Vol. 13 · pages 816–820

783DRAFT CONSTITUTION moment. That is the reason why the Drafting Committee is prepared to accept the amendment of my Friend Mr. Tyagi. Shri R. K. Sidhva : May I know why the item of prohibition was entered in the directive policy ? If clause (1) of this article is to be deleted, may I know why the item regarding prohibition was inserted in the Directive Principles of the Government, and may I also know why the wearing of Kirpans was also put in the Fundamental Rights ? The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Oh, Kirpans stand on quite a different footing. ***** *Several Honourable Members : No speeches now. Mr. President: Let there be no speeches. If the Members so desire, I may allow the article to be held over for further consideration. The Honourable Shri K. Santhanam : The article may be held over. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : The article may beheld over. Shri Mahavir Tyagi : The article may be held over. Mr. President : This article will stand over. ***** ARTICLE 253 (Contd.) † Mr. President : We shall take up consideration of article 254, to begin with. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar (Bombay : General) : Sir, before we begin discussion of article 254,1 would request you to allow consideration of Mr. Tyagi’s amendment to article 253, because the Prime Minister wishes to speak on it. Although the debate is closed, I would request you to allow the Prime Minister to make a speech, before you put the amendment to vote. Mr. President : Yes. Honourable Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru. ***** [Article 253, as amended, by Dr. Ambedkar’s amendment was added to the Constitution.] ARTICLE 254 ‡The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Mr. President, Sir, I move : “That for article 254, the following be substituted :— 254. (1) There shall be charged on the Consolidated Fund of India in each year as grants-in-aid of the revenues of the States of Bengal, Bihar, Assam and Orissa in lieu of assignment of any share of the net proceeds in each year of export duty on jute and jute-products to these States such sums as may be prescribed by the President. * CAD, Vol. IX, dated 5th August 1949, p. 240. †Ibid., dated 8th August 1949, p. 241. ‡Ibid., dated 8th August 1949, pp. 242-43. Grants in lieu of export duty on Jute and Jute products

784 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES (2) The sums so prescribed shall continue to be charged on the Consolidated Fund of India so long as export duty on jute or juteproducts continues to be levied by the Government of India or until the expiration of ten years, whichever is earlier. (3) In this article, the expression ‘prescribed’ ‘has the same meaning as in article 251 of this Constitution.” Sir, this amendment makes an important change in the existing system of sharing the export duty on jute and jute-products. Under the Government of India Act, it was provided that certain provinces which are mentioned in this article should be entitled to a certain share in the proceeds of the export duty on jute and jute-products for the reason the jute forms a very important commodity in the economy of the provinces mentioned in this article. The proposal in the amended article is to do away with this right of certain provinces to claim a share in the export duty on jute and jute-products. The reason, if I may say so, is a very simple one. Ordinarily all export and import duties belong to the Central Government and no province has any right to a share in the export duty levied on any particular commodity which, as I said, happens to form an important commodity in the economy of that particular province. In view of the fact, however, that the finances of Bengal, particularly, could not be balanced without a share in the export duty, an exception was made in the Government of India Act, 1935, whereby the Bengal Government and the other Governments were given vested rights, so to say, to claim a share in the export duty which, as I said, was contrary to the general principle that the export and import duties belong to the Central Government. It is now felt that this exception which was made in the Government of India Act, 1935, should not be allowed to be continued hereafter. The reason why it is felt that this vicious principle should be stopped right now is that it is perfectly possible to imagine that other provinces also who have certain commodities grown in their area and exported outside on which the Government of India collects an export duty may also lay claim to a share in the export duty on those products. If that tendency develops it would be a very difficult position for the Government of India. Consequently it has been decided that that principle should now definitely be abrogated.’ But it is equally clear that if that principle of sharing in the export duty was withdrawn suddenly it might create a difficulty in balancing the budgets of the several provinces which were

785DRAFT CONSTITUTION up to now dependent upon a share in the export duty. Therefore a provision is made that instead of giving specifically a share in the export duty an equivalent sum or such other amount as the President might determine may be made over or assigned to those provinces for the period the export duty continues to be levied or until the expiration often years, whichever is earlier. The latter is introduced in order to enable those provinces to get sufficient time to develop their resources so that after the period mentioned in this article they would be in a position to balance their budgets. I hope, Sir, the salutary principle which is now embodied in this amended article 254 will be acceptable to the House. ***** *The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar (Bombay : General) : Mr. President, Sir, in my reply to the debate, I do not propose to go over the many tales of woe that have been sung in this House by Members from different provinces who feel that they have been badly treated in the distribution of revenues that has been ordered under the Government of India Act, 1935. I just propose to take the few more concerete points to reply to. First of All, I propose to say a word with regard to the amendment moved by my Friend, Professor Shibban Lai Saksena. He wants that the grants, instead of being fixed by the President, should be fixed by Parliament. Now, in the course of the debate on other financial articles that took place last time, I said that it was not the intention to bring Parliament in the matter of the distribution, because we do not want that the distribution of revenue should become a subject matter either of log-rolling between different provinces or wrangling between the representatives of different provinces. We want this matter to be decided by the President or by the President on the advice of the Finance Commission. That is the reason why I am not prepared to accept Professor Saksena’s amendment. Then I come to the point raised by my Friend, Mr. Maitra. His first argument was that he saw no reason why the Drafting Committee should now bring forth an amendment so as to change the original article. I am sure he forgot to refer to the recommendations of. the Expert Committee on Finance. If he will refer to that, I think that he will agree with me that it was the Expert Committee who recommended that the * CAD, Vol. IX, dated 8th August 1949, pp. 259-61.

786 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES system of allocation of the jute duty and the duty on jute-products should be altered. It was therefore not a matter of any volition or wish on the part of the Drafting Committee to effect a change in the original article. Pandit Lakshmi Kanta Maitra : They referred to compensation also. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : I will come to that. The only tiling which the Drafting Committee did not accept was the allocation suggested by the Expert Committee on Finance, to be given to the different provinces which would be losing their share in the export duty on jute. It was felt by the Drafting Committee that probably the figures suggested by the Expert Committee required further examination. Having regard to the very short time that was at the disposal of the Expert Committee the Drafting Committee did not feel sure that the figures suggested by the Expert Committee could be accepted by them without further examination. It was because of that fear that the Drafting Committee, instead of adopting the figures suggested by the Expert Committee, adopted their own formula which now finds a place in the new article, viz. that the grants-in-aid in lieu of compensation for the loss of the jute duty shall be prescribed by the President. There is therefore, no desire on the part of the Drafting Committee either to take away a legitimate source of revenue from the four provinces which have been mentioned in this particular article, in which, so to say, they have a vested right, nor has the Drafting Committee attempted to make any fundamental alterations in the figures suggested by the Expert Committee. All that they have done is to leave the matter to the President. Now, my Friend, Pandit Hirday Nath Kunzru, pointed out that the Drafting Committee was wrong in inserting a definition of the word “prescribe” in the article now before the House. He went further to say that even in the last article which we passed, which is 260, the word “prescribed” ought not to be there. Now, it seems to me somewhat difficult, whatever may be the merits of the proposition that he has urged, to avoide the definition of the word “prescribed”. We have said in the main part of article 254 that the grants-in-aid shall be such as may be prescribed. Now, any lawyer would want to know what the word “prescribed” means. Either we would have to have a special definition of the word “prescribed” which would be confined to or circumscribed by the provisions of article 254 or we would have to alter the provisions contained in article 260 where the word “prescribed” has been defined.

787DRAFT CONSTITUTION Mr. President : Probably you refer to 251. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : I am sorry. I stand corrected. It is 251. It seems to me that so far as prescription of allocation is concerned, the Drafting Committee has suggested two different definitions of the word “prescribed”. One definition of” prescribed “means prescribed by the President when there is no report before him of the Finance Commission and the second definition of “prescribed” is prescribed when the President has got before him the recommendations of the Finance Commission. The reason why the Drafting Committee has been required to give two different definitions of interpretations of the word “prescribed” is this. It is quite clear that the Provinces want that the existing allocation not merely of the jute duty but the allocation of other sources of revenue provided under other articles of the Constitution must not be the same as are now existing, because their complaint is that the amounts now given to them are neither adequate nor just and that some revision of the allocation is necessary. Obviously, if the allocation is to take place immediately so that the new allocation would commence on the commencement of the Constitution, it is obvious that such allocation can be made only by the President without waiting for the recommendations of the Finance Commission because it is inconceivable that no matter what amount of hurry the Central Government was prepared for, it will not be possible to appoint a Commission to have its report, before the Constitution commences. Consequently, we had to devise this double definition of the word “prescribed”. In the first place the prescription will be by the President without the recommendation of the Finance Commission. That, of course, does not mean that the President will act arbitrarily. That does not mean that the President would act merely on the advice of his Cabinet, which might be interested in safeguarding and securing the position of the Centre vis-a-vis the Provinces. It is, I think, in the contemplation of the Central Government and I should like to make that matter quite clear that the Central Government does propose to appoint some Committee, which will be an Expert Committee or some expert officer, which would of course not be a Commission within the meaning of this Constitution, for going into the question and finding out whether the existing allocation, not merely of the jute duty and duty on juteproducts, but other allocations of other sources of revenue require to