Vol. 13 · pages 911–915

878 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES unnecessary to retain those words here. That entry will be entry 35 in the Concurrent List. Shri Syamanandan Sahaya (Bihar : General) : Sir, I want to make a suggestion. Mr. President : Just wait a little. There is an amendment to be moved. Shri Syamanandan Sahaya : I want to make it before the amendment is moved. This item on the list which is proposed by Dr. Ambedkar will have a deal to do with the language of article 24 and I suggest therefore that this item be held over till we have passed article 24.... The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : I submit that is unnecessary because the power to lay down principles in any case will have to be given to the legislature. The question is whether the centre; should have a separate entry and the Province should have a separate entry for laying down principles of acquisition. What is proposed is this, that for both Centre as well as the provinces, there should be a commmon entry in the Concurrent List. Therefore, whatever happens to article 24, this entry regarding principles will have to be put in somewhere. Unless my friend has any objection to putting the matter in the concurrent List, there is no object served by postponing the consideration of this entry. Shri Syamanandan Sahaya : I was thinking of a case where even in the matter of acquisition by States the principle may have to be decided by the Central Parliament. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : That is exactly the point. If my friend would understand it, if we put it in the Concurrent List, the Centre also will have power. Shri Syamanandan Sahaya : Precisely, but you say that the “Centre also will have”. My submission is The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : What I am saying is this : that we are cutting out the words “principles” etc. and putting them in entry 35 of the Concurrent List. If my friend will refer to the two entries, 43 in the Union List and 9 in the State List he will rind both of them are exactly in the same terms. In other words, both of them not only give the power to compulsorily acquire property but also give the power to lay down principles. Instead of distributing the entry regarding principles between the Centre and the provinces independently of each other, it is now proposed to take out those words “principles” etc., and put them in entry 35 of the Concurrent List. Prof. Shiban Lal Saksena : Would there be any harm if the thing is postponed until the other article is passed ?

879DRAFT CONSTITUTION The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : No good will be served by postponing. I am not in favour of having these things postponed. There is already so much time taken in the consideration of this matter. Dr. P. S. Deshmukh : Sir, I move : “That in amendment No. 21 of List I (Sixth Week), in the proposed entry 43 of List I, after the words “of property” the words ‘according to law of the Union’ be inserted.” ...I therefore, hope that the amendment proposed by me which speci fies that any acquisition or requisitioning of property shall be by law passed by the Parliament and shall not be undertaken arbitrarily will be accepted. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : It is quite unnecessary. These entries do deal with legislative power. What is the use of adding the words ‘according to the law of the Union’ ? According to the entry as it is, the Union will have the power to make the law. It cannot mean anything else. Dr. P. S. Deshmukh : I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. [The amendment was, by leave of the Assembly, withdrawn. Entry 43, as amended, by Dr. Ambedkar’s amendment was added to the Union List.] ***** ENTRY 50 ***** *Shri Jagat Narain Lal : ...This will make the meaning quite clear. There will be no ambiguity. I suggest this to Shri T.T. Krishnamachari. The object they have in view can be achieved by adopting my suggestion. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: I will consider the matter. For the present the entry proposed by Shri T. T. Krishnamachari may go in. [The following amendment of Mr. Krishnamachari was adopted.] Mr. President : The question is. “That for entry 50 of List I, the following entries be substituted :— ‘50. The incorporation, regulation and winding up of trading corporations, including banking, insurance and financial corporations but not including cooperative societies. 50-A. The incorporation, regulation and winding up of corporations, whether trading or not with objects not confined to one State but not including universities’.” [Entries 50 and 50-A were added to the Union List.] ***** ENTRY 52 †The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : I move : “That for entry 52 of List I, the following entry be substituted :— *CAD, Vol. IX, 30th August 1949, pp. 773-774. †Ibid., p. 774

880 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES ‘52. Constitution and organisation of the Supreme Court and the High Courts; jurisdiction and powers of the Supreme Court and fees taken therein; persons entitled to practice before the Supreme Court or any High Court’.” The last words are additions. It is found necessary to have them because the time has come when it is necessary to regulate the right to practise of persons practising in both the High Court and the Supreme Court. ***** *The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : I do not wish to interrupt the debate, but I would like to point out that we have already passed articles 192A, 193. 197, 201 and 207 which deal with the constitution of the High Courts. Under these-articles, except for pecuniary jurisdiction, the whole of the High Courts are placed, so far as their Constitution, organisation and territorial jurisdiction are concerned in the centre. It seems to me, therefore, that this amendment is out of order. ***** †Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad :...The original entry dealt with the Supreme Court only. In the new entry proposed by Dr. Ambedkar, it reads : “Constitution and organisation of the Supreme Court and the High Courts;” Then again, he has added “persons entitled to practise before the Supreme Court or any High Court”. My first objection is as to the surreptitious manner in which important things are interpolated into the entries. I could have well understood... (Interruption). Shri Mahavir Tyagi : On a point of order, Sir, is the word “surreptitiously” parliamentary ? †The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Is it a proper argument, Sir, to say that the Drafting Committee has surreptitiously tried to introduce something ? My honourable friend is entitled to ask me an explanation as to why I have altered the entry. There is nothing surreptitious. I am perfectly prepared to justify every item and every part of it. Shri Mahavir Tyagi : I want your ruling, Sir, is the word “surreptitiously” parliamentary ? Mr. President : I confess I am not acquainted with parliamentary practice to such an extent as to say whether ‘surreptitiously’ is or is not parliamentary. I would ask the honourable Member not to use expressions which may be offensive. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : I bow down to your ruling, Sir.... ***** *CAD, Vol. IX, 30th August 1949, p. 775. †Ibid., p. 778.

881DRAFT CONSTITUTION *Shri T. T. Krishnamachari : The attention of the Members of the House has already been drawn by Dr. Ambedkar to article 207. May I say, Sir, in view of that that the honourable Member need not labour this point ? The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : I can reply. I want only ten minutes. I have understood what he wants to say. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : There is a promise to reply but it would be an unusually fortunate thing for me actually to get a reply from Dr. Ambedkar.... This is too important a matter to b e lightly dealt with. I submit that if we assume that the drafting Committee is entitled to do whatever it likes, then of course I am entirely out of court. I feel I am faced with certain defeat irrespective of reason. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Sir, I am constrained to begin by stating that I have on very many occasions noted that my friend Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad has got into the habit of speaking of the drafting Committee in most derisive terms. I have not descended to his level in order to reply to him, but I should like to give him a warning that if he persists in doing this kind of thing, I shall certainly not fail to pay him in the same coin. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : Are members to be threatened in this manner ? Of course it produces no effect on me. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : This is not a threat. This is a warning. Now coming to the points raised by my friend Dr. Panjabrao Deshmukh, I am very sorry that I cannot accept his suggestion. Because he wants to enlarge entry 52 in such a manner and to such a magnitude as to include every court in this country. It is an impossible proposition and I am afraid I cannot accept it. I shall now deal with the arguments of my Friend Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad. First of all, he said that we were trying to smuggle in the High Court in this entry 52, because it did not find a place in the entry as it stood before. The House will remember that the Drafting Committee has been from time to time revising not only the entries but also the articles. I am not here to claim any omniscience on the part of the Drafting Committee. If the Drafting Commmittee has failed to grasp the whole thing at one grasp, I am not prepared to blame the Drafting Committee nor am I prepared to allow anybody to sit in judgment over it and pass censure upon the Drafting Committee. It is a huge task and we are bound to go slowly on our way. Shri H. V. Kamath : Cannot the House sit in judgment on the Drafting Committee ? *CAD, Vol. IX, 30th August 1949, pp. 780-782.

882 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : But the House should recognise what I am saying viz., that it is not possible for the Drafting Committee to bringforth before the House a neat and complete formula which will not require reconsideration. Now Sir, my friend said that we have brought in the High Courts. Well, we have deliberately brought in the High Courts because we felt that it was necessary lo bring in High Courts in view of certain articles that we have already passed. My Friend, Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad, evidently forgot articles 192A, 193, 197,201 and 207 which deal with the High Courts and if he were patiently to apply his mind to these articles, he will find that the only matter that is left to the Provincial Legislatures is to fix jurisdiction of the High Courts in a pecuniary way or with regard to the subject matter. The rest of the High Court is placed within the jurisdiction of the Centre. Obviously when considering entries in the Union List which are meant to give complete power to the Centre, we were bound to make good this lacuna and to bring in the High Courts which, as I said, by virtue of these articles excepting for two cases have been completely placed within the purview of the Parliament. There is nothing surreptitious about it. This is merely correcting and error which originally crept in by reason of the fact that the article and entry were not properly composed. That is the reason why High Courts have been brought in. Coming to the question as to why we have brought in the entry— Persons entitled to practice before the Supreme Court and the High Court—the position has been already explained by my friend Mr. Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar ; but I will put the same matter very shortly, and it is this that, really speaking, there is nothing very extraordinary in bringing in these words— persons entitled to practice before Supreme Court or High Court—as Members will see article 121 which gives Parliament the power to make any law with regard to persons practising before the Supreme Court. Therefore, that power is already there and there is nothing new so far as the entry refers to persons entitled to practise before the Supreme Court. Now with regard to the High Court, the position is this. The power which the Centre have today is contained in entry 17 of the Concurrent List which deals with professions, and legal profession is one of the professions. It is, therefore, perfectly possible for Parliament to enact a taw regulating the practice of persons appearing in the High Court by virtue of the power given to it by entry 17 which is in the Concurrent List, but the trouble with that is this. Concurrent List means that both parties can legislate. The Centre can legislate and the provinces can legislate and the legislation may be not quite in consonance with each oilier. Consequently it was fell that while leaving entry 17 as it is in the Concurrent List lo cover all professions,