Vol. 14, Part I · pages 526–530

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES508 be more exact. I am not measuring his speech by the length of time taken. What I would like him to do is to take into consideration the fact that the present is a general motion for taking the Bill into consideration. It will not, therefore, be either in order or proper to go into the details of every clause. The honourable Member’s argument, as I understood it yesterday, is that there are some substantial changes made in the Bill and that, therefore, the measure has to be considered a new or that public opinion has to be consulted in the matter. For developing that argument he need not go into each and every clause of the Bill and suggest that every change made is a substantial change. He need only point out, by way of illustration, a few instances of really substantial changes made. I think that should be enough for the purpose of his argument at the present stage. When the Bill comes up for discussion clause by clause, he will have every facility to move any amendment he likes. * Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad (West Bengal: Muslim): Sir, I am grateful to you for that suggestion. I dealt with substantial changes yesterday but today I shall confine myself to a few more substantial changes. ( Interruption). Mr. Speaker : There is one difficulty that I feel about interruptions. They distract attention from the original point and my hands are weakened in pulling up the speaker and bringing him up to the proper scope of relevancy in debate. If there are no interruptions, therefore, the matter will be shortened. An Honourable Member : But it becomes very dull. Mr. Speaker : Of course it gives relief from dullness but too much of it is dangerous for the House. Therefore, let there be no interruptions or side remarks because they sidetrack the issue. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : I shall confine myself, Sir, to a few more substantial changes introduced by the Departmental Draft. I shall turn to part III of the original Bill and draw attention to sub-clause (2) of clause 126 of the Departmental Bill which corresponds to sub-clause (2) of clause 124 of the Final Bill. It is a new sub-clause which introduces a new principle, namely, that any transfer of property would not defeat the right of maintenance paid therefrom. In fact, maintenance has been made a statutory charge on the property. Whether good or bad, it is a new matter which has been introduced not by the Select Committee but by the Departmental Committee. *C.A.(Leg.)D.,Vol.III, Part II, 2nd April 1949, pp. 2249-76.

DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL 509 Then turning to part III-A of the original Bill which deals with succession, clauses 1 and 2 which are important substantive provisions have been entirely omitted in the Departmental Bill and of course also in the Final Bill. I will not deal with them in detail but leave them for consideration by the Honourable Minister. Then coming to clause 131 of the Departmental Bill (clause 130 of the final Bill), sub-clause (1) which deals with maintenance is a new matter which introduces a very substantial change. Again clause 133 of the departmental Bill (clause 132 of the final Bill) lays down certain tests; they introduce an innovation of a very substantial nature. Part (b) of sub-clause (2) of this clause is an innovation which corresponds to clause 6(1) of the original Bill, part III-A. Then parts (g) and (h) of sub-clause (1), part III-A in the original Bill are also important provisions which have been entirely omitted in the Departmental Bill and also in the final Bill. Again parts (g), (h) and (i) of clause 133 (2) of the departmental Bill are very important and are entirely new. In part III-A the proviso to sub-clause (1) of the clause 6 in the original Bill has been omitted in the Departmental Bill rather unceremoniously. This is omission of a very important matter. Sub-clause (2) of clause 134 of the Departmental Bill (clause 133 of the final Bill) deals with marriage expenses of an unmarried daughter. This is a new provision which was not in the original Bill. Then I come to clause 7 of part III-A of the original Bill dealing with the maintenance of a widow residing outside the family house. This has been omitted in the departmental Bill and also in the final Bill. Therefore in part III-A of the original Bill, there are sins of omission and commission of an important character. I refer to them because I wish to rely not only on the individual changes made but also on the cumulative effect of those changes. Then I come to part IV of the original Bill dealing with marriage and divorce, corresponding to Part II of the departmental and final Bills. I shall deal only with the salient points. Provisions about marriage have been entirely and radically changed and require some detailed consideration. With regard to sacramental marriage the form of that marriage prevalent in Hindu society is well known. The original Bill left those forms to be applicable according to custom and social

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES510 practice. There was no provision in the original Bill for registration of a sacramental marriage as a condition of the validity of the marriage. I shall try to show that the Departmental Bill has introduced such changes. They may be unconscious but the change to me appears to be that no marriage will be valid unless it is registered. Registration has not been made optional as in the case of Muslims, but in this case by the Departmental Bill the optional character of the old formalities have been interfered with and the validity has been made subject to registration; otherwise, as I shall try to show, the marriage would be invalid. The original Bill, Part IV dealt with this subject. In clause 2 it was laid down that there shall be two forms of Hindu marriage, namely, the sacramental marriage and the civil marriage. Leaving aside the civil marriage, with which I am not at present concerned, “there shall be two forms of Hindu marriage—sacramental marriage and civil marriage”. That is what was provided in the original Bill. The forms were left to the wellknown custom and well-known requirements of Hindu marriage and provide nothing for registration. The House will be pleased to consider the corresponding provisions in the Departmental Bill. The original Bill merely said that the sacramental form of marriage will be one of the forms of marriage. Details were left to the descretion of the parties. In Clause 6 of the Departmental Bill which also corresponds to Clause 6 of the final Bill, the following provision is made. “Save as otherwise expressly provided herein, no marriage between Hindus shall be recognised as a valid marriage unless it is solemnized either as a sacramental marriage or as a civil marriage in accordance with the provisions of this Part.” The original provision was that marriage might be performed in the sacramental form in the usual religious form well known to Hindu society, but in the departmental Bill it is said that no marriage shall be valid unless it is performed in accordance with this Part. Let us consider the provisions of this Part. We come at once to another part of the Bill, namely, clause 6 of part IV of the original Bill corresponding to clause 9 of the departmental Bill as well as the final Bill. ( An honourable Member: ‘Please note that Dr. Ambedkar is away.’) Clause 9 deals with registration of sacramental marriage. In the original Bill it was stated : “For the purpose of facilitating proof of sacramental marriage, rules may be prescribed for the entering of

DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL 511 particulars relating to such marriages in such manner as may be prescribed in the Hindu Civil Marriage Certificate book kept under section 6 of this Chapter.” Babu Ramnarayan Singh (Bihar : General): On a point of information, may I know who is listening to the debate on behalf of the Government ? Mr. Speaker : There must be someone ! Shri L. Krishnaswami Bharathi (Madras : General): I am taking notes for him. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : The Minister should, in courtsey, be here. Shri B. L. Sondhi (East Punjab: Genral): The Law Minister is there— just coming. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : The original clause provided for rules made by the Government for the entering of particulars in a register for the purpose of facilitating proof : that is, it left the validity of marriage absolutely intact. It gave additional facility in the matter of proof that particulars of marriages might be registered in the Hindu Civil Marriage Certificate book and this could be provided by rules. This was only to facilitate proof. This was not a compulsory condition, nor any condition affecting the validity of the marriage. All that was laid down was a very usual rule, a very salutary rule, that particulars might be entered in a register and that might be prescribed in the rules. It would be only for the purposes of facilitating proof. It would not affect the validity of the marriage at all. In fact a marriage of which the particulars are not entered in this register would be perfectly valid, but registration would offer, or supply a ready-made method of proof of marriage, and a certified copy of the entry would be taken judicial notice of by a Court of law and much evidence would be dispensed with. But in the corresponding clause in the Departmental Bill, it is like this : “For the purpose of facilitating the proof of any sacramental marriage, the Provincial Government may by rules provide (and here the sting comes at the tail) — (a) That particulars relating to such marriages shall be entered in the Hindu Marriage Certificate book...........................” In fact the compulsion is not yet complete, but only begins here. Then, Sir, we come to clause (b) of the Departmental Bill. Subclause (3) of clause 6 of the original Bill says : “The making of such an entry shall not be compulsory.”

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES512 I shall ask you, Sir, to consider the corresponding language of the Departmental Bill. The original Bill—I shall repeat with your permission— is “That the making of such an entry shall not be compulsory.” Shri Mahavir Tyagi : Does it mean that the married parties will go to the Registrar’s House? Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : According to the original Bill, the making of such entries is not compulsory. That is absolutely clear. But let us consider the corresponding provision of the departmental Bill: “The making of such entries shall be compulsory.” Shri Jaspat Roy Kapoor (U. P.: General): In which place ? Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : I shall come to that later on. “Which place” is also mentioned. It is at very inconvenient places ! So the original law was that by rule particulars of marriages might be entered in a book for the purpose of facilitating proof, “but the entry shall not be compulsory”. But in the revised clause in the departmental Bill, the particulars shall be entered and the making of the entries shall be compulsory in such cases. And then, what is more, there is sub-clause (2) and clause 9 of the departmental Bill which reads : “In making the rules under sub-section 1, the Provincial Government may provide that a contravention thereof shall be punishable with fine which may extend to Rs. 100” The position is a little vague as to whether the compulsory character attaches to the registering officer or is addressed to the party. But more of this later on. Shri Mahavir Tyagi : Which clause are you referring to ? Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : Clause 9(2) of the Departmental Bill as well as to clause 9(2)of the final Bill. In fact it gives authority to the Provincial Government to impose a fine for not complying with it or even a vague suspicion that parties who fail to register or have them entered, will also come within the mischief of this provision. But the matter has not been left in doubt and it is clear later on. Mr. Speaker : The validity of the marriage is not affected, in which case, where is the substantial change ? It is only a matter of detail which, it would be as well for the honourable member to speak on, when we come to clause by clause consideration of the Bill.