Vol. 14, Part I · pages 466–470

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES448 of the Select Committee are put in a very awkward position, because then we have lo bring forward all that happened in the Select Committee, which we are not supposed to do here ? Mr. Chairman : Order, order. I would request the honourable member not to make any aspersions against the members of the Select Committee; he may address arguments as to how the Bill has been changed. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : I would not willingly make or cast any aspersions on any honouruable member unless it is involved in the very exposition of the point. If anything was badly done which affects the fate of 30 crores of people and if any mistake or slip has been done by members of the Select Committee then I should respectfully but frankly criticise that. This amount of privilege should be given to a member of the House. I should stand corrected if I am wrong. I should not cast any aspersions merely for casting aspersions, but I will confine myself to pointing out certain serious changes and errors of procedure affecting the merits of the Bill and the discussion of the same may necessarily involve me in a criticism of the members of the Select Committee. Why should the members of the select Committee be afraid of a discussion ? Shrimati Renuka Ray : We are not afraid of discussion. Then we must be given the right of speaking on what happened in the Select Committee. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : The so-called sanctity of the Select Committee has been broken in this connection so many times. Shri Mahavir Tyagi (U. P. : General) : There is no sanctity about it. We can discuss it. Shri L. Krishnaswami Bharathi : We are prepared to discuss it. Shri Mihir Lal Chattopadhyay : (West Bengal: General): Should members be allowed to carry on conversation like this, Sir? Mr. Chairman : Order, order. I have been seeing it happening. I hope honourable members will kindly allow the speaker to proceed with his argument. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : The Honourable Deputy Speaker the other day asked Dr. Ambedkar to explain why certain things took place. Dr. Ambedkar said that it was due to the influence of his enemies getting the better of his friends, they combined together and did it. Is it not giving out the so-called secrets of the Select Committee ?

DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL 449 The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : I did not want to interrupt the honourable member at all. But now I think it is my duty to draw your attention and also the attention of the speaker that his motion is that because certain changes have been made in the Bill, it ought to be recirculated. I think what is most germane to that motion is that he should strightaway without any kind of preliminary discussion proceed to point out what changes have been made. I was waiting to know that from him. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : That is what I was going to do when sideissues were raised. Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava : On a point of order; I beg to submit that this question affects the previleges of the Members of the House. The question at issue is: are the members of the House not entitled to criticise the wrong behaviour or the wrong conduct of the members of the Select Committee in regard to procedure? Supposing a Bill is placed before a Select Committee and that the Bill considered by the Select Committee was not the one referred to, another Bill is substituted in its place. Are not the Members entitled’ to say them by the House ? You may give a ruling on the point whether the members of the House cannot criticise this conduct of the Select Committee ? Whatever has happened in the Select Committee may not be allowed to be divulged. But the manner in which the proceedings were conducted is open to criticism, otherwise it will mean that the members of the House have no sort of control on a Bill. If a bill is introduced in the House it becomes the property of the House and every Member has a right to point out the irregularities in the Select Committee. Mr. Chairman : This is not a point of order. The speaker will go on. The Honourable Shri K. Santhanam : (Minister of State for Railways and Transport). May I submit that while the House is entitled to criticise the Select Committee and even censure it, it is not entitled to say that the Bill before it is not the Bill that was referred to it. It is not open to the House to say that this is not the Bill referred to the Select Committee. The House may condemn the Select Committee if it thinks that the Select Committee has not done its duty. Whenever a Bill is presented to us and is under consideration it is not open to us to say that this is not the Bill that was presented to it. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : I submit that I was only going to condemn the Select Committee and nothing more.

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES450 Mr. Chairman : The honourable member will be perfectly right if he criticises the Bill as it has emerged from the Select Committee and points out the changes made. He will confine his remarks to the changes that have been made in the Bill. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : I am going to submit to the House that some changes have been made, some serious changes have been made. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Point them out. I am awaiting to know the changes made. The honourable member may take his own time, but let him tell us what the changes are. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : I will proceed in my own way. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : He cannot go on in this manner. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : I submit that the original Bill was introduced by Mr. Jogendra Nath Mandal. It bears the printing date 1st, August 1946. This was the Bill which was sent to the Select Committee. A Bill printed on 16th August 1948 is the Bill that came out of the Select Committee with the report. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : What is the point on that ? Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : I am coming to that. There are serious discrepancies between these two Bills. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : That is what we are waiting to know. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : If this is accepted I will proceed to the vital points. There are serious discrepancies between the original Bill and the Bill that has been appended to the report of the Select Committee. ( Interruptions ) This is not the best way of quickening my pace. I submit that in between these two Bills, a very interesting document came in. It is a departmental draft which was printed on 17th July, 1948. It is this draft which came in between the two. All the points of order raised and argued were about this departmental draft Even in the present discussion, if I understood the Honourable the Minister of Law rightly, he mentioned nothing about this departmental Bill, but said that all the changes were made by the Select Committee and not by him. I am referring to the Bill dated 17th July, 1948. Shri Mahavir Tyagi : That was before the date of the Select Committee meeting. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : I am grateful to my friend Mr. Tyagi for pointing out that the date of printing, viz., 17th July, 1948, was

DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL 451 before the Select Committee was first called to meet. I submit that this Bill The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : I would like to curtail this argument of my honourable friend by saying that it is bound to be so. The re-draft was sent one month before the meeting of the Select Committee. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : That is the point I was mentioning. I am grateful for the admission. This draft was complete before the Select Committee met. I should like to state at this stage that the House was not informed about it. The authority of the House was not taken to completely change the original Bill. Shri Mahavir Tyagi : Is the middle one exactly the same as is appended to the report? Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : There have been some changes. The changes made by the select Committee were slight, but serious changes were made by the Department which the Select Committee never knew. Shrimati G. Durgabai : It is the Select Committee that has introduced the changes and not the Department. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : I submit that the most important thing is that they never made a detailed examination of the Departmental draft. In fact my contention is that—I would sit down if my honourable friend Shri Santhanam can quote a single example in the whole legislative history of India or in other countries for this—a Bill that has been sent to a Select Committee has been substituted by another completely re-casting the whole thing and put along with it. The Honourable Shri K. Santhanam : I have been on many Select Committees and in many cases the orginal Bill has been completely redrafted by the Select Committee. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : That is another matter. Mr. Chairman : May I point out to the honourable member that Mr. Speaker has given a decision that it is the original Bill that was considered by the Select Committee along with the draft given to it by the Honourable the Law Minister? In view of that decision, the honourable member may confine his remarks to the point as to how the original Bill has undergone a change in the Select Committee. All the other remarks about what happened in the Select Committee are beyond the purview of the honourable member. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : My point is that, although the Select Committee must be deemed to have considered the original Bill and

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES452 the departmental draft and to have come to this conclusion, that was done most perfunctorily and imperfectly. My point is this, that although the Select Committee considered or must be deemed to have considered the original Bill and the departmental draft and came to this conclusion and although that is so, my point is that it was necessarily done most perfunctorily and most imperfectly. They must have been, I submit, dominated by the serious changes introduced into the departmental Bill and they must have been completely under the hypnotic influence of a revised draft, a convenient readymade thing, which was placed in their hands. It must have made a tremendous psychological impression on the Members of the Select Committee, so that the Select Committee, although they had the right, largely depended upon the departmental draft and this affects the merits though not the legality of the final Bill. My point is that any Select Committee has the right to make enormous changes, but it has never happened that a new Bill, completely changed, was placed at the hands of the Select Committee and then they would begin consideration of the new Bill. Although, technically, they had also the original Bill, still they proceeded clause by clause with the new Bill. That was a matter of merit. I submit, that the introduction of this departmental Bill has created considerable amount of prejudice to a fair and impartial consideration of the Bill. I submit that the clauses of the original Bill should have been begun one by one and changes should have been made gradually on the body of the original Bill. Instead of that it seems to have necessarily followed that the departmental Bill was taken up, although there was in them marginal references to the clauses of the original Bill. Still, I beg to submit without any disrespect to the members of the Select Committee, it was impossible for any member to really see readily what enormous changes had been effected in the departmental Bill and it is this, I submit, which has affected the merits of the final Bill. I never suggest that the Members of the Select Committee had no right to make any changes or to adopt the departmental Bill or to proceed with the original Bill. I submit that the work was, speaking again with respect, necessarily done perfunctorily and considerable responsibility in the work of the Select Committee must rest upon the departrmental draft. On a consideration of the departmental draft, therefore, the merits of the present Bill should be considered. Shri L. Krishnaswami Bharathi : Let us see all the points of difference.