Vol. 14, Part II · pages 421–425

1201 DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL then, in spite of the fact that a custom is a good one and observed by great numbers in the community, it will not grow if somebody is able to say that it is opposed to public policy. Mr. Deputy Speaker : The Hon. Member is a good lawyer. My own interpretation is different. Wherever this Code specifically provides for a particular thing, unless an exception is made, to that extent a custom is abrogated whether it be opposed to public policy or not. What is the difficulty under which the hon. Member is labouring ? There are certain customs which have to be recognised, certain customs which are obnoxious and so opposed to public policy. Public policy is only a matter which can be judged by the foot of the judge. In regard to those matters we can say, why leave them to the court to decide; those customs are absolutely obnoxious. But with regard to other customs why say that they ought to be recognised by a court ? I think it is impossible to legislate for all the things. Dr. Ambedkar : Perhaps you will allow me to intervene for a minute or two to clarify the point. Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava : I am, Sir, of the same view as was expressed by you, but I am expressing it in a different way. I do not want to tamper with the customs which are growing which are good customs, but my fear is that any court may take upon itself to say that it is opposed to public policy. All the customs are not treated here because we have not the time and energy to go into all the customs throughout the country. Because we cannot say what customs will be saved, we should say that a custom to be recognised shall have to be judicially recognised as not opposed to public policy. Dr. Ambedkar : The question which has been raised by my friend Pandit Bhargava is no doubt very important and so far as I know there is not the slightest difference between the view that I take and the view that he takes. The only thing is that he has applied his mind, if I may say so, to a wrong clause and that is why he has been rather confused as to what exactly is the position. Those Members of the House who are interested in the subject of custom versus the Code had better begin to apply their mind not to clause 3 but to clause 4 which is the main clause which deals with this matter of authority of custom as against the authority of the code and the law. And you will find, Sir, a very clear statement therein that unless a custom has been expressly saved that custom will not have any operation as against this law. Therefore, the question whether any particular custom has been expressly saved or not has to be gone into when we come

1202 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES to discuss each of the clauses of this particular Bill whereon Members may raise the question whether the particular clause should stand in the absolute way in which it has been drafted or whether it should be made subject to any particular custom. If any particular clause in this Bill does not say “Save as otherwise provided by custom” or “unless there is a custom to the contrary” there is no custom which this Bill proposes to recognise. Therefore, on that point there ought to be no doubt. There is not the slightest intention to allow custom to override in a general way the provisions of this Code. My. hon. Firend has, I know, a particular question or an occasion in mind when he feels that I have been going rather soft on this particular subject, but I can tell him that it is only in very very rare cases that I propose to yield on this subject, subject to the fact that anyone who presses upon me that the custom should override this particular Code in any particular way will carry upon him the burden of showing that that custom is more progressive than the provisons of this particular Bill. Now, supposing that we do introduce a qualifying statement when we come to deal with different subjects, i.e. we say that that clause shall be subject to any existing custom or something like that, even then the question remains : What is the standard to which that particular custom must conform before it can have that over-riding effect ? It is that question which is dealt with in the definition clause, so that whenever any custom is saved it will nonetheless be open to find out whether the custom which is allowed by the particular clause to prevail upon a provision of this Bill conforms to the definition which is really a definition laying down the standard to which a custom must reach before it can be accepted by the court. That is the position. So far as (ii) of clause 3 is concerned, there is nothing in this clause which is not bodily taken from the judicial pronouncements of the different High Courts in our country which have had to consider what is the custom to which they will give their sanction, and I think the ingredients of custom which the courts have laid down have been bodily and literally embodied in (ii) of clause 3. So, I do not think there is any ground for quarelling with the definition, because the definition is necessary. Even where we allow custom to prevail, we do not allow any kind of custom to prevail but only custom which conforms to the standards which have been laid down by the High Courts and hon. Members will see that the standards laid down in (ii) are the standards which have been sanctified and laid down by the various courts in our country.

1203 DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL Shri Naziruddin Ahmad : Even in foreign courts this is so. Dr. Ambedkar : Everywhere this is the same. I have looked up even Stephen’s Digest of English law and I find that the wording is almost the same as we have got here. Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava : I am very much oblidged to my Hon. Friend the Law Minister for his having kindly explained. Shri J. R. Kapoor : (Uttar Pradesh) : Has the hon. Member not finished ? Mr. Deputy Speaker : No. He will continue. He is on his legs. Incidentally not only Members of Parliament but also outsiders are watching the progress of this Bill and there is some misunderstanding about my position. Once I sit here I have absolutely no colour, no caste, no creed. That is my honest position. To the best of my conscience I have tried to discharge my duties impartially. If any hon. Member feels rightly or wrongly that I am not doing it properly, I always welcome his coming and telling me privately that I must do this and that. I find that even hon. Members of this House are under the impression that when an hon. Member is on his legs I can ask him to sit down. I have been appealing to hon. Members that with respect to important matters, certainly sufficient lattitude and time is necessary and must be allowed but if they repeat matters which have been discussed at various stages that is not right. Barring that, I am not in a position to impose any time restriction. If the Hon. Minister of Law can tell me that I can impose any time restriction on speeches under the law, it will be only too glad to avail of it. Dr. Ambedkar : It cannot be done. But we have agreed amongst ourselves to impose a self-abnegation ordinance. Mr. Deputy Speaker : I am very glad of that, but the burden should not be cast on the Chair. In a Finance Bill, I can apply the guillotine. This has been newly introduced. Hitherto the guillotine was applied to only Budget Grants, but recently it has been introuced so far as Finance Bills are concerned. I can fix a time limit and all amendments will be lost unless they are moved and accepted or rejected before that timelimit. But with respect to other Bills, I have no right to fix a time-limit even with respect to the Bill as a whole. With this restriction, I feel very much embarrassed if any hon. Member thinks that I am allowing too much time. That is my position and the position of anybody who may be in the Chair.

1204 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES Lastly, if any hon. Member feels that there has been sufficient discussion on a particular clause, he can kindly tell me. There of course, I have my discretion. If I too feel that the matter has been elaborately discussed or at any rate sufficiently discussed, I will agree to the closure motion. To that extent, there is discretion in me. hon. Members who make suggestions will kindly bear all these things in mind. I am making this statement because an impression is created out-side that notwithstanding the suggestions of hon. Members I am standing in the way and holding the pendulum back. In this connection, may I also inform the House that I have received a letter from the Managing Editor of the Indian News Chronicle ? Yesterday, as the House will recall Shri Amolak Chand drew my attention to a cartoon appearing in this paper which described some Members as holding the minute hand and hour hand and withholding the progress of the clock, and the Deputy Speaker as catching hold of the pendulum firmly so that the clock cannot move this side or that side. The hon. Members are shown as looking up and not looking down and seeing as to who is the man that is really holding the clock back. That is the impression that was created by that cartoon. Since I made reference to this matter yesterday and it is practically a privilege of the House and I am only its spokesman, I would like to read this letter. It is written by Shri Deshbandhu Gupta, Managing Editor and runs thus : “My dear Shri Ananthasayanam Ayyangar. I am informed that you took exception to the cartoon which appeared in the Indian News Chronicle yesterday morning under the caption “putting the Clock Back”. You are reported to have expressed the view that the cartoon was calculated to cast aspertions on the Chair. I am very sorry that the cartoon has given cause for offence to you personally or in the capacity of the Deputy Speaker. The cartoonist assures me that it was remotest from his intention to show any disrespect to the Chair or to the House and joins me in assuring you of the desire of the Indian News Chronicle to uphold the dignity of both. The theme of the cartoon as you will kindly see is to illustrate the current situation in Parliament in which in spite of the Chairman’s desire to regulate the debate so as to conform as nearly as possible to time schedule, some members participating in the debates have endeavoured to prolong the debate and thereby hold the progress of the Bill. I am assured by the cartoonist that in introducing the Deputy

1205 DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL Speaker in the cartoon in this role he had no other intention. While regretting that anything in the cartoon should have given cause to you for offence. I hope you will be good enough to accept this explanation and our sincere assurance that there was no intention whatsoever of showing disrespect to the Chair and the House.” I think this is sufficient. Dr. Deshmukh : From the Chair, he has shifted to Members. He is accusing Members now. It is worse. Shri Radhelal Vyas : (Madhya Bharat) : I think the matter should be referred to a Committee of Privileges. Shri Bhatt : It should be made clear that it was not intended to cast aspersion on any Member either. Dr. Deshmukh : Shri Deshbandhu Gupta should be made to appologise to the House. Mr. Deputy Speaker : Evidently he feels that the speed which he expects of the progress of the Bill has not been made in this case. I shall later look into the matter as to whether any aspersion or insinuation has been cast on any hon. Members of this House. Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava : So far as your observations are concerned, with your permission I would like to say a word. The Members of this House realise that the Chair is sacred. Here sat Vithalbhai Patel—whose portrait we see before us—who sanctified the Chair. After him was it adorned by men of great eminence and prominence. We all know that the Chair has been holding the scales even. It is idle for the outside world or any members here to think or feel that the Chair is not impartial or dealing fairly with any question. But at the same time when passions are frayed, when persons take sides, they are apt to see from an unbalanced standpoint the conduct of the Chair or of the Members of this House. Now great exception was taken by some Members, and they even asked you to stop a Member during the course of his speech. I can fully understand the view-point of every Member who wants to make a long speech. Even Dr. Ambedkar made certain statements to which certain Members took exception, though I was not one of them. Every Member has a right to criticise. So far as we are concerned our skins are too thick now to get offended by such criticism. So far as the conduct of the Chair in this House is concerned, no member has for a moment even thought that it is conducting the business in a partial manner.