Vol. 15 · pages 201–205

184 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES (19) *ADMINISTRATION OF EVACUEE PROPERTY (AMENDMENT) BILL The Minister of Law (Dr. Ambedkar) : At the outset I would like to say that the point which has been raised, namely, whether the Parliament can by law repeal a State law in the concurrent field, seems to me to have been raised at a very late stage. This Parliament has passed, I am sure, very many laws which contain a provision whereby Parliament has specifically repealed a State law in the concurrent field. My friend Mr. Jain referred to one of them, which is the last one which Parliament has passed, namely, the Merged States Act (Act LIX of 1949). If my friends interested in this subject were to refer to the provisions of this particular law, they will find that there are very many laws which fall into the concurrent field and which were enacted by the states which have been repealed by this particular Act. Therefore, so far as practice is concerned, I do not think there is anything novel in the proposal introduced in this Bill. Of course, it might be contended that this practice is not in keeping with the provisions of the Constitution and that it has no warrant in the Constitution. I think that this practice is perfectly in consonance with the Constitution. My hon. Friend Mr. Ananthasayanam Ayyangar has very rightly referred to the proviso to sub-clause (2). The importance of this proviso, in my judgment, lies in this, namely, that it is possible and open to Parliament to make a law not only amending, varying, or adding to any law made by the State in the concurrent field, but it has also the power to repeal that law. I think this is quite clear from the proviso. So far as this proviso is concerned, the power is specific that Parliament can repeal a law made by the State in the concurrent field. But my hon. Friend Mr. Ananthasayanam *P.D., Vol. 5, Part II, 21st November 1950, pp. 339-41.

185PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES Ayyangar’s point was that this proviso is related only to subclause (2). Now I think that if he will apply his mind to the necessities mentioned in sub-clause (2) he will find why the Constitution thought it enough to attach the proviso to sub clause (2) and did not feel it necessary to extend it to subclause (1). As my friends will see, sub-clause (2) of article 254 refers to a law, which—if my friends will allow me-I would call as a ‘protected law’, that is to say, a law which is not only passed by the State Legislature but a law which was reserved for the consent of the President and to which the President has given his consent. That is the law which is referred to in sub-clause (2). Now, it was felt that it might be argued that in the case of a law which, though passed by a State Legislature relating to the concurrent field, nonetheless was reserved for the consent of the President and to which the President had given his consent—obviously on the advice of the Central Government which represents the wishes of Parliament—the Central Government may be deemed, I am putting the argument, to be ‘estopped’ from doing any further thing by way of injuring that particular Act either through amendment or otherwise. It was to eliminate this kind of argument that once the law having been protected the Central Government—to use the term in the Evidence Act—was estopped, so to say, from taking any further action that the proviso was introduced. It was felt not necessary to extend this proviso to sub-clause (1) because the expression ‘to make a law’ is itself so wide that it could cover even the repealing of a law. What does ‘making of a law’ mean? The making of a law, in ordinary terms, means: to enact an enactment where none exists; or, where an enactment exists; to add to it, to vary it, to amend it, or to repeal it. All that is covered in the broad parase ‘making a law’ Therefore, as making a law included making a law repealing an earlier Act or creating another Act, it was felt that such a prevision as contained in the proviso was unnecessary in respect of sub-clause (1) of article 254. Therefore, article 254 carries the general implication involved, in the phrase ‘making of the law’ which includes repeal of the law. As sub-clause (2) of article 254 was felt not to carry that implication,—because 12 NOON.

186 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES of its protected character,—the proviso was added to it. Therefore, my submission is that there is nothing unconstitutional in Parliament making a law repealing a law made by the State Legislature in the concurrent field. With regard to the other point whether you can make a general omnibus law repealing certain laws, it seems to me that there again there is nothing improper in that. What are we doing by having this omnibus law? What we could have done was to have hundreds of Acts, each one dealing with a specific law, saying that we repeal this Act; another Act saying that we repeal that; and a third Act saying that we repeal a third one. Instead of doing this kind of thing, we did it in a collective manner. Shri M.A. Ayyangar : You could have added a schedule here. Dr. Ambedkar : That also might have been done. There are various ways of doing it. I do not deny that some ways, in some cases, may be better than others, but so far as the general principle involved in the Bill is concerned, I do not think that there is anything unconstitutional or contrary to the practice of the Draftsman. My friends will see that I have, for instance, introduced a Bill called the ‘Part B states Bill’ in the present session, to which there is a schedule attached. Every one of the Acts is mentioned there. The reason is, as I will explain when the matter comes up, that certain laws could not be applied without certain adaptation. Therefore, a schedule had to be introduced that this law shall become operative subject to this adaptation. There are certain others such as Cooch-Behar where no such schedule exists, because adaptation requirements are not necessary. That might come up today or tomorrow. We, therefore, have a general clause and I do not think that there is anything unconstitutional or improper in the sub-section which is contained in my hon. Friend’s Bill.

187PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES *Mr. Speaker : As I said I was not present in the House yestarday, but I have read the proceedings..... Does the Hon. the Law Minister wish to say anything further? I do not think it is necessary now. Dr. Ambedkar : I have already made the position clear, Sir. Mr. Speaker : Then I will put the amendment to the House. The question is : “In clause 2 in sub-section (2) of the proposed section 58 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950, for the words “corresponding: to this Act”, substitute the words, brackets and figures “which corresponds to this Act and which is not repealed by subsection (1)”. The motion was adopted. *P.D., Vol. 6, Part II, 21st November 1950, pp. 342.43.

188 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES (20) *QUALIFICATIONS FOR ELECTIONS TO PARLIAMENT AND LEGISLATURE OF STATES Shri Sarwate (Madhya Bharat) : Before you proceed further with the amendments would you not like, Sir, to call upon Dr. Ambedkar and enquire whether he would like to make any statement on the suggestion which Prof. K.T. Shah has made? Mr. Speaker : I do not think it was necessary for me to call upon him. If he had tried to catch my eye, certainly I would have called him. The Minister of Law (Dr. Ambedkar) : I do not want my friend Prof. K.T. Shah to feel that I have not sufficient respect for him by not speaking on his motion and if you will, Sir, permit me at this stage I would like to say a few words. Mr. Speaker, I must confess that when I got the text of the Resolution moved by Prof. Shah I was considerably puzzled, because I felt that in a Resolution of this sort there should not merely be words indicating to Government that there exists in the Constitution a certain article which permitted them to legislate on it but should have also included in it specific suggestions as to what the Government should do in a legislation of this sort. As I said, I was considerably puzzled and therefore it was very difficult for me to come to any definite conclusion as to the attitude I should adopt with regard to this Resolution. I now see that the object of Prof. Shah in framing the Resolution in the terms in which he has framed it was really deliberate. He wanted the House to give him some idea as to what should be incorporated in a legislation under sub-clause (c) of the relevant article in the Constitution. Well, I have no objection to a procedure of *P.D., Vol. 6, Part II, 23rd November 1950, pp. 537-41.