Vol. 15 · pages 131–135

114 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES the question whether this is the proper mode of doing the legislative business which Part C States would be entitled to do, from a practical point of view, I do not see that there is any other method open. My friend put forth a point of criticism that this power has been exercised by the Centre without even consulting such local advisory bodies as exist in Part C States. I do not know much about that aspect of the matter, because as my hon. friend knows the administration of this particular matter rests with the Home Ministry and I have no doubt about it that the Home Ministry does consult these bodies. If they do not, I have no doubt that they will adopt the suggestion made by my hon. friend. Then, I come to the constitutional question which my hon. friend, has raised, namely, that this will be delegated legislation. Any application of any law made by Part A or Part B or Part C States extended to Pan C States would be a performance of what might be called a delegated legislation, the Parliament delegating the executive to apply that legislation. My hon. Friend referred to the decision of the Federal Court. No doubt there is the decision of the Federal Court. All I want to say is this, that we have not had as yet the decision of the Supreme Court; we are waiting for it, because, with all respect to the Federal Court, the view that the Government of India takes in this matter is that decision was not a correct decision, and with all respect to the Federal Authority, that is still the view that we hold. I might point out to my hon. friend that this activity of the Government of India to employ what is called delegated authority to legislate is not a new thing. It has been in existence practically from 1912 and he will know that we have a law for the purpose of permitting the Central Government to extend the laws made in any part of India to the Province of Delhi with such modifications as the Central Government may make. From 1912 up to the date of the decision of the Federal Court, there has not been in existence a single decision of any Court in India which has questioned the legality of that action taken by the Government of India. I might also tell my friend that

115PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES many cases have gone to the Privy Council from this country and the Privy Council itself has never questioned the validity of this. I, therefore, hope that when on a proper occasion the matter comes before the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court will de novo examine the position and, as I hold the view, the Supreme Court will not feel itself bound by the decision of the Federal Court, although a good many of the personnel of the Federal Court is the same as the personnel of the Supreme Court, but the court certainly is a different court. Therefore if my friend likes it, I do not mind saying that we are making a venture. We are hoping that the stand that we take and we have taken so far and which has not been questioned by any court during the last 25 years is the correct stand. If the Supreme Court when it comes to deal with the question comes to a decision different to what our point of view is we shall then consider the matter. For the moment it is our view that there is no objection to delegated legislation at all. Parliament is quite supreme either to legislate itself or to ask any other agent on its behalf to exercise that legislative power. I do not think that that matter can be questioned. I do not think that there is any other point raised by my friend which I have not dealt with. Mr. Deputy Speaker : Is it open to the Parliament to say that the Government may pass such laws as are necessary ? Dr. Ambedkar : They can say so, that Government is left with the power to frame rules. Mr. Deputy Speaker : Can they give a blank cheque in regard to all the matters referred to in the list ? Dr. Ambedkar : It may do so under proper safeguards. No Parliament will give a blank cheque to the executive : it can certainly ask the executive to fill in the blanks and I do not think there can be any difficulty about that. Shri T. T. Krishnamachari (Madras): So far as the Constitution is concerned the only operative articles are 240 and 242. We have made a special provisions in regard to Coorg. As you will see, Sir, Coorg has been taken out of the operation of the particular Bill before the House. So far as the Constitution is concerned there is no specific direction in this

116 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES regard. So it is left practically to the free will and pleasure of the Parliament. The modus operandi to be followed is the only thing that can be under dispute, whether the modus operandi should be that all these enactments should form part of the schedule attached to this Bill, with such powers as we normally give to the executive by means of what is called delegated legislation, to make rules, etc. or the procedure that is now followed. As the Law Minister has mentioned, this procedure has been followed over a period of years and I am not sure, in the absence of any express instruction to the contrary in the Constitution, how this can be held to be void by any court. So far as delegated legislation is concerned the exact quantum, nature and extent of delegation is not defined by any legislature in the world. It varies from time to time. In the absence of any provision so far as Part C States are concerned which expressly prohibits enacting any type of law that Parliament likes and to delegate such powers as it wants to the Central Government, there could be no objection at the present stage to the Bill being passed by this House. Mr. Deputy Speaker : The general laws are enacted in a Bill—and power is given to the Government to fill in the details and make the rules. Dr. Ambedkar : The provision in the Bill is that there are laws already existing on any subject. The laws are already existing in certain Provinces. Mr. Deputy Speaker : Is it not for the Parliament to choose which law is to be applied ? Dr. Ambedkar : If Parliament wants it can do it but Parliament entrusts the power to the executive, which has to choose from the existing laws. Shri T. T. Krishnamachari : The Committee on Ministers’ Powers which was constituted by the House of commons to go into this particularly vexed question, what was called Star Chamber Legislation, in the thirties, indicated that it would be preferable for the Government of the day to give an outline as to how far they are going to use the delegated power and that is why we are following so far as ordinary legislation

117PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES is concerned the practice of saying that without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing powers such and such shall be rule-making power of the Government. Therefore, there has been no express limitation to the extent and scope of delegated legislation in any legislature in the world so far as is known. Mr. Deputy Speaker : They have not even indicated the subjects here. Pandit M. B. Bhargava : The Law Minister was pleased to remark that before the judgment of the Federal Court there was no decision laying down anything contrary to the practice prevalent. I would like to point out that the judgment of their Lordships of the Federal Court is itself based upon the Privy Council decision reported in 1945 Federal Law Journal, page 1. It is on the basis of that authority that the Federal Court has laid down the proposition. I would also like to know whether the matter is before the Supreme Court and whether a decision of the Federal Court does not bind this Government until and unless it has been superseded or set aside by the Supreme Court. Mr. Deputy Speaker : Is there an appeal from the Federal Court to the Supreme Court ? Dr. Ambedkar : No. The Federal Court has ceased to exist. Babu Ramnarayan Singh (Bihar): Could the Hon. Minister cite the article of the Constitution in this regard ? Dr. Ambedkar : The Parliament has plenary powers. It can do anything with the legislative power that it possesses. It can use it itself or ask someone else to use it on its behalf in certain circumstances. There is no prohibition imposed on it. Shri Hossain Imam (Bihar): I should like to have some light thrown on the fact that this is not a peculiar situation that has arisen just now. The Chief Commissioners’ Provinces are administered by the Centre. We can extend the power of the Chief Commissioner by notification as was the practice in the past or it can be done by means of legislation as may be done now. But the question is who is to be empowered ?

118 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES Are we going to empower the executive, judiciary or the Central Government ? The power should not be distributed between all the three. Sub-clause (3) of clause 3 says: “For the purpose of facilitating the application in the said States of any such Act or Ordinance as aforesaid, any court or other authority may construe the Act or Ordinance with such alteration not affecting the substance as may be necessary or proper to adapt it to the matter before the court or other authority.” It shows that we have not made up our mind as to who is to have these powers. I can understand the Central Government being empowered during the interim period. Who is the authority ..................... Dr. Ambedkar : Any authority. It is an adaptation: it is not adoption. We have passed so many adaptation laws in this House. Shri Hossain Imam : This adaptation is done by the Central authority or the Legislature. Here the adaptation is left free to an unspecified number of people. The authority is nowhere defined in this legislation—whether it means the Chief Commissioner or the Chief Secretary ........ Dr. Ambedkar : Whoever will have to administer the law will have to adapt it. Shri Hossain Imam : We are doing something to which we have not given proper consideration. The Bill has been introduced late in the session. It would be far better if the Government withdew the Bill now and have some kind of Ordinance after the session has ended, if they want to have something of this kind. Otherwise a well considered law should be brought forward in which every kind of power should be given. It would be better to have an Ordinance rather than a Bill of this nature, where there are loose ends. I would, therefore, request the Hon. Minister to reconsider the matter. Dr. Ambedkar : In view of the fact that my hon. Friend is prepared to permit Government to enact this measure in the form of an Ordinance, obviously, it means that he cannot have much objection to the merits of the thing. Otherwise, I do not see what objection he has for enacting this measure. 5-00 p.m.