Vol. 15 · pages 196–200

179PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES Clause 3 was added to the Bill. * Clause 4 (Amendment of the Schedule, Act XVI of 1948) (Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER in the Chair ) Shri Tyagi (Uttar Pradesh) : My amendment reads as follows : In clause 4, for the proposed item (2A) of Part I of the Schedule to the Dentists Act, 1948, substitute : “(2A) Any other institution imparting education or giving practical training in dentistry which the Central Government may in consulation with the Central Council of Dentists, recognise for this purpose and on such conditions as the Government may deem fit to prescribe therefor.” I wish to confess that Dr. Ambedkar is a hard nut to crack ……… I don’t want to make any aspersions on the institution. I don’t know what its standard is, I have no personal knowledge of it, and therefore I don’t want to damage the reputation of the institution. But as an enquiry is going on, I think that instead of committing the whole Parliament to recognising that institution, it is better that the Government had reserved the right in their own hands to decide.... Dr. Ambedkar : We are not affecting the institution in any way. We are dealing with the degrees granted by that institution in 1940—eight years ago. Shri Tyagi : Dr. Ambedkar expects me to believe that the degrees of an institution may be recognised without the institution itself being recognised. The degrees of the Calcutta University granted in such-and-such a year may be recognised for purposes of the I.C.S. or I.A.S., but that does not mean that the Calcutta University is recognised! What an argument ! Here I am giving him more powers. What I am suggesting is that he may even recognise that institution. I want Government to have powers to recognise any institution ……….. Dr. Ambedkar : That powers exist in section 10(2). * P. D., Vol. 5, Part II, 11th August 1950, pp. 864-65.

180 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES * Mr. Deputy Speaker : May I know the reaction of the Hon. Minister to this amendment ? Dr. Ambedkar : This clause is a clause which really gives effect to the suggestion made by the West Bengal Government. Personally I myself feel, however much sympathy I may have with my friend Mr. Bhargava, it involves the question of the assessment of the qualification of the dentist as distinguished from a person who makes a denture. I thought he was rather eloquent on the man who makes a denture. A person may make a denture without being a dentist. We are talking of a dentist, which is a very different profession. Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava : But he has got a degree of L.D.Sc. Dr. Ambedkar : The point is this. When the Act was passed, this institution was not deemed to be worthy of recognition. Subsequently there has been a considerable degree of agitation and the West Bengal Government decided to examine the position as to whether any of the persons qualified by tuition in this college were worthy of recognition. They came to the conclusion that before 1940 the standard observed by this institution was something which could be considered for the purpose of recognition. But there again they said that although there was a standard maintained it was also known that many boys merely attended and filled in certain terms without learning anything. Therefore, the two additional qualifications were introduced that he should not only have obtained his diploma before 1940 but in the course of being a student in that college he should have filled in certain terms. It is to make the qualification a real one, worth of recognition, that these limitation were put in. I am personally prepared to place myself in the hands of the West Bengal Government who know the matter better, rather than substitute my own judgment, however great sympathy I may feel with the dentist themselves. * P. D., Vol. 5, Part II, 11th August 1950, pp. 867-68.

181PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES Mr. Deputy Speaker : Does the hon. Member want me to put his amendment to the House ? Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava : Yes, Sir, it may be put to the House. Mr. Deputy Speaker : Amendment moved : *Dr. Ambedkar : I explained the position to you some time ago. The provision in Section 10(2) says ‘where the institution grants a qualification’—but we are dealing with qualifications that have already been granted. The word there is ‘grant’, but here it is different. Therefore, this has to be dealt with by statute. Mr. Deputy Speaker : I shall now put the amendment to vote. The question is : “In clause 4, in the proposed item (2A) of Part I of the Schedule to the Dentists Act, 1948 omit all the words occurring after ‘March, 1940’.” The motion of Pandit Bhargava was negatived. Mr. Deputy Speaker : The question is : “That clause 4 stand part of the Bill”. The motion was adopted. Clause 4 was added to the Bill. Clauses 5 to 7 were added to the Bill. Clause 1 was added to the Bill. The Title and the Enacting Formula were added to the Bill. Dr. Ambedkar : I beg to move : “That the Bill be passed.” Mr. Deputy Speaker : The question is : “That the Bill be passed.” The motion was adopted. *P.D., Vol. 5, Part II, 11th August 1950, p. 871.

182 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES (18) RESOLUTION RE : MAKING OF LAWS BY PARLIAMENT WITH RESPECT TO CERTAIN MATTERS IN STATE LIST FOR ONE YEAR. *Mr. Speaker : The point, as I have understood it, seems to be–apart from the words ‘particularly’—that the President has got the power to make adaptations only with reference to the provisions of the Government of India Act, 1935. Perhaps the Law Minister may like to say something on this. The Minister of Law (Dr. Ambedkar): The wording of the article is that “the President may, for the purpose of removing any difficulties, particularly etc.” “Particularly” does not mean that he has not got the general power. Mr. Speaker : As I have understood the point of order of the hon. Member, apart from the words “any difficulties” and “Particularly”, he seems to construct article 392 as empowering the President to make adaptations only for purposes of transition from the provisions of the Government of India Act to the provisions of the Constitution. That is substantially the point. Dr. Ambedkar : That cannot be because it is a wrong construction. The point raised by my hon. friend is that under article 392 the only power which the President possesses is confined to an adaptation of any section of the Government of India Act, 1935, so as to bring it in line with the provisions of the Constitution. My submission is that that is not correct, because the opening words in article 392 are quite general, namely. “The President may, for the purpose of removing any difficulties” and then “Particularly etc.” comes in. *P.D., Vol. 5, Part II, 12th August 1950, pp. 935-38.

183PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES Suppose you were to drop the words “particularly in relation to the transition from the provision of the Government of India Act, 1935, to the provisions of this Constitution” the wording would, “The President may, for the purpose of removing any difficulties, by order direct.... etc”. Shri Meeran (Madras) : May I say something with regard to this point ? If you remove the words “particularly in relation to the transition from the provisions of the Government of India Act, 1935” it would read “The President may, for the purpose of removing any difficulties to the provisions of this Constitution, by order direct....etc.” “Particularly” is something like an instance and it is a smaller provision. The wider provision is the giving of powers to remove any difficulties to the provisions of this Constitution. Mr. Speaker : I would just seek clarification on one or two points which may dispose of the matter, without entering into the niceties of interpretation. Am I right in my interpretation that the Constituent Assembly of India (Legislative) was functioning as a result of the Adaptation of the Government of India Act ? Dr. Amedkar : Yes, the Independence Act was an amendment of the Government of India Act, 1935.