Vol. 14, Part II · pages 41–45

821 DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL will not be necessary to enforce the Code on them; it will be open to them to be governed by it or not. It will satisfy those reformers also who want to have legislation on these lines because it will enable them to declare that they want to be governed by this legislation. It will therefore satisfy everybody and offend nobody. With these submissions I commend my amendment for the acceptance of the House. My alternative amendment is also on the same lines but it restricts the operation of the Code to Hindus only. According to my first amendment, I want that the whole Code, in whatever form it may be passed, should be applicable to the entire nation, subject to the condition that it will be applicable only to those who declare that they want to be governed by it. If, however, that suggestion is not acceptable for any reason then I submit in my second amendment that the Code should be applicable to the Hindus, Sikhs and Jains as has been provided but that there also it should be applicable only to such Hindus, Jains, Sikhs and Buddhists who by declaration state they want to be governed by it. *Dr. Deshmukh : I have two points to make so far as these amendments are concerned. There are various amendments that have been moved but I should first wish to speak on the amendment of Mr. Sarwate and then on the amendment moved by the Hon. Dr. Ambedkar. I feel inclined to support the amendment of Mr. Sarwate on constitutional basis, and I feel that he has certainly brought forward an amendment which advances the cause of the Constitution, in case it is accepted that it requires advancement. I personally think it does since there is a section of Members of this House who do not regard very seriously what we have embodied in the Constitution. I would beg of you to give me a few minutes to refer to article 44 which reads: “The State shall endeavour to secure for the citizens a uniform civil Code throughout the territory of India”. Now, this is an article from the Directive Principles of State Policy. Although it is not contemplated that any decision of government could be set aside by the Supreme Court or could be regarded as illegal and against law on this score, I don’t know whether it would be competent for the Supreme Court to give a ruling. But if we attach *P.D., Vol. VIII, Part II, 5th February 1951, pp. 2392-2404.

822 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES any value or wish to give any serious consideration to the Directive Principles of State Policy in the Constitution, I am unable to see how by passing this Code we would be endeavouring to secure for the citizens a uniform Civil Code throughout the territory of India. What we would be doing by this Code would be entirely and directly contrary to what is laid down in Article 14. Because this is not only not endeavouring to secure for the citizens a uniform Civil Code but trying to enact a different Code for a section of the people. So, before we go ahead, before we waste any more time, we should consider this point. And I am sure we are doing nothing else but wasting time because for the next three days I am certain it would not be easy to go much further than Clause 2 and we don’t know how long after that we would be touching the Hindu Code. A suggestion has already been made that it would have been far better, if we really wanted to pass this Code, that one whole session should have been devoted to it. To allot three days during which it would not be possible to advance very far I consider, a pure waste of time, energy and money of this House. It can serve only one purpose and that of merely satisfying the whims and fancies or dogged determination or inclination of certain people. It would be quite easy when we have got a couple of thousand people obstructing our way or shouting slogans to desist Members of this House from passing this Code, to find one or two persons who would like to go to the law courts to get a ruling that what we are trying to do is not only not in keeping with the constitutional provisions but is directly opposed to what has been laid down. Shrimati Durgabai : Others also will go to courts. Dr. Deshmukh : Both sides will be there. You will get a notice at the cost of those people who go there first. Shrimati Durgabai : Others will be there on the basis of provisions regarding discrimination. Dr. Deshmukh : Yes, there is discrimination everywhere and that is exactly the objection that is raised. If we enact this Code as it is, there will be discrimination in favour of certain people and against certain others who are also handicapped similarly, if not worse. That is a point which goes in our favour. My second point on these amendments is that I am opposed to the amendment moved by Dr. Ambedkar. By his amendment No. 15 in the printed list, he wants the substitution of the words “persons who are Hindus by religion” for the words “Hindus, that is to say,

823 DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL to all persons professing the Hindu religion”. It is very difficult to find out which version really holds the ground at the present moment when there have been so many revisions and such a huge lot of amendments have been moved. It is not easy to know where exactly we stand. I don’t see what is wrong with the original provision contained in the Code as it emerged from the Select Committee. The wording there is : “ 2 (a) This Code applies to all Hindus, that is to say, to all persons professing the Hindu religion in any of its forms or developments.” In his amendment Dr. Ambedkar proposes the substitution of these words by “persons who are Hindus by religion”. I don’t see any difference between the two wordings. By the words “all Hindus” you refer to all people who are “Hindus by religion”. The original wording further explains the words “all Hindus” by saying it means “all persons professing the Hindu religion”. Thereby the Code will apply to any person who claims to be a Hindu. These words are now sought to be substituted. No reasons have so far been given as to why they are going to be substituted by new words. If they are actually omitted, and if Dr. Ambedkar can persuade the House to omit those words, I think a very real difficulty may arise. If you eliminate “professing” how are you going to define who is a Hindu and who is not a Hindu. The words proposed are “all persons who are Hindus by religion”. But how do we know who is a Hindu by religion and who is not ? Is it proposed that every person would be required to make a declaration ? I don’t know what procedure is suggested and how it would be ascertained if a particular person is a Hindu or not. I would say that the words as they stood in the original Code as it emerged out of the Select Committee have stood the test of time. So far as my recollection goes, these words are there in Mulla’s Hindu Code and these words have been used from very old times. They have a sanction of long usage. In view of that there is, in my opinion, no need for this amendment and I would suggest that it should not be accepted. I support the amendment moved by my hon. friend Shri Sarwate on the ground that if we accept it, we would be acting in the spirit of the Constitution. Otherwise all our efforts are liable to be fruitless in view of the constitutional difficulty I have pointed out.

824 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES Shri Syamnandan Sabaya (Bihar) : May I make a submission in this connection ? There are several amendments moved formally by the authors, but the movers have not made any speech explaining their viewpoint. One of such amendment is from the Hon. the Law Minister himself. Such of us who have not moved any amendment to this clause and have an open mind would like to hear the Government point of view as also the point of view of the movers of the other amendments in order to enable us either to take part in the deliberations or to decide how to act in the circumstances. May I therefore suggest that movers of the amendments should first make their speeches and then the clause should be thrown open for general discussion. This would help the discussion and the decision. In any case, we would like to hear the Hon. the Law Minister’s view point on his amendment, so that we may either support him or oppose him. Mr. Speaker : I was thinking of calling upon the movers of the amendments one by one, but I found that instead of the movers who did not appear anxious to catch my eye others caught my eyes. That is why I called upon others. Dr. Ambedkar : The movers have sat back. In fact, I am myself waiting to hear them. Mr. Speaker : The Hon. the Law Minister is at liberty to choose his own time but I did call upon him now because I thought that if he participated a little later it would be possible for him to clear the ground. Dr. Ambedkar : I can speak at any time. Mr. Speaker : He will be entitled to two speeches; that is to say, even if he participates in the debate now, he will be entitled to reply. Shri Syamnandan Sahay : He may reply to the general debate on the clause, but as regards his own amendment he must satisfy the House that there is some reason for moving that amendment on behalf of Government. Mr. Speaker : I think his position stands a little differently. He has to take into consideration what others say and then he will be able to explain his viewpoint better. That is why I was thinking of calling upon him at a later stage, though not at the end. Sardar Hukam Singh : I do not know how the impression has got into your mind that the movers of the amendment do not want to speak on their amendments.

825 DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL Mr. Speaker : I never said ‘ they never wanted to speak ’. I said they did not try to catch my eye. In between, Dr. Deshmukh got up and I called on him to speak. Several Hon. Members : rose— Mr. Speaker : I am not sure whether I should call Pandit Bhargava at this stage—for personal reasons. Mr. Jhunjunwala. Shri Jhunjhunwala : Sir, I have given notice of two alternative amendments. One of my amendments reads thus: “This Code applies to all citizens of India, that is Bharat, irrespective of their caste, creed, and irrespective of their belonging to or professing any religion”. Alternatively, I have moved another amendment which reads thus : “Provided, however, that notwithstanding anything contained in the above clauses, this Code shall not apply to any person unless such person got his name registered with such authority and in such manner as may be hereafter prescribed by Parliament, within one year after this Code comes into force, and in case of a minor within one year after such a minor attains majority.” I want to assure the House that these amendments of mine are not dilatory ; nor am I opposed to all the provisions of this Code. The main object in moving my first amendment is that, as has been pointed out by my hon. Friend Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad, we have been passing many laws which are being declared ultra vires either by the High Courts or by the Supreme Court. It is therefore very necessary that before we take any such Bill, Act or legislation into consideration we should make sure that we are acting according to the Constitution. If we pass any law and ultimately that law is declared ultra vires, it will be a mere waste of the time of this House and also waste of so much money. It will serve no useful purpose. Under article 15 of the Constitution it is laid down that the State shall not discriminate against any citizen only on ground of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them. The amendment that I have moved makes this Code applicable to all citizens of India, that is, Bharat, whereas the clause as it stands is restricted only to a particular class of persons. If the law that we are passing is for the good it is good for all people. It is not right that we should discriminate one particular community against another. We should not discriminate one set of persons who are professing one religion from another set of persons who are professing another religion if our law is for their good. If it is not