Vol. 15 · pages 126–130

109PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES subject to the permission granted by the Government of India, the man could be tried twice. Having regard to the difficulties mentioned, namely, of allowing civil courts to try all offences and having regard to the fact that there are the provisions contained in clauses 125 and 127, I do not envisage that there is likely to be far more cases which can be described as containing miscarriage of justice. I think we have taken enough precaution to prevent that sort of thing happening and therefore I submit, that having regard to these provisions and having regard to section 70 there can be no objection to this part of the Bill. I might also mention—I think reference was made to it by somebody—that clause 70 of this Bill is virtually a repetition of section 41 of the British Army Act. There also they have a similar provision. In the U.S.A. the provisions are more extensive. After all we have to look at this matter from the point of view of the offender, not so much from the point of view of the complainant. In all these cases the offender would be a solider and the question is whether the soldier who is accused of any particular offence and would have been tried by a civil court, if he had not been a soldier, would not get justice at the court martial. My friend said that the men who sit in the court martial are not trained lawyers. I do not know but I can say from my experience that I have met some Judge Advocates-General who were as good as the lawyers whom we meet in courts, if not better. However, after all a soldier cannot expect to get better justice for having committed civilian offences than he is ordinarily expected to get when he commits a military offence. If he gets the same justice as he gets in the civil courts I do not think there need be any cause for complaint. My friend need not have much confusion about it. I do not think that his criticism is well placed. Shri S. N. Sinha : What are those cases in which the criminal courts and court-martial have got concurrent jurisdiction ? Under clause 125 the choice has to be exercised. Dr. Ambedkar : I cannot say. That requires some kind of exhaustive compilation. There are undoubtedly some offences

110 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES which come under the jurisdiction of both military and civil courts. Shri S. N. Sinha : My contention was that clause 70 of this Bill alone gives jurisdiction to the ordinary criminal courts in respect of specified cases. Pandit Kunzru : There is this doubt in the minds of many hon. Members. If my hon. Friend Dr. Ambedkar will turn to clause 125 he will find that the opening words are: “When a criminal court having jursidiction is of opinion ........”. The question is what do the words “having jurisdiction” mean. Do they mean having jurisdiction under the ordinary criminal law of the land or jurisdiction under this Bill ? This is the question that troubles many hon. Members. If it is said that these words mean having jurisdiction under this Bill ........ Dr. Ambedkar : Under the ordinary law. Pandit Kunzru : Then obviously clauses 69 debars the ordinary criminal courts from dealing with any criminal cases except those which fall under section 70. That is the real question. Dr. Ambedkar : “Civil offence” has been defined on page 2 of the Bill as meaning “an offence which is triable by a criminal court” as distinct from a court martial.

111PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (15) PART C STATES (LAWS) BILL *The Minister of Law (Dr. Ambedkar): I beg to move for leave to introduce a Bill to provide for the extension of laws to certain Part C States. Mr. Speaker : The question is: “That leave be granted to introduce a Bill to provide for the extension of laws to certain Part C States.” The motion was adopted. Dr. Ambedkar : I introduce the Bill. *The Minister of Law (Dr. Ambedkar) : I beg to move : “That the Bill to provide for the extension of laws to certain“ Part C States, be taken into consideration.” It is perhaps necessary that I should offer to the House some explanation as to why this Bill is restricted to certain Part C States. The position is this, that we have altogether about ten Part C States mentioned in Schedule I of the Constitution. Those ten States fall into three groups. There are Coorg, Ajmer and Delhi which were Chief Commissioners’ Provinces now designated as Part C States, and which had come into existence long before the Constitution. Consequently, so far as these three States were concerned, the question of the extension of Central laws does not arise because they applied at the time when they were enacted. Then there is the second group of Part C States which are Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh, Bhopal and Cutch. With regard to them, it was only last year that this Legislature passed a law extending the Central Acts to them. This Bill is confined to three Part C States, namely, Vindhya Pradesh, Tripura *P. D., Vol. 4, Part II, 5th April 1950, p. 2551. **Ibid., 11th April 1950, pp. 2777-84.

112 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES and Manipur. They have to be separately dealt with because they came into existence as Part C States after the 1949 Act was passed. Consequently, this measure is restircted to these three Part C States. I might mention that although all the laws that were extended to Part C States by the Act of 1949 are extended to Vindhya Pradesh and Tripura, some exceptions have been made with regard to the State of Manipur. All the laws that have been applied previously or are applied by the present measure to Vindhya Pradesh or Tripura are not applied proprio vigore to Manipur. It is said that Manipur is largely settled by what are called the tribal people whose civilisation and whose manners and modes of life are considerably different from those who are living in what is called the ‘settled area’. Consequently it would create a great deal of disturbance if all the enactments were extended to Manipur and therefore a Schedule has been added as to what enactments will not apply to Manipur. Similarly, while the Indian Penal Code is applied to Manipur, there are two sections of it which are sought to be applied, with a certain modification. I hope the House will see that there is nothing very complicated about this measure and accept it. Mr. Deputy Speaker : Motion moved: “That the Bill to provide for the extension of laws to certain Part C States, be taken into consideration.” Pandit M. B. Bhargava (Ajmer) : I have to make a few observations in respect of this Bill. So far as the extension of any Central laws to the States referred to by the Hon. the Law Minister is concerned, I have got nothing to say. But there is one clause, namely, clause 2 in this Bill which lays down that it will be open to the Central Government by notification in the Official Gazette, to extend any Provincial enactment to any of these States in Part C, subject to such modifications and restrictions as may be laid down in the notification ........... I have not the least doubt that if all these extended laws are ever questioned before a competent legal authority, this legislation will not stand the scrutiny of the judicial court and will be declared null and void. I would, therefore, respectfully request the Hon. the Law Minister to

113PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES consider the legal position before proceeding further with this piece of legislation. Dr. Ambedkar : I am glad my hon. Friend raised this question. I did not bother to it because I thought that the section was so simple that it should not require any explanation. However, now that the question is raised, I think it is desirable that I should explain the position. In going through the merits of this particular clause, there are certain aspects of the case which have to be taken into consideration. The first is this, that in most of the Part C States, except Coorg, there are no local legislatures which could be entrusted with the duty of passing such local laws as may be necessary for their local administration. It is, I think, equally clear and my hon. friend, himself admitted the matter that the only other alternative is for Parliament to sit here and to make detailed laws for the local administration of these Part C States, and the question that has to be considered is this, whether in view of the time which is available to Parliament—and every one knows how difficult it is for this Parliament to get through some of the most essential measures necessary for carrying on the Central Administration—to find time which could be devoted in a meticulous consideration of the details of a local legislation. We are, therefore, so to say between two difficulties ; one is that there is no local legislature and the other is that Parliament is not in a position to engage itself in passing local laws for Part C States. What is, therefore to be done in a situation of this sort ? The only thing that could be done seems to be to give the Government of India the power to extend certain laws made by Part A States or other Part C States to be applied to Part C States with such modifications as may be necessary by reason of local circumstances and local difficulty. I do not see that there is any other way open to provide for local legislation for Part C States. Of course, it would be possible for Parliament at some stage to create local legislative councils for Part C States and to endow these local legislative councils with the power to make laws for their local administration but so long as Parliament has not done it, I do not see that there is any via media except what is suggested in this particular Bill, and, therefore, apart from