Vol. 14, Part I · pages 491–495

DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL 473 provisions in the Departmental Bill which also was accepted without question by the Select Committee. I may point out that the change was effected by the Departmental Committee and not by the Select Committee. In the Departmental Bill, it is clause 4 which corresponds to clause 4 in the final Bill. The marginal note is “over-riding effect of the code” which is much different but I lay no emphasis on this note as it is not part of the Bill. The Departmental Bill says: “Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Code any text or rule or interpretation of the Hindu Law or custom or usage or any other law in force immediately prior to the commencement of this Act shall cease to have effect as respects any of the matters dealt with by this Code.” The verbal changes are not important but you will please consider that several important new matters have been introduced by the Departmental Committee. “Any text, rule or interpretation of Hindu law” and later on “any other law in force immediately prior to the commencement of this Code are absolutely new. Let the House pause for a minute and consider the seriousness of the change. All custom and usage not specifically recognised by the original Bill would be absolutely gone. But the Departmental Bill would include also within its mischief any text, rule or interpretation of Hindu law. This is something which is entirely different from usage and custom. In fact any text of the sacred books, the Vedas and Smritis any rule or interpretation of the Hindu law, that is to say, all ruling of the High Court, the Federal Court and the Privy Council, all authoritative expositions of the original Sanskrit texts or the interpretations by the highest judicial authorities must perish as also any other law in force immediately prior to the commencement of this Code. The sacred texts and the rich case law for over a century and a half would be abolished altogether by a stroke of the pen. “Any text, rule or intepretation of Hindu law” probably includes all things. “Any other law in force immediately prior to the commencement of this code” would probably be included within the passage, but I submit that the Departmental Bill would try to illegalize, if I may be permitted to use the expression, all texts, interpretation of Hindu law or rule not specifically recognised by the Bill, and they will all be gone. I submit this is a substantial change. Shrimati G. Durgabai (Madras : General): On a point of order, is the honourable Member within his rights to question the competency of your ruling ? When he calls this Bill as the ‘Departmental Bill’ he is making very great insinuation against the members of the Select

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES474 Committee. The Members of the Select Committee have gone fully into the Bill and they have noted all the changes. He can no longer argue on the point by referring to it as the Departmental Bill. We want your ruling as to whether he is in order. Mr. Speaker : I am afraid it is hardly a point for ruling. These are observations which, I appreciate, irritate some Members; but I do not think the honourable Member, when he uses the expression ‘Departmental Bill’ suggests thereby that the Members of the Select Committee did not consider the points. He is, as I have been noticing, using the expression ‘ Departmental Bill’ for the sake of brevity instead of saying each time “the Bill which was drafted by the Department for the benefit of the Select Committee Members.” I do not think it goes anything further than that and we should not read any meaning into it. Departmental Bill is only a short phrase for that. As I once pointed out—I do not know whether the honourable Member was present when another honourable member of the House raised this point, the point that the is making out is that the changes made by the Select Committee are substantial. And if the changes are substantial then he is certainly within his right to say that the Bill should be re-committed or recirculated. That seems to be the point though he is going his own way, doing so in a very elaborate way which he could do in a shorter time. Shrimati G. Durgabai : My point is he is imputing ignorance to the Select Committee members. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : Not in the least. I am imputing, not ignorance, but carelessness naturally following from the Departmental Bill which gave them no clues to the changes. ( Interruptions ). Mr. Speaker : Order, order. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : I withdraw the expression “ignorance”. But they were effected by a mistaken faith in the Departmental Bill. (Interruption ), Even if this is not yet apparent to him I am sorry for the honourable Member that he is still suffering from the obsession. Mr. Speaker : Let the honourable Member proceed on a different line; let him say that they should have given more attention to this subject. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : That is what I mean. In fact for my argument I do not require any hard expression—I rely more upon reason than upon an expression. If I have used any expression which is hard, even if not unparliamentary, I withdraw it. The point is we shall again begin with . . .

DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL 475 Mr. Speaker : He need not repeat it; he may proceed further. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : The other point is that not merely have substantial changes been made without sufficient or any clear notice to the Select Committee . . . Shri L. Krishnaswami Bharathi : That is what we want to object to. He cannot say so. We knew it fully well. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : If the Honourable Minister for Law is unaware of the change and if honourable Members are repeatedly asking me to point out the substantial changes it shows that they are unaware of them and accepted the changes bona fide without knowing them. I think the changes were introduced by some over-zealous draftsman who thought of improving the Bill and he introduced some bona fide changes without realising that he was thereby making a new Bill altogether, and nobody saw through it. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: I must really protest against this. It is a grave reflection on the Draftsman. My friend is almost suggesting that after the Select Committee had considered everything the Draftsman took it into his head to make changes in the Bill. I very strongly protest against it. Shri L. Krishnaswami Bharathi : And we protest against the way in which he is insinuating against the Select Committee Members. Mr. Speaker : Changes made after the Select Committee report ? The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : That is what he is suggesting. Mr. Speaker : He means “before”. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : Yes, Sir, I am absolutely certain that I said that the changes had been made before the Select Committee met. Mr. Speaker : There appears to be some misapprehension. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: I have no idea. If I understand my friend’s speech it simply means that the Select Committee blind-foldedly signed the report without going into anything or it means that after the Select Committee had done its work the Draftsman took it into his head to introduce some changes. It cannot have any other meaning. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : As to whether the changes were made bona fide or in a careless or mala fide manner it is not material for us to go into.

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES476 Mr. Speaker : The honourable Member’s point is that changes which he believes to be substantial are made. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : I am quite prepared to hear any friend setting out seriatim the changes which he thinks the Select Committee has made. Assuming that certain changes were made by the Select Committee, I would like to know whether that in itself would be a sufficient ground for re-circulation. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : Not at all : I never said they were made by the Select Committee. Mr. Speaker : What I was suggesting to the honourable Member was that assuming that certain changes are of a substantial nature in his opinion have been made, his case is strong enough for pleading and he need not say whether the changes were made out of ignorance or mala fides. The Select committee with an open mind and considering the whole thing could have made the changes. Still he thinks that they are of a substantial nature and, therefore, the Bill should be re circulated. All people need not agree that these changes which he believes to be substantial are necessarily substantial. Opinions may differ. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : The Honourable Minister for Law said that it is for me to show what changes were made by the Select Committee. I have been at pains to show that I am not drawing the attention of the House to changes made by the Select, Committee at all. That is I believe the mistake which is haunting the mind of the Honourable the Law Minister. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Nothing of the kind. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : In fact he has been insisting that the ... changes were made by the Select Committee. The changes I have been mentioning so far are changes made not by the Select Committee but made by the Departmental Committee. Mr. Speaker : Order, order, there the rub comes in. Whosoever made the changes so long as the Select Committee has accepted them they are changes by the Select Committee and not changes made by somebody else without the knowledge of the Select Committee. He need not make that kind of insinuation or assertion. By whomsoever they were made—even at the instance of a single Member or the Law Minister or the Drafting Committee or anybody else—he should proceed on the assumption that these changes are changes made by

DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL 477 the Select Committee and he should proceed to show that they are substantial. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : My difficulty is I cannot stop at that. The Honourable the Law Minister insists that the changes were introduced by the Select Committee and not by the Drafting Committee, that would make it absolutely clear that the Select Committee faithfully and bona fide accepted the changes introduced by the Drafting Committee. If that is so the Select Committee did not apply its mind to it when accepting it, knowing it to be a change. If the Select Committee did not know, as the Honourable the Law Minister does not know, that these changes were introduced by the Departmental Committee, they accepted technically, but not with full appreciation, all the changes made. That is the point which makes my case stronger. It is not merely the changes made by the Select Committee willingly but the changes made by them of a substantial nature without realizing that they were accepting any changes which makes the case stronger. In fact, they obviously assumed that the Departmental Bill was a mere re-draft without any substantial change. This is corroborated by the fact that even the Law Minister supposes that I am pointing out changes made by the Select Committee. That is why I am constrained to argue that the Select Committee’s attention was not specifically drawn to the changes. On the other hand they took the Departmental Bill as a substantial reproduction of the original Bill without any substantial change. I can say that without casting any reflection ; we can always argue mistakes or oversights or bona fide errors. I need not put the point better than that. Sir, I submit that the Members of the Select Committee or the Minister for Law need not be very sensitive about this. It is a matter of record. In fact, even the honourable the Law Minister admitted that he introduced no change and he assumes that I am pointing out changes made by the Select Committee. They have been adopted: as your ruling must be accepted, they must have accepted these changes. But the question I am pointing out is that the consciousness or the legal mind was not directed towards these because they were not aware of it. The Honourable Minister insisted the other day on a question that the Departmental Committee introduced no substantial changes. The substantial changes are there and they were not indicated in the Departmental Bill. Therefore, there is no question of insinuation. Mr. Speaker : Let us not go into that question again.