Vol. 14, Part I · pages 266–270

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES248 Pandit Mukut Bihari Lal Bhargava: There is one additional fact which has not come to the notice of the Chair. I wrote a letter to the Law Department to find out whether any re-drafted Bill was printed. The information given to me was that only a few copies were printed and they were available in the library of the House. I have referred to that Bill and it is a fact that a re-drafted Bill was printed in July 1948 prior to the meeting of the Select Committee. That Bill was considered clause by clause by the Select Committee and that is the Bill that has emerged from the Select Committee with its report. The report mentions this. Therefore my respectful submission is that that re-drafted Bill may be taken into consideration to find out whether the Select Committee applied its mind to the Bill that was referred to it or some other re-drafted Bill that was printed under the signature of Dr. Ambedkar, after scrutiny of the original Bill and absolutely in a different form. That is a very important material and additional fact which I respectfully bring to the notice of the Chair before the ruling is given. Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava: I have got a copy of that Bill with me. Mr. Speaker: I have some facts which honourable members do not have. The Point of Order that the Honourable the Law Minister’s motion for consideration of the Select Committee Report on Hindu Code is incompetent as raised by the honourable member Mr. Naziruddin and supported by a few other members on 31st August 1948, is based on a narrow limit of facts. The objection raised is presented as a chain of reasoning in the following form : “What the Select Committee considered was a ‘substitute’ of the original Bill in the form of ‘a revised draft’. Therefore the Select Committee did not consider the Bill referred to it, but ‘a new document’, and the present report of the Select Committee, being a report on a new document, there is no Select Committee Report on the original Bill. The Honourable the Law Minister’s motion for consideration of the Bill, as it emerged from the Select Committee, is, therefore, incompetent”. That is the substance of the Point of Order. ( Shri Mahavir Tyagi: “Is that your ruling ?”) I believe I have stated the point correctly. None of the members, Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad, Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava and Srijut Biswanath Das, who raised or supported the Point

DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL 249 of Order, were members of the Select Committee and naturally, therefore, have no personal knowledge as to what was considered at the meetings of the Select Committee. They, therefore, relied upon some statements in the report of the Select Committee and inferred that the original Bill, as referred to the Select Committee, was not taken into consideration by them. The question thus raised is purely a question of facts, namely, whether the Bill referred to the Select Committee, meaning thereby the various substantive provisions thereof, as distinct from the form or sequence in which they were put, were or were not considered by the Select Committee; whether the Select Committee did or did not apply their mind to the substantive provisions of the Bill as referred to them. It is not disputed that the Select Committee had a right to add, to or to delete from or to improve upon the provisions of the Bill as referred, provided the additions, deletions or improvements, etc. suggested by the Select Committee are within the scope of the Bill I need not therefore, enter into this aspect, as no such question about the Select Committee having gone beyond the scope of the Bill is raised before me. I may now examine, in the light of the written as well as oral evidence before me, the statement of facts as formulated by the honourable members who have raised the Point of Order. I may shortly state the facts as to how the Bill that was introduced came to be framed. As stated in the Statement of Objects and Reasons, the Central Government, by their Resolution dated the 20th January 1944, ‘appointed a Hindu Law Committee for the purposes of formulating a Code of Hindu Law, which should be complete as far as possible.’ This was done in pursuance of ‘a growing public opinion in the country in favour of a consolidated and uniform Code dealing with the different topics of Hindu Law for all the provinces and for all sections of the Hindu Society’. It was also felt that, in view of the ‘present conditions and trends in Hindu Society’ there is a great need to alter the law so as to make it fit the new pattern, to which the Hindu society seems to be rapidly adjusting itself.’ When the motion for reference of the Bill to the Select Committee was carried on 9th April 1948, there was hardly any time for honourable members to express themselves on the substance as well as the form

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES250 and the drafting of the Bill. The Ministry of Law, having felt that the Bill ‘as drafted by the Hindu Law Committee did not conform to the canons of a Code’, decided to revise the draft of the Bill and to remove those defects, so as to enable one to have ‘a full and complete picture of the provisions of the Code’. They, therefore, undertook the task of re-arranging the parts and divisions of the original Bill in consecutive sections and in a logical sequence, and also made some further suggestions as they thought proper for consideration by the Select Committee. The Ministry of Law simply placed before the Select Committee a sort of a proper form in which the original Bill could have been shaped by the Select Committee themselves at their meetings or they could have directed the draftsmen to carry out the changes. It may be noted here that, while circulating the Code in a revised form, the Ministry of Law supplied to the members of the Select Committee an index also giving therein, for facility of reference, the place of a section in the revised Code with the corresponding section in the original Bill, as prepared by the Hindu Law Committee. The members of the Select Committee had thus before them, at all times and at every stage, the provisions of the Code as contained in the original Bill. The Ministry of Law further invited the attention of the members of the Select Committee to changes of substance suggested by them in the revised draft. It was, therefore, clear that at all stages of deliberations by the Select Committee of the provisions of the Bll, both the revised and the original were before them and the deliberations had proceeded on a comparative study of the original provisions and the provisions contained in the revision as suggested by the Ministry of Law. Coming to the question of evidence as to the above facts, the only member of the Select Committee who spoke with reference to the Point of Order was, Pandit Balkrishna Sharma. Pandit Balkrishna Sharma stated in the House: “The Bill which the House asked us to consider was always before us.” The evidence on record consisting of the main report, as also the dissenting minute, amply support this statement. The honourable members, who have raised this objection, relying upon passages in the Select Committee Report or the Dissenting Minutes seem to take certain passages out of the context and by themselves. This is what the main report says: “We, the undersigned, having considered the Bill”—not the revised draft— “have now the honour to submit etc.” This is how they begin the Report.

DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL 251 They speak of having considered the Bill and not the revised draft. But further they say as follows :— “The Draft Hindu Code, as introduced in the Legislature did not receive any departmental scrutiny prior to its introduction and the Ministry of Law have now produced a revised draft, which, in our opinion, is more satisfactory in several respects. This revised draft does not make any substantial changes in the body of the original Bill, but within the framework of the original Bill, it has recast it so as to be in the form in which Bills are usually presented to the Legislature.” So it will be clear that the Select Committee had applied their mind to the original Bill and had come to the conclusion that there was revision thereof, not in substance but in respect of the form only. They also mention the reasons why they considered the revised draft as better than the original one, and then they say: “Consequently we decided to confine our deliberations to the revised draft of the Bill.” The word “consequently” is important. Having seen the substantive provisions of the original Bill and the revised draft, it was natural and more appropriate to deliberate on the revised draft, which was nothing else than the substance of the original Bill in an improved form. The Select Committee further say : “References are given in the margin to each section indicating the corresponding section in the original Bill.” This is a further cogent proof that, though their deliberations were confined to the revised draft for finalising their conclusions, they had before them the view of each and every clause of the original Bill. This is made further very clear in the notes on clauses in which they deal with various parts and clauses of the Bill and state with reference to each part or clause the corresponding part or clause of the original Bill. The joint minute of dissent of Dr. Bakshi Tek Chand and Pandit Balkrishna Sharma says, in passing at one place, that what the Select Committee considered was the revised draft and not the original Bill. This has to be interpreted in the light of what has been said above. The place where they make a mention of the revised draft being considered, the point of their contention is that the changes suggested by the revised draft were not merely changes of form, but related to matters of substance. It may be remembered that, in their detailed and able minute, they did not make any point that the original Bill was not considered by the Select Committee. Whether the changes suggested by the revised draft are good or otherwise, is the point they are making in their minute of dissent.

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES252 On the facts, therefore, as disclosed by records, I am clear that the Select Committee had given full and due consideration to the substantive provisions of the Bill that was referred to them? and the present motion of the Honourable the Law Minister is, therefore, competent, and in order. Now, this being the decision on facts, what is the point of order of Mr. Kapoor ? An Honourable Member : We may adjourn now; it is past five O’clock. Mr. Speaker : The house may now adjourn. The Assembly then adjourned till a Quarter to Eleven of the Clock on Friday the 18th February 1949. (11-45 A.M.) * HINDU CODE —contd. Mr. Deputy Speaker : We will proceed to the consideration of the Hindu Code. Sbri Jaspat Roy Kapoor (U. P. : General): May I raise a point of order ? The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: rose— Mr. Deputy Speaker : A point of order has been raised by Mr. Kapoor. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar (Minister of Law) : I was going to refer just to that. Sir, the Order Paper contains sixteen different motions, some of them raise points of order and some of them are siubstantive motions. I was going to express myself on them before I actually spoke on my motion. However, if my friend has to say something, let him do so. Mr. Deputy Speaker: Let us hear his point of order. Shri Jaspat Roy Kapoor : Sir, on the previous occasion when the motion was being taken up I stood up to raise a point of order. I was then directed by the Honourable Speaker to wail until the point of order raised by my friend Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad had been disposed of. That point of order was disposed of that day exactly at 5 p. m. thereafter the House rose for the day. I hope you will be kind enough to allow me to raise that point of order now. But before I do so I want to assure the House that my object . . . *C.A. (Leg.) D., Vol. II, Part II, 24th February 1949, pp. 821-52.