Vol. 13 · pages 891–895

858 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES I submit that that would be contrary to the practice prevalent in this country so far as the Hindus are concerned—then what I would suggest is this, that my amendments would be allowed at this stage, with the liberty that the Drafting Committee will take into consideration all the other articles which have been incorporated in the Constitution so far as to bring the whole matter in line. It will not be proper to make a change here and to leave the other articles as they stand. Shri Mahavir Tyagi : Let grammer not stand in the way of God ! Shri H. V. Kamath : With regard to article 81, there was no amendment before the House, It was stated that every Member in each House of Parliament should make an affirmation and an oath according to the Third Schedule. But what the House has already adopted is the oath or affirmation for the President and the Governors, and that is in the form set out by me in my amendment today. Mr. President : It is not necessary to have a discussion over this matter. You had better vote on it. It is not a question on which there is room for much discussion. As Dr. Ambedkar has said, he has no particular feeling in the matter, and if the House decides one way, he will ask for the liberty TO put all the articles in mat form. So I shall put the amendment to the vote. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmed : My amendments have not been touched by Dr. Ambedkar at all. Mr. President : That is different. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Alter the word “sincerely”? After “sincerely” I would like to add something more. It would not be enough. Mr. President : He wants the omission of the word “affection”. (after a pause) Well, I will take up the amendment. (Following amendment was adopted) ‘That in Amendment Nos. 56 to 63 of List I (Fifth Week) of Amendments to Amendments, in the form of the oath or affirmation in the Third Schedule, for the words ‘solemnly affirm swear in the name of God.’ ” (Proposed to be substituted), the following be substituted :— ‘solemnly affirm swear in the name of God.’ ” (The amendment was adopted.) Mr. President : I take it that the House gives leave to Dr. Ambedkar to put the other articles, wherever such similar expressions occur in the same order.

859DRAFT CONSTITUTION Honourable Member : Yes. Shri Jaspat Roy Kapoor : May I suggest that in all the places where we have the words “affirmation or oath” we may have the ‘oath’ first and ‘affirmation’ afterwards. It should be so in the substantive clause also. Mr. President: That is so. It should be put in the same order wherever the expression occurs. ***** Mr. President : The question is : “That with reference to amendment No. 56 of List I ( Fifth Week) of Amendments to Amendments, in the Third Schedule, in Form I of the Declarations, for the words ‘ all manner of people ‘ the words ‘ all people ‘ be substituted.” Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad: This may be left to the Drafting Committee. Mr. President : It is not pressed. So I take it that it is dropped. ***** Mr. President : The question is : “That in Form VI of the Forms of Declarations in the Third Schedule, the words ‘or as may be specially permitted by the Governor in the case of any matter pertaining to the functions to be exercised by him in his discretion’ be omitted.” (The amendment was adopted.) Mr. President : I do not think it is necessary to put the other amendments to vote, because the voting will be the same as with regard to the other amendments. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : They may be formally put and rejected by the House. ***** *Mr. President : Then I put the proposition moved by Dr. Ambedkar, as amended by Mr. Kamath’s amendment and Dr. Ambedkar’s own amendment, with regard to all these forms. I do not think it is necessary to read them separately. (The motion was adopted.) Mr. President : The question is : “That the Third Schedule, as amended, stand part of the Constitution.” The motion was adopted. The Third Schedule as amended, was added to the Constitution. ***** †Mr. President : I do not think the Member has any justification for supposing that other members do not study the amendments. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : I have been assured by some very serious Members that they have not read the amendments. Therefore, in view of *CAD, Vol. IX, 26th August 1949, p. 717. †Ibid., 29th August 1949, p. 721.

860 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES the serious nature of the amendments I say that the house should have time to consider them.... Mr. President : If any question is raised with regard to any particular amendment or item and if Members want time, we shall consider that at that time. Let us now proceed item by item. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar (Bombay : General): I would like to say that these amendments were circulated on Saturday, day before yesterday. Mr. President : Were they circulated on Saturday ? Some Honourable Members : Yes, Sir. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : On Saturday evening, I think. So far as Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad is concerned, there are some forty amendments standing in his name. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : Only twenty. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : They cover the whole of List I. Therefore my submission is that the complaint, so far as he is individually concerned, that he did not have time, must be regarded as absolutely unfounded. UNION LIST ENTRY 1 *Mr. President : You (Dr. P. S. Deshmukh) had not given notice of this amendment originally, not even in the first instance. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : This is not an amendment to an amendment. Mr. President : This is altogether a new amendment. Dr. P. S. Deshmukh : I am moving this amendment on the same principle as that on which Dr. Ambedkar has been moving his amend ments so far as the articles are concerned. Mr. President : There was previously no notice of an amendment to entry 1. This is the first time we have an amendment to this entry. Dr. P. S. Deshmukh : It is a fact. Sir. If Dr. Ambedkar feels that a rewording of this Entry is necessary, he might perhaps accept it; otherwise I am prepared to withdraw it. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : This is merely a paraphrase of Entry 1. You have ruled that we should not spend more than five minutes on an Entry and it is already more than five minutes. Mr. President : As Dr. Ambedkar has pointed out, this being merely a paraphrase of the Entry, we might leave it to him to consider. I do not *CAD, Vol. IX, 29th August 1949, p. 722.

861DRAFT CONSTITUTION think we should have much discussion on these matters, especially when they do not happen to be new ideas. [Entry 1 was added to the Union List.] ***** ENTRY 2 *The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Sir, I move : “That for entry 2 of List I, the following entry be substituted. ‘2. Central Bureau of Intelligence and Investigation.’ ” The only words added are “and Investigation”. Otherwise the entry is the same as it exists in the draft. Shri Mahavir Tyagi: What is the significance of this addition ? Will you please throw light as to why you have added these words ? The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : The idea is this that at the Union office there should be a sort of Bureau which will collect all information with regard to any kind of crime that is being committed by people throughout the territory of India and also make an investigation as to whether the information that has been supplied to them is correct or not and thereby be able to inform the Provincial Governments as to what is going on in the different parts of India so that they might themselves be in a position to exercise their Police powers in a much better manner than they might be able to do otherwise and in the absence of such information. ***** †Mr. President : Dr. Ambedkar. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Sir, I am not in a position to accept any of the amendments moved by my Friend Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad. These amendments seem to be the result of a muddled head Mr. President : Dr. Ambedkar need not use strong language. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Amendment No. 146 seeks to remove the words ‘and investigation’. The ground for removing the word ‘investigation’, as suggested by my Friend Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad, is that there would be conflict between the jurisdiction of the Centre and the Provinces. If that is how he understands the entry as I have moved it, I do not quite understand how he can consent to allow the word ‘investigation’ to remain in the two subsequent amendments which he has moved, numbers 147 and 148. *CAD, Vol. IX, 29th August 1949, p. 724. †Ibid., p. 726.

862 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES Mr. President : 147 only. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : He has got another. Mr. President : Amendment No. 148 has not been moved. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : The point of the matter is, the word “investigation” here does not permit and will not permit the making of an investigation into a crime because that matter under the Criminal Procedure Code is left exclusively to a police officer. Police is exclusively a State subject; it has no place in the Union List. The word “investigation” therefore is intended to cover general enquiry for the purpose of finding out what is going on. This investigation is not investigation preparatory to the filing of a charge against an offender, which only a police officer under the Criminal Procedure Code can do. [Entry 2, as amended by Dr. Ambedkar’s amendment, was added to the Union List.] ENTRY 3 ***** *The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Sir, I beg to move : “That for entry 3 of List I, the following entry be substituted :— ‘3. Preventive detention in the territory of India for reasons connected with defence, foreign affairs, or the security of India; persons subjected to such detention.’ ” Comparing this entry with the original entry in the Draft Constitution, it will be noticed that there are only two changes : for the words ‘external affairs’ we have now used the words ‘foreign affairs’. “Persons subjected to such detention” is an addition; this did not exist in entry 3 as it stands. But, this again has already been passed by the House in the amendment to the Government of India Act. Therefore, substantially, there is no change in the amendment that I am proposing. ***** †The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : In answer to the question put to me by my Friend Mr. Kamath I should like to tell him that there can be no provision for the externment of a citizen. There can be detention and not externment. The externment law can be applied only to aliens, and there is an entry in our list dealing with aliens etc. According to that, the State will be able to deal with an alien, if it wants to extern him. Shri H. V. Kamath : Where is the entry in the list ? *CAD, Vol. IX, 29th August 1949, p. 727. †Ibid., 729-730.