have arisen in plenty ? To avoid disputes between a Province and the Union, is it not desirable to include waters also in the property of the Indian Union ? Mr. President: He has answered that; he thinks it is not necessary to say that. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Anything above the land goes with the land. If there is a tree above the land, the tree goes with the land. Water is above the land and it goes with the land, An Honourable Member : Sir……… Mr. President: I think we have sufficiently discussed and Dr. Ambedkar has replied to the debate. We need have no further discussion. I will put the article to vote. Shri K. Hanumanthaiya (Mysore State): I want one clarification, Sir. As Dr. Ambedkar says if territorial waters, that is, land three miles beyond the coast-line, belongs to the Union, where is the necessity for this section at all ? Mr. President : That is the question which he has answered. Shri K. Hanumanthaiya : If the interpretation of Dr. Ambedkar holds good. Mr. President : No more discussion about it. Dr. Ambedkar has said what he has to say. Members have to take it. I shall now put the article to vote. The question is : “That the following new article be added, after article 271 :— All lands, minerals and other things of value lying things of value lying within territorial Waters vest in the Union. 271-A. All lands, minerals and other things of value underlying the ocean within the territorial waters of India shall vest in the Union and he held for the purposes of the Union. The motion was adopted. Article 271-A was added to the Constitution.

714 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES ARTICLE 272 *The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Sir, I move : “That in article 272, after the word and figure ‘Part I’ in the two places where they occur, the words and figures ‘or Part III’ he inserted.” * * * * * †Mr. President : Would you like to speak, Dr. Ambedkar ? The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : I think Mr. Munshi has clearly explained and I do not like to add anything to it. The amendment was adopted. Article 272, as amended, was added to the Constitution. ARTICLE 273 ‡Mr. President : We take up 273. Dr. Ambedkar. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Sir, I beg to move : “That in clause (1) of article 273, after the word and figure ‘Part I’ the words and figures ‘or Part III’ be inserted. That with reference to amendment No. 201 above, in clause (l)of article 273, after the word ‘Governor’ in the two places where it occurs, the words ‘or the Ruler’ be inserted. That with reference to amendment No. 201 above, in clause (2) of article 273, for the word ‘the Governor of a state’ the words ‘the Governor or the Ruler’ be substituted.” * * * * * #The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Sir, my Honourable Friend Mr. Kamath had something to say about the use of the word “assurances”, and I think his argument was that we were using the word “contracts” in one place and “assurances” in another. “Assurance” is a very old word in English conveyancing; it was used and is being used to cover all kinds of transfers and therefore the word “assurance” includes the word “contract”. So there is no difficulty if both these words are used because assurance as a transfer of property has the significance of a contract. Shri H. V. Kamath : My difficulty was about the language. The article starts with “all contracts” and then we have “all such contracts and all assurances of property”, etc. *CAD, Vol. VIII, 15th Tune 1949, p. 893. †Ibid., 895. ‡Ibid, p. 895. #Ibid., pp. 898-99.

715DRAFT CONSTITUTION The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : If there is any difficulty about the language it will be looked into by the Drafting Committee. I was explaining the technical difference between assurance and contract. Then Mr. Tyagi asked why a person should be freed of liability if lie signs a contract. I think much of the objection raised by Mr. Tyagi would fully disappear if he were made a member of the Cabinet: I should like him to answer the question whether any contract that he has made on behalf of the Government of India should impose a personal liability on him. I am sure he knows the ordinary commercial procedure. A principal appoints an agent to do certain things on his behalf. Unless the agent has acted outside the scope of the authority conferred upon him by the principal, the agent has no personal liability in regard to any contract that he has made for the benefit of the principal. It is the same principle here. My Honourable Friend Mr. Tyagi does not know that there is a well established system in the Government of India whereby it is laid down that it is only a document or letter issued by an officer of a certain status that binds the Government of India; a document or letter issued by any other officer does not bind the Government of India. We have therefore by rule specifically to say whether it is the Under-Secretary who would have the power to bind the Government of India, or the Joint Secretary or the Additional Secretary or the Secretary alone. Therefore I do not see why the person who is acting merely on behalf of the Government of India as a signing agency should be fastened upon for personal liability, because he is acting on the authority of the Government of India or within the authority of the Government of India. If the Government of India approves of any particular transaction to which the legislature raises any objection as being unnecessary, unprofitable or outside the scope of the legislative authority conferred by Parliament upon the executive Government, it is a matter between the Government and the Parliament. Parliament may either remove the Government or repudiate the contract or do anything it likes. But I do not understand how a personal liability can be fixed upon a man who is merely appointed as an agent to assure the other party that he is signing in the name of the Government of India. There is no substance in the objection raised by my friend Mr. Tyagi. Mr. President : I will now put the various amendments to vote. [All the three amendments by Dr. Ambedkar were accepted. Article 273, as amended, was added to the Constitution]

716 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES ARTICLE 274 *Mr. President : Article 274 is now for discussion. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Sir, I move : “That in clause (1) of article 274, for the words ‘Government of India’, in the second place where they occur, the words ‘Union of India’ be substituted.” Sir, with your permission I will also move my other amendments to this article now. I move: “That in sub-clause (a) of clause, (2) of article 274, for the words ‘Government of India’ the words ‘Union of India’ be substituted.” I move: “That with reference to amendment No. 2980 of the List of Amendments, in clause (1) of article 274, after the word and figure ‘Part I’ the words and figures ‘or Part III’ be inserted.” I move: “That with reference to amendments Nos. 2980 and 2981 of the List of Amendments, in clause (1) of article 274, for the words ‘by the Legislature’ the words ‘of the Legislature’ be substituted.” I move : “That with reference to amendment No. 204 above, in clause {1) of article 274, after the words ‘corresponding Provinces’ the words ‘or the corresponding Indian States’ be inserted.” I move: “That with reference to amendment No. 206 above, in sub-clause (2) of article 274— (i) after the words ‘a Province’, the words ‘or an Indian State’ be inserted; and (ii) after the words ‘the Province’ the words ‘or the Indian State’ be inserted.” Shri Jaspat Roy Kapoor (United provinces : General) : I am not moving my amendments Nos. 2981 and 2984. They may well be referred to the Drafting Committee for consideration.’ †The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Sir, perhaps it might be desirable if I read to the House how the article would stand if the various amendments which I have moved were incorporated in the article. The article would read thus : “The Government of India may sue or be sued in the name of the Union of India, and the Government of a State for the tune being specified in Part I or Part III of the First Schedule may sue or be sued in the name of the State and may, subject to any provisions which may be made by Act of Parliament or by the Legislature of such State, enacted by virtue of the powers conferred by this Constitution sue or be sued in relation to their respective spheres in the like cases as the Dominion of India and the *CAD, Vol. VIII, 15th June 1949, p. 900. †Ibid., pp. 901-02.

717DRAFT CONSTITUTION corresponding Provinces or the corresponding Indian States might have sued or been sued if this Constitution had not been enacted. (2) if at the date of commencement of this Constitution— (a) any legal proceedings are pending to which the Dominion of India is a party, the Union of India—” that it is the new thing— “shall he deemed to he substituted for the Dominion in those proceedings; and (b) any legal proceedings are pending to which a Province or an Indian State is a party, the corresponding State shall be deemed to be substituted for the province or the Indian State in those proceedings.” Now this article, as it will be seen, merely prescribes the way in which suits and proceedings shall be stated. This has no other significance at all. The original wording was that it shall be sued in the name of the Government of India. Obviously the Government of India, that is to say, the executive government, is a fleeting body, being there at one time and then disappearing and some other people coming in and taking charge of the executive. Shri H. V. Kamath : The Government is not fleeting; the personnel of the government may be fleeting. The Honourable Dr. B.R. Ambedkar : There is a difference between the Government of India and the Union of India. The Government of India is not a legal entity ; the Union of India is a legal entity, a sovereign body which possesses rights and obligations and therefore it is only right that any suit brought by or against the Central Government should be in the name of the Union or against the Union. Now, with regard to the term “corresponding States” some difficulty was expressed. It may no doubt be quite difficult to say which State corresponds to the old State. In order to meet this difficulty, provision has been made in article 303 (1) (g), which you will find on page 145 of the Draft Constitution, where it has been provided that a corresponding Province or corresponding State means in cases of doubt such Province or State as may be determined by the President to be the corresponding Province or, as the case may be, the corresponding State for the particular purpose in question. Therefore this difficulty— since the exact equivalent of an old Province or State is difficult to judge as there are bound to be some variations as to territory and so on—can be solved only by giving power to the President to determine which new particular State corresponds to which particular old State. So that provision has been made. Sub-clause (2) deals with pending proceedings and all that sub-clause (2) suggests is this : that when any proceedings are pending, where the