Vol. 13 · pages 936–940

903DRAFT CONSTITUTION *The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Sir, I cannot accept Dr. Deshmukh’s amendment because the inclusion of the word “land” would also permit the Centre to levy Terminal Tax on goods and passengers carried by “road”. Under our scheme Terminal Taxes on goods and passengers carried by road will be a matter which will be exclusively within the jurisdiction of the different States. That is the principal objection why I cannot accept his amendment. You will remember, Sir, that he tried to move a similar amendment on another occasion which had been rejected by the House. Now with regard to Mr. Sidhva, this matter again was debated last time and I said that although these taxes were leviable by the Centre, the proceeds of all of them would be distributable among the different Provinces. The Centre would not claim any interest. If the Provinces after getting the proceeds want to pass on any part of those proceeds to the local bodies they are free to do so. It is not possible in this Constitution to make a provision for any matter of taxation that may be available to a local authority. That is a matter inter se between the State and the local authority and therefore it is not possible now to alter this entry either by way of amending it or by way of transferring it to List No. II. (Shri R. K. Sidhva and Dr. P. S. Deshmukh withdrew their amendments) “That in entry 83 of List I, after the word ‘railway’ a comma and the word ‘sea’ be inserted.” [The amendment of Dr. Ambedkar was adopted. Entry No. 83, as amended, was added to the Union List.] ENTRY 86 (Amendment No. 54 was not moved) †The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Sir, I move: “That in entry 86 of List I, the words ‘non-narcotic drugs’ be deleted.” The proposed list put non-narcotic drugs in the concurrent List. ***** ‡The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : It is quite true, Sir, that at present this entry is in the provincial list. But, there are two facts to be recognised. One is that no province has at any time so far levied any tax on these items. Therefore, it has not been exploited by the provinces for their financial purposes. Secondly, even when the matter becomes con- *CAD, Vol. IX, 1st September 1949, p. 837. †Ibid., p. 838. ‡Ibid., p. 839.

904 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES current, and any legislation is made by the Centre, which has a revenue aspect, the revenue will be liable to be distributable under the provisions of clause (2) of article 253. Consequently, so far as finances are concerned, there is really no loss to the provinces at all. Then, it is necessary that we should have an All-India Drugs Act operating throughout the area. That cannot happen unless nonnarcotic drugs are put in the Concurrent List. That also saves the power of the Provinces to make such local legislation as they may like with regard to these drugs. Mr. President : I put the amendment moved by Dr. Ambedkar. The question is : [The amendment was adopted. Entry 86, as amended, was added to the Union List.] ENTRY 86A *Shri H. V. Kamath : I do not know if the medical and scientific terminology used in my amendment has been misunderstood. This terminology will be found in any standard book on Pharmacology. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : We have got the power. It is covered by entry 20 which we are going to put in the Concurrent List. (The amendment of Shri H. V. Kamath was negatived). ENTRY 88A ***** †The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : I hope my friends is not going to read that 4-pages printed judgement of the Supreme Court of the United States. It has been circulated to everybody. Shri Deshbandhu Gupta : It is wrong for my friend to presume that the whole judgement will be read. Of course, if it is necessary to read some extracts I will do so. I am only referring to the parts which are relevant to point raised by me. I wish to point out that exception was taken by those publishers on the ground that the tax violated the Federal Constitution in two particulars (1) that it abridges the freedom of the press in contravention of the due process clause contained in Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment; (2) that it denies appellees the equal protection of the laws in contravention of the same amendment. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : I am also rising on a point of order. *CAD, Vol. IX, 1st September 1949, p. 840. †Ibid., p. 841.

905DRAFT CONSTITUTION Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : There could not be two points of order at the same time. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : My point of order is an elementary one whether my friend who is a signatory to this amendment— his name is mentioned here after Shri Sitaram Jajoo—having already given notice of this amendment can he now say that this is not in order? Shri Deshbandhu Gupta : My friend has amended his own amendments hundred times. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : If he was to propose an amendment to his amendment, that would be in order. Shri Deshbandhu Gupta : I have every right to change my opinion just as my friend has done very often. Mr. President : Even if he has signed the notice, I do not know whether he signed for 88A. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : His name is Shri Deshbandhu Gupta. ***** *Mr. President : I should like to hear the Members on the main question. But before I do that, I would like to know whether the Drafting Committee would reconsider this item... The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : We should like to hear the various points of view as expressed in this House, and then if the House or you. Sir, find that it is not possible to come to any definite conclusion right now, then the matter may be remitted to the Drafting Committee so that the Committee, in view of the various expressions of opinion, might find out some formula acceptable to the House. But I do not think, as it is, it is any use trying to recast it. We have got here very definite amendments. One is by my friend here and there is another by my Friend Mr. Jhunjhunwala—quite definite amendments. Mr. President : There are really two point to be considered. One is whether the amendment which is proposed to be moved by Mr. Goenka is in order, in view of the previous article which we have already passed. And the second is... The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Sir, If I may say so, this matter cannot be decided on the basis of whether something will be ultra vires or whether something will not be ultra vires. This House is not competent to decide that. That is a judicial matter. All that the House must decide is whether we want to give protection to the newspapers from the *CAD, Vol. IX, 1st September 1949, pp. 843-844.

906 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES various entries which are included, either in List I, List II or List III; and if we want to give them any exemption from these entries, then to what extent we should give sure about. We cannot give any assurance to any newspaperman here and now that we have made a case which is fool-proof and knave-proof. We cannot give that assurance. So we had better decide the particular question whether we do want to give protection to newspapers from the operation of the various entries. That is the main question. ***** *Mr. President : You should also consider the question whether it does not offend against Article 13. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : On that we have some views and if you are prepared to hear, I will submit them. ***** †The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Sir, I should like at the outset to state what the point of order is, or how I have understood it, because I should like to be corrected at the outset, if I am wrong. The point of order seems to be this that in view of the fact that this Assembly has passed article 13 which is a part of the Fundamental Rights and which says that all citizens shall have the right to freedom of speech or expression,—in view of this, as it open to this House to pass an article which would curtail the fundamental right given by article 13 ? I take it that is the point that we have now to consider. In support of the proposition that this House is now debarred from considering any proposal which would have the effect of limiting freedom of speech, there has been cited a judgement of the Supreme Court of the United States in which—I have not read the whole thing, but only parts— it has been said that any tax levied on the press is ultra vires, in view of the fact—I am using the language of the United States—that it abridges the freedom of the press. Shri Deshbandhu Gupta : Barring income-tax. It is stated in the judgement itself. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Now, Sir, it is not clear from the statement of fact of that particular case what the nature of the particular tax was which was called in question, nor is it clear as to the severity of that particular tax which was called in *CAD, Vol. IX, 1st September 1949, p. 845. †Ibid., pp. 848-851.

907DRAFT CONSTITUTION question. In my judgement, apart from the levy of the tax, the severity of the tax also would be an element in considering whether the tax was ultra vires or not. As I said, there is no reference to this important fact in this judgement. I am therefore not prepared to go by that judgement. I am proceeding along other lines of arguments which I think are substantial and are not open to any criticism. The first point I want to submit is this: that, notwithstanding the fact that the constitutional guarantees which were given in the Constitution of the United States, the United States Supreme Court itself has held that these fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution are not absolute and that the Congress of the United States has, notwithstanding the language used in the Constitution, the right to impose reasonable restrictions on those fundamental rights. In fact I may remind the House that, in the opening speech which I made in support of the motion that this House do proceed to take into consideration the Draft Constitution, I devoted a considerable part to the consideration of this matter, because I had noticed some criticisms in papers and by others, to whom I was bound to pay a certain amount of respect and attention, that our fundamental rights were of no value at all, as they were subjected to various limitations which were enumerated in propositions that follow article 13, namely clauses (2), (3), (4) and (5). In order to meet those criticisms, I took some trouble to examine the decisions of the Supreme Court on this matter. I did so because at one time I felt that in view of the fact that the constitutional guarantees which were called fundamental rights were enunciated in the Constitution of the United States in absolute terms without any qualifications, it may not have been open to the Supreme Court of the United States to limit those provision. But to my great surprise I found that the United States Supreme Court had taken the very same attitude that we have taken in the framing of the Constitution, namely that fundamental rights, however fundamental they may be, could not be absolute rights. They must be subject to certain limitations. Now, if the House will permit me I shall quote only one passage from my speech. This is what I said. “In Gitlow vs. New York, in which the issue was the constitutionaly of a New York, ‘criminal anarchy’ law which purported to punish utterances calculated to bring about violent change, the Supreme Court said : “It is a fundamental principle, long established that the freedom of speech and of the press, which is secured by the Constitution, does not confer an absolute right