Vol. 14, Part I · pages 271–275

DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL 253 Mr. Deputy Speaker: The honourable Member will kindly state his point of order. There need be no apology or argument. I should like to hear the point of order. Shri Jaspat Roy Kapoor : My point of order relates firstly to the rights and privileges of the members of this House and secondly to the competency of this House in the present Session to deal with such an important and controversial measure as the Hindu Code Bill when a large number of members of this House are not attending and cannot attend, not for personal reasons, or party reasons, but for reasons of state and in the interest of the country as a whole, being at present busy in the provincial legislatures with the budget sessions, although they are very anxious and eager to attend this House and participate in the discussion of this motion materially affects the whole Hindu society. Honourable Members : This is no point of order at all. Mr. Deputy Speaker : I am here to decide whether it is a point of order or not. You will kindly bear with me. I expect he will conclude his sentence soon. Shri Jaspat Roy Kapoor : I know many of my friends here are very impatient to proceed with the Bill. It was therefore, Sir, that I at the outset wanted to assure the House that my object is not to sabotage the Bill with many provisions of which I am in agreement. My object is that things should be done constitutionally, the right thing should be done at the right time and in the right manner. As you are aware .... Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have heard the point of order. The honourable Member feels that this House is not competent to proceed With this Bill. This is number one. Number two is that certain members, whom he would like to have in this House, are not here. Neither is a point of order against the motion for consideration being taken up. This is a sovereign Legislative Assembly fit to pass any legislation it likes. I have heard the point of order and do not want to hear any more arguments in favour of it. As regards the absence of some members, it is no doubt true that a number of members could not be here both from the Provinces and the States. But it is always open to them to come here and take part. Babu Ramnarayan Singh (Bihar : General): May I say,…. Mr. Deputy Speaker: So far as the Chair is concerned and so far as this House is concerned, no such direction has been given and therefore the House is competent to proceed with its business. Honourable Members can come in at any time and take part in the debate. I rule out this point of order.

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES254 Babu Ramnarayan Singh : With all respect to you . . . Honourable Members : Order, order. Mr. Deputy Speaker : I would not hear anything more. Babu Ramnarayan Singh : The previous ruling given by your……. Mr. Deputy Speaker : I have considered all the previous rulings. I have got them here. Shri V. S. Sarwate (Madhya Bharat): I wish also to raise one point of order. Mr. Deputy Speaker : Is it any point of order? Shri V. S. Sarwate : Yes. Mr. Deputy Speaker : The Honourable Member will kindly briefly state the point of order. Shri V. S. Sarwate : I shall be very brief. My point of order is this : That for the purposes of this Bill the provisions regarding publication have not been satisfied. It is due to the Chair to see that those provisions are observed. I refer to rule No. 20 which says : “As soon as may be after a Bill has been introduced, the Bill, unless it has already been published, shall be published in the Gazette.” There is also a provision that a report of a Select Committee has to be published with the amended Bill. My submission in this case is this : that the Bill was published originally sometime in April 1947 before the Independence day. The political set-up of India has since changed and changed for the better. What I wanted to draw your attention to is this : That the Indian States which were not a part of the then British India were not to be affected by this Bill. Subsequently some States have merged and some have acceded to the Union in all subjects in August 1948. This is subsequent to the publication. There has been a Covenant of these States as the Chair may know sometime in August 1948. The result of that Covenant is that the States would now be automatically governed by any legislation which the Centre passes either in its powers of exclusive jurisdiction or concurrent jurisdiction. I therefore submit that it is the duty of the Chair to protect and guard the rights of the people of these States concerned who are affected by any Bill. I submit that the object of this is two-fold. Such provision enjoining publication enables the constituencies or the people affected by any Bill to express their reactions, their opinions and their feelings about it. I believe this is a fundamental principle of democracy that no Bill shall be passed unless the people affected thereby are given

DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL 255 an opportunity to express their opinion thereon. Secondly, the object of this publication is that the members of this Assembly may have an opportunity to ascertain what their constituencies feel about it. I need not say that it is the duty of the members here not to represent their individual views. They have to represent the views of their constituencies when important matters are concerned. As far as details or minor matters are concerned they may have discretion to express their views. But when a measure affects the whole life, the whole structure of society, then in such cases, in such vital matters it is the duty of the members to ascertain the views of their constituencies and represent them here correctly. They should not state what they feel. They should state what their constituencies feel. For this purpose, it is necessary that the Bill should be published. I submit that the Bill was published in the Gazette, but it was not published at the time when the people of the acceding States and merged States were in a position to give that serious consideration to this Bill, which this Bill deserves. Therefore I submit it was not a proper publication, as far as those people are concerned and now, since the Chair is here to guard their interests, I appeal to the Chair to order that the Bill be published before it is taken up for consideration. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : My reply to the point of order raised by my honourable friend is two-fold. In the first place, there is never any obligation cast upon this House for circulating any Bill for publication before the House can take the matter into consideration. It is only in special cases, when the House by a Resolution or the Government by any executive action desire that the Bill is so important that public opinion might be invited; that public opinion is invited. There is no such right, no obligation at all on the Legislature or on the Government and therefore, from that point of view the point of order is no point of order at all. My second submission with regard to the point of order is this, that we have deliberately confined the operation of this Bill to the provinces of India, and so far as the Provinces are concerned, the opinion has been canvassed three times, and I do not think any more purpose would be served by canvassing public opinion for the fourth time. When the occasion comes for the extension of the Bill to the Indian States, no doubt, this Legislature when a proper motion is placed before it, or the Government of the day, will take care that the wishes and the intentions of the States which have come into the Indian Union, will be consulted.

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES256 Mr. Deputy Speaker : I agree with the Honourable Law Minister that inasmuch as the scope of this Bill is confined in the first instance only to Provinces of India and it is highly problematical whether it will be extended to the acceding States and if so, on what terms and conditions of accession, it will be time for them to consider whether they can come in or not. As regards the other one, it is not obligatory to send the Bill for circulation unless by a motion accepted by the 12 NOON House. The Select Committee has considered this matter and has found tliis has not been so materially altered as to necessitate a republication in the Official Gazette. For these reasons I rule out the point of order. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Sir, before I proceed to speak on my motion, I think it would be desirable if I ............ Shri B. Das (Orissa: General): There is obstruction everywhere. Everybody rises to a point of order. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad rose six months ago. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad (West Bengal: Muslim): It is a different point of order. My honourable friends should have a little patience. Mr. Deputy Speaker : I can only state that honourable members will kindly consider well before they raise a point of order. I also expect they will consider that if it should turn out to be a dialatory motion, they will invoke upon themselves the criticism of the House. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : My point of order is not dialtory. Mr. Deputy Speaker : It is open to any honourable member to raise a point of order. An honourable member can take as many points of order as are reasonable and proper. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : The objection to the point of order is dilatory. My point of order is this : the honourable Minister for Law has already spoken on this motion. He completed the first part of the motion and then the subsequent stages began. He has a right to reply at the end of the debate. Now the motion has been made that the Bill be taken into consideration and a speech has been delivered on the 31st of August, 1948. We have on the agenda a list of amendments. We have to proceed straight to the agenda and then when a motion is made the Honourable Minister ceriainly has a right of reply, and in the end a general right of reply. At this stage, the Honourable Minister can not make a second speech on the motion.

DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL 257 Mr. Deputy Speaker : I find from the proceedings on the 31st of August, 1948 the following :— “The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar (Minister for Law): Sir, I move : “That the Bill to amend and codify certain branches of the Hindu Law, as reported by the Select Committee, be taken into consideration.” Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad (West Bengal: Muslim): Sir, on a point of order. Mr. Speaker : I shall hear the Honourable Minister first and then take the point of order. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Sir, in view of the urgency of other Government business which is on the agenda and to which Government feels it must give precedence, I do not propose to make a speech in support of my motion, because it is quite obvious that if I were to make a speech in support of my motion, that is bound to give rise to a debate which will result in the consumption of a great deal of the time of the Government. We have already few days let before the House is due to rise, and I, therefore, request you to allow this motion to stand over for further consideration in the next session of the Assembly.” In view of this, the Honourable Dr. Ambedkar is entitled to proceed. I am exceedingly sorry that this point of order has been raised. It is only a dilatory motion. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : As I was going to say, it would facilitate my work a great deal if I were to know from you what procedure you propose to adopt with regard to the 16 motions that have been tabled as against the motion which I have made, and about which I propose to speak during the subsequent period. These 16 motions fall into three different categories. There are certain motions which propose that the Bill be further circulated for eliciting public opinion. There are certain motions which propose that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee, which is different from the Select Committee which already reported on the Bill. And there are motions which propose that the Bill may be re-committed to the same Select Committee which has already reported. There was one other or rather two other motions, one standing in the name of my honourable friend, Shri Prabhu Dayal Himatsingka and the other standing in the name of my honourable friend, Shri Biswanath Das, which propose that the Bill should be circulated to people residing in the acceding States, before the Bill could be taken into consideration. With regard to these two motions, a point of order was raised recently by my honourable friend, Shri V. S. Sarwate, which you have been good enough to dispose of and I therefore take it that motions Nos. 7 and 8 must be taken to have been deleted from the agenda of today. The other motions remain and I want to know