Vol. 13 · pages 956–960

923DRAFT CONSTITUTION Conference with the Provincial Premiers and they were wholly opposed to any change of the place which has been given to this entry. [Two amendments were negatived. The motion was adopted Entry 46 was added to the State List.] ENTRY 48 Shri Brajeshwar Prasad : Sir, I beg to move: “That in amendment No. 3631 of the List of Amendments, for the word ‘deleted’ ‘the words and figure ‘transferred to List I’ be substituted.” Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena : I also move my amendment No. 316 : “That entry 48 of List II be transferred to List III.” The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : I do not accept that. [Both amendments were rejected. Entry 48 was added to the State Listed.] ENTRY 49 ***** *The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : For the reasons which I have given while dealing with entry 46, I do not accept the amendment. Mr. President : The question is : “That in amendment No. 3632 of the List of Amendments, for the word ‘deleted’ the words and figure ‘transferred to List I’ be substituted.” The amendment was negatived. Mr. President : The question is : “That entry 49 of List II be transferred to List III.” [The amendment was negatived. Entry 49 was added to the State List.] ENTRY 50 †The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Sir, I move : “That in entry 50 of List II, the words ‘or roads’ be added at the end.” The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : I do not accept the amendment. “That in entry 50 of List II, the words ‘or roads’ be added at the end.” [The amendment of Dr. Ambedkar was adopted. The motion was adopted. Entry 50, as amended, was added to the State List.] ENTRY 52 ***** ‡The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Sir, I move: “That in entry 52 of List II, the words ‘non-narcotic drugs’ be omitted.” *CAD, Vol. IX, 2nd September 1949, p. 920. †Ibid., p. 920. ‡Ibid., p. 922.

924 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES This is merely consequential. [The amendment was adopted. The motion was adopted. Entry 52, as amended was added to the State List.] ENTRY 56 *Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena : Sir, I move : “That entry 56 of List II be transferred to List III and the following explanation be added at the end :— ‘Explanation.—Nothing in this entry will be construed as limiting in any way the authority of the Union to make laws with respect to taxes on income accruing from or arising out of professions, trades, callings and employments.’ ” ***** †The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Sir, I think this amendment is rather based upon a mis-conception. This entry is a purely provincial entry. It cannot limit the power of the Centre to levy Income-tax. On the other hand, this entry 56 may be so worked as to become an encroachment upon Income-tax that is leviable only by the Centre. You may recall, Sir, that I introduced an amendment in article 256 to say that any taxes levied by the local authorities shall not be deemed to be Income-tax. This amendment is not necessary. Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena : I do not press the amendment, Sir. (The amendment was, by leave of the Assembly, withdrawn.) [Entry 56 was added to the State List.] ENTRY 58 ‡The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Sir, I move : “That for entry 58 of List II, the following entries be substituted :— ‘58. Taxes on the sale or purchase of goods. 58-A. Taxes on advertisements.’ ” We are trying to cut out the word ‘turnover’. ***** #Shri V. L. Muniswamy Pillay (Madras : General): I move : “That with reference to amendment No. 3638 of the List of Amendments, in entry 58 of List II, after the words ‘purchase of goods’ the words ‘other than Newspapers’ and after the words ‘taxes on advertisements’ the words; ‘other than those appearing in Newspapers’ be inserted respectively.” Shri Deshbandhu Gupta (Delhi): I suggest this may be also held over. Mr. President : This was a question which was raised yesterday. I held it over for my ruling. *CAD, Vol. IX, 2nd September 1949, p. 923. †Ibid., p. 923. ‡Ibid., p. 923. #Ibid., p. 924.

925DRAFT CONSTITUTION The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : I suggest that amendment No. 122 might be treated as an independent thing which may be brought in by an additional entry. Then subsequently the Drafting Committee may work the two things together if accepted. Subject to that, this entry may go. Those interested in 122 may be permitted to bring in this in the form of an additional entry. Mr. President : Your point is not touched so far as newspaper and advertisement is concerned. Shri Deshbandhu Gupta : If it is felt that the Drafting Committee should provide this somewhere else then it would become difficult to revise the past, once a decision is taken by the House on this entry. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Before we conclude discussion of the three Lists this matter may be brought up. Mr. President : I am prepared to allow this to be taken up separately when we take up 88-A which we held over yesterday. So the position is that the question relating to advertisement is held over, but apart from that, this entry is to be put to vote, as amended by Dr. Ambedkar. Prof. Sibban Lal Saksena : When a ruling is pending how can it be passed? Shri Deshbandhu Gupta: It will be simpler if it is held over. Mr. President: Well, let it be held over. We will take it up along with 88-A which we held over yesterday. Entry 58 of List II was held over. ENTRY 59 *Mr. President : Entry 59. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : I move : “That in entry 59 of List II, the following be added at the end :— ‘Subject to the provinces of entry 21 of List III’ ” In List III we are going to say that the Centre should have the power to lay down the principle of taxation. [The motion of Dr. Ambedkar was adopted. Entry 59, as amended, was added to the State List.] ENTRY 64 †The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Sir, I move: “That entry 64 of List II be deleted.” That is taken in the Concurrent List. [The motion was adopted. Entry 64 of List II was deleted from the State List.] *CAD, Vol. IX, 2nd September 1949, p. 924. †Ibid., p. 925.

926 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES ENTRY 67 ***** *The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Sir, this matter will be covered by the Part of the Constitution which we propose to add to the existing Draft, the part where all the payments that are to be made to the rulers will be dealt with, and for the present I do not see any necessity for any such amendment. I think my Friend, after seeing that part which we propose to introduce by way of an amendment, may see whether his object is carried out by our proposal. If not, he may be quitre in order in moving an amendment to that part when that part comes before the House. Kaka Bhagwant Roy : Sir, I wish to withdraw my amendment. (The amendment was, by leave of the Assembly, withdrawn.) ***** ENTRY 2-A †Mr. President : Then we come to entry 2-A. Dr. Ambedkar. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Sir, I move : “That after entry 2 of List III, the following entry be inserted :— ‘2A. Preventive detention for reasons connected with stability of the Government established by law and the maintenance of public order and services or supplies essential to the life of the community; persons subjected to such detention.’ ” ***** SEVENTH SCHEDULE—(contd.) LIST III (Concurrent List) ENTRY 2-A ‡Mr. Vice-President: (Shri V. T. Krishnamachari) : We are now doing entry 2-A of the Concurrent List. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : (West Bengal: Muslim): Mr. Vice-President, Sir I would seek your permission to make a verbal change in my amendment No. 290. No. 289 has been moved by Mr. Kamath. I wish to move the next entry and I seek your permission to make a slight verbal alteration I know that the amendment will never be accepted—that it will not even be considered. So there is no harm in making the amendment look better. May I have your permission to substitute for the words “overthrow of the Government by force” in my amendment, the words *CAD, Vol. IX, 2nd September 1949, p. 926. †Ibid., p. 926. ‡Ibid., 3rd September 1949, pp. 929-930.

927DRAFT CONSTITUTION “security of the State” ? The wording “security of the State” seems to be more proper and the change is only verbal. Mr. Vice-President: Yes. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : Sir, I beg to move ... The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: (Bombay : General): Sir, may I suggest to my Friend that if he is prepared to accept the wording as I suggest now, namely, “connected with the security of the State” instead of the words “connected with stability of the Government established by law” I shall be prepared to accept it, because I find that that is exactly the language we have used in amended entry 3 in List I—We have used the word “security of India” there. If my Friend is satisfied with the wording I have now suggested I shall be prepared to accept it. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : I am grateful to Dr. Ambedkar, but this is exactly the change which I was asking to the Vice-President to permit me to make. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Your words were different. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : I was going to move an amended amendment and that is exactly on the lines, word for word, as the one that Dr. Ambedkar now suggests. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Then there is nothing to speak about it. If my honourable Friend will move the amendment as I have suggested then I am prepared to accept it. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : I must move my amendment. Mr. Vice-President: As. Dr. Ambedkar is accepting it, is it necessary for the honourable Member to move the amendment and speak on it? Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : If my honourable Friend fails to recognize that I was going to move an amendment which is correct and exactly corresponds to his ideas, I cannot help it. But let me move my amendment. Sir, I beg to move: “That in amendment No. 124 of List I (Sixth Week), in the proposed new entry 2-A of List III, for the words “stability of the Government” the words “security of the State” be substituted.” The expression “stability of the Government” is not proper... The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : I do not think any argument is needed as I am accepting the amendment. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : I know. But there is the House. I will say only one or two words. The expression “stability of the Government” is rather vague in the context of the new entry proposed by Dr. B. R. Ambedkar, namely, “preventive detention for reasons connected with the