Vol. 15 · pages 116–120

99PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (12) MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT *Shri Gopalaswami : May I just point out that Mr. Chamberlain was not on a question of motion for adjournment of debate ? Pandit Kunzru : Well, I think Dr. Ambedkar relying on the reply given by Sir N. N. Sircar on the basis of Mr. Chamberlain’s reply came to the conclusion that in a matter like this there was no essential difference between a demand for information and a demand for discussion. The word used by Sir N. N. Sircar in his reply was “discussion” and that is the word that my Hon. friend Dr. Ambedkar relied on. The Minister of Law (Dr. Ambedkar) : I should like to say just one word with regard to the comment of my hon. friend on the reply given by Mr. Chamberlain and his attempt to establish a sort of analogy between the position which existed when that question was put and the position that will arise under article 371 of our Constitution. I should request him to bear in mind the essential distinction that exists between our Constitution now and the Government of India Act, 1935. That distinction is this, that while Parliament did enact the Act of 1935 and transferred certain responsibilities to the people of India, they never failed to emphasise time and over again, that the ultimate responsibility for the good Government in India rested with Parliament, and therefore, to the extent that the power was reserved of giving directions it was really responsible for maintaining good Government; while under our Constitution we have given over the power of maintaining good Government to our States and only in some cases we have reserved to the Centre certain powers of direction. That distinction has to be borne in mind. * P.D., Vol. 2, Part II, 14th March 1950, pp. 1512-13. .

100 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES Pandit Kunzru : I entirely disagree with my hon. Friend Dr. Ambedkar, not with regard to the general point that he has raised, but with the construction that he has put on article 371. As my hon. friend pointed out the other day, this article 371 does not apply to States in Class A. It applies only to States in Class B, and why ? Why was this article 371 inserted in the Constitution with reference to States in Class B only ? It was inserted in order to ensure good Government there.

101PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (13) SOCIETIES REGISTRATION (AMENDMENT) BILL *Shri Sidhva (Madhya Pradesh): This is a Bill which I had moved during the last session. The Hon. the Law Minister (Dr. Ambedkar) told me that he would like to take the opnion of the States. I would, therefore, like to know, before I formally move this Bill, as to whether the Opinions of the provinces have been received. If not, I would like to have this Bill confined to the Centrally Administered Areas. The Minister of Law (Dr. Ambedkar): Sir, in accordance with the promise that I gave when my friend Mr. Sidhva moved his Bill, that in view of the fact that this matter fell under the Concurrent List and according to the Standing Orders of the Government of India, it was necessary to consult the States before undertaking legislation, my Ministry had addressed a letter to the various provinces to ascertain their views with regard to the proposed enactment of a law as proposed by my friend Mr. Sidhva. I am sorry to say that on account of the pre-occupation of the various States, the replies of all of them have not been received as yet. I have received, however, replies from two States in Part A and some of the States in Part C. With regard to the States in Part A, I have received replies only from Madras and Punjab and I am sorry to say that both of them are opposed to the Centre meeting such a piece of legislation. The Madras Government have said that they themselves have under consideration an exhaustive and comprehensive piece of legislation to deal with the points raised in this particular Bill. The Punjab Government have said that they realised the necessity of having a penalty clause such as the one proposed by Mr. Sidhva, but they say that *P. D., Vol. 3, Part II, 25th March 1950, pp. 2115-16.

102 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES they themselves have recently enacted a law imposing such a penalty and so far as that particular province is concerned, no such legislation is necessary. With regard to the States in Part C, the position that they have taken is this : that they have no such problem for the moment on hand. Some of them say that there are no such societies existing within their jurisdiction. Others have said that the law which my friend Mr. Sidhva seeks to amend has been very recently introduced within their area in the year 1949. There are no societies and there is as yet no experience to suggest whether any societies have violated the provisions of the Bill. That is the position as revealed by the replies given by the various States to which this communication was addressed. Some of the other important States such as, for instance, Bombay, U.P. and Madhya Pradesh have not replied. This is a matter placed in the Concurrent List and it is desirable that we should have the reaction of most, or the majority of the States in Part A before the Centre can undertake this legislation. As I said last time, personally I do not think that any one could really dispute the position taken by my friend Mr. Sidhva that if the provisions of this Bill have to be effective, it is necessary to have some such penalty clause. I agree with him. But my point is this that it is desirable to carry the majority of the States in making this legislation and as they have not as yet replied, personally I would have very much preferred that this Bill was either withdrawn or held back on the assurance that the Centre will grapple with the situation as and when time and circumstances permit. Shri Sidhva: Sir, in view of the statement made by my friend Dr. Ambedkar that he is personally in favour of this Bill and that as this subject is in the Concurrent List he would like to have the opinion of all the important States, I would like to hold over this Bill. I cannot withdraw the Bill in any case. It is an important Bill. I know what is happening in the various societies. Therefore, I would request you to allow me to keep this Bill alive. I shall not move it now. Mr. Speaker: If no motion is made this time, it will automatically be kept alive under the rules.

103PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (14) ARMY BILL The Minister of Defence (Sardar Baldev Singh): I beg to move. “That the Bill to consolidate and amend the law relating to the Government of the regular Army, as reported by the Select Committee, be taken into consideration.” *Mr. Speaker : Hon. Dr. Ambedkar. The Minister of Law (Dr. Ambedkar) : If other hon. Friends do not want to speak, I thought I would like to reply to the two points raised by my hon. friend Pandit Kunzru because they have a constitutional aspect. Mr. Speaker : I would give him precedence. Dr. Ambedkar : My. hon. Friend Pandit Kunzru, in the course of his speech on the motion, raised two points. As they refer to the constitutional aspect of the matter, I thought that it may be appropriate that I should deal with them rather than leave them to be dealt with by my hon. colleague.) The first point was that clauses 4 and 5 of the Bill were inappropriate in view of the fact that they made separate mention of the Forces in Part B States. I will take these two sections separately. With regard to section 4, I think my hon. friend will agree that under the scheme of this Act, there is a distinction to be made between what is known as the regular Army and Forces which do not form part of the regular Army. My friend will see that the regular Army is defined under item 21 of section 3 which deals with definitions. For instance, there are what are called Assam Rifles, Bhil Corps and several other units which may be mentioned as illustrations which do not *P.D., Vol. 4, Part II, 6th April 1950, pp. 2601-5.