Vol. 13 · pages 811–815

778 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES [Mr. Sidhwa moved another amendment which was followed by his speech.] ***** *The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : I am very sorry, Sir. I should have requested you at the very outset to allow this article to stand over. Mr. President : It is suggested that this article be held over. ***** ARTICLE 251 †The Honourable Dr. R. R. Ambedkar : Sir, I beg to move : “That in clause (2) of article 251, for the words ‘revenues of India’ the words ‘Consolidated Fund of India’ be substituted.” ***** ‡The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Sir, I can explain the tiling now. Before I do that, I will take up the other amendments. There is an amendment by Mr. Barman and there is another amendment by Prof. Saksena. I am sorry to say that I cannot accept either of the amendments. This question whether the percentage of revenue collected by way of Income-tax should be prescribed in the Constitution itself either as sixty per cent, or any other percentage or should be left to the President to decide is a matter over which considerable thought has been bestowed both by the Central Government as well as by the provincial Governments in the Conference which took place the other day to discuss this matter. It was agreed that the best thing would be to leave the matter to be prescribed by the President and that no proportion should be fixed in the Constitution itself. With regard to the other question raised by Prof. Sakesna, that instead of the word “prescribed”, the wording should be “prescribed by Parliament”, again I am sorry to say that I cannot accept the amendment. Our schemes is to allow the President to prescribe the proportion in the first instance by himself and in the second instance after a consideration of the recommendations of the Finance Commission. We do not propose to bring the Parliament in. Because, in that case, there would be a great deal of wrangle between the representatives of the different provinces and great injustice may be done by reason of the fact that certain provinces may have a very large majority in the Parliament and certain other provinces may have a small representation. Consequently, to leave the matter to Parliament practically means leaving it to the voice of those provinces who happen to have a larger * CAD, Vol. IX, dated 5th August 1949, p. 209. †Ibid., p. 211. ‡Ibid, pp. 221-23.

779DRAFT CONSTITUTION representation at the Centre, and that I think would cut at the root of the justice which you want to be done to the various provinces. Now, Sir, coming to the difficulty that you have raised, the words “States within which that tax is leviable in that year” are necessary. They occur in the Government of India Act, 1935. The reason why these words were then introduced was because Income-tax was not to be levied in the Indian States which were to come within the Indian Union. In lieu of the Income-tax, the Indian States were required to make certain contributions, therefore, if the tax was not to be levied in that State, that State would not be entitled to obtain a share. We do not know what is going to be the procedure under the present Constitution. This matter is being examined by a Committee which has been appointed to investigate into the finances of the Indian States. If the recommendation of that Committee is that Income-tax should be leviable in all the States whether they originally constituted Indian Provinces or Indian States, then naturally these words would have to be altered. While moving this article, I retain liberty to the Drafting Committee to suggest to some amendment in that respect when the report of that Committee comes before us. That is the reason why these words are here. Mr. President : Just one thing more. May I take it that it is not intended to cover cases within what used to be British India ? The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : No, no ; States in Part III. Shri B. Das : Dr. Ambedkar has referred to decisions of a Conference of Prime Ministers of Provinces and the Drafting Committee. Tins House has no knowledge of what passed between them and what the result of their discussions is. Unless a Minute of those discussions is laid on the table of the House in the form of a note or otherwise, we are not in a position to come to any conclusion as to the action of the Drafting Committee. Mr. Pesident : I take it, if there had been any question raised by any of the Premiers of the Provinces, they would be here to raise them if they did not agree with the draft. Therefore I take the draft as now placed before the House has the concurrence or the consent of the Premiers. Shri B. Das : The House is not bound by what the Premiers and Finance Ministers did outside this House. If any decision was taken, it is the privilege and prerogative of this House to have copies of those documents. Mr. President : No one is bound here by any decision taken by the Premiers and the Drafting Committee. The House is free to cast its vote in any way it likes.

780 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES Pandit Lakshmi Kanta Maitra : I would like to ask for clarification from Dr. Ambedkar on one point. The point is this. This article provides that the revenue shall be distributed among the States in such a manner and from such time as may be prescribed. ... Will the interim allocation be decided on the recommendations of the Finance Committee ? It is not clear as to what is going to happen with regard to the period immediately following the coming into operation of the Constitution, and before the appointment of the Commission envisaged in a subsequent period. *The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Sir, the explanation is very simple. If we wanted that there should be no interim enquiry before the President made an order of allocation, we would have merely said that such allocation as existed before the commencement of the Constitution shall continue until they are re-determined by the President on the recommendation of the Commission. We have not said that, and we have not said that deliberately, because we want that an enquiry should be made and on the basis of the enquiry the President may prescribe by order. That is the reason for the difference in language. Pandit Lakshmi Kanta Maitra : That is to say, the interim Commission will be appointed straightaway now and on the recommendation of that Commission the President will prescribe by order ? The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Yes. Otherwise we would have merely said that the existing allocation will continue until the President isued the new order. Mr. President : I will now put the various amendments to vote. I will first put amendment No. 2858, moved by Shri Upendra Nath Barman. Shri Upendra Nath Barman : Sir, in view of the statement of Dr. B. R. Ambedkar, I wish to withdraw my amendment. The amendment was, by leave of the Assembly, withdrawn. Mr. President : Then I put amendment No. 76, moved by Dr. Ambeddkar. That is a verbal amendment. The question is : “That in clause (2) of article 251, for the words ‘revenues of India’ the words ‘Consolidated Fund of India’ be substituted.” The amendment was adopted. Mr. President : Then there is the amendment of Shri T.T. Krishnamachari. * CAD, Vol. IX. date 5th August 1949, pp. 222-23.

781DRAFT CONSTITUTION The question is : “That in sub-clause (c) of clause (4) of article 251, for the words ‘revenues of India’ the words ‘Consolidated Fund of India’ be substituted.” The amendment was adopted. ***** [Prof. Saksena’s amendment was negatived.] Article 251, as amended, was added to the Constitution. ARTICLE 253 *Mr. President : Then we take up article 253. (Amendments Nos. 2883 and 2884 were not moved.) Mr. President : What about amendment No. 2885 ? Do you wish to move it, Dr. Ambedkar ? The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : No ; Mr. Tyagi will move Ins amendment. (Amendments Nos. 2886 to 2896 were not moved.) Mr. President : Do you move, your amendment No. 2897, Mr. Bardoloi ? The Honourable Shri Gopinath Bardoloi (Assam : General) : I do not want to move the amendment, but I would like to speak on the article. (Amendments Nos. 2898 to 2902 were not moved.) Shri Mahavir Tyagi (United Proivinces : General) : Sir, I had an amendment. Mr. President : I have not finished all the amendments. I am taking them in order and will come to your amendment later. Amendment No. 81. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Sir I move : “That in clause (2) of article 253. for the words ‘revenues of India’ the words ‘Consolidated Fund of India’ be substituted.” Mr. President : Then amendment No. 214, in the name of Shri Mahavir Tyagi. Shri Mahavir Tyagi : Sir, I move: “That with reference to amendment No. 2886 of the List of Amendments, clause (1) of article 253 he deleted.” ***** †Mr. President : Dr. Ambedkar, do you wish to say anything ? The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Sir, I am prepared to accept the amendment moved by Mr. Tyagi, and I think it is necessary that * CAD, Vol. IX, dated 5th August 1949, p. 224. †Ibid., pp. 238-39.

782 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES I should offer some explanation on behalf of the Drafting Committee as to why it has proposed to accept this amendment. Before I begin with the main points, which justify the acceptance of the amendment. I should like to meet the point of criticism which has been levelled against the Drafting Committee by my Friend Professor Saksena. Professor Saksena said that it was not proper for the Drafting Committee to have originally put clause (1) in the article and now be ready to accept the amendment moved by Mr. Tyagi. I should like to state that clause (1) which the Drafting Committee put, does not have its origin in the deliberations of the Drafting Committee itself. That clause was suggested, if I remember correctly, in the report of the Union Powers Committee where a decision was taken that there should be no imposition of any salt duty. As the Drafting Committee was bound by the directions and the principles contained in the report of the Union Powers Committee, they had no option except to incorporate that suggestion in the article which deals with this matter. Therefore, there is really no question of vacillation, so to say, on the part of the Drafting Committee. I now come to the practical difficulties that are likely to arise if that clause was retained. It will be recalled that in List I, we have two entries, entry 86 which permits the levy of excise by the Central Government, we have also entry 85 which permits the levy of a duty of customs. Now, if sub-clause (1) of article 253 remained as part of the Constitution, it is obvious that the Central Government would not be entitled to employ either entry 86 or entry 85 for the purpose of levying an excise or custom on salt. That is quite clear, because clause (1) takes away legislative power with respect to salt duty which was otherwise levied by entry 86, or entry 85. Now, it was represented that while the non-employment of the powers given under entry 86 to levy excise may not cause much difficulty to the country, the embargo, if I may say so, on the utilisation of the powers given under entry 85 to levy a customs duty may cause a great deal of difficulty, because (hat would permit the importation of foreign salt to be brought into India without the Government of India being in a position to apply any kind of legislative remedy to stop such influx of salt which may practically destroy the Indian salt industry. It was, therefore, felt that the better thing would be to remove the embargo and to leave the matter to the future Parliament, to act in accordance with circumstances that might arise at any particular