Vol. 15 · pages 211–215

194 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES Act LIX of 1949 which was passed, I believe, in the December Session of the Assembly, the whole lot of Central laws were made applicable to all merged States, but unfortunately at that time Cooch-Behar had not become a merged State. The order merging Cooch-Behar in West Bengal was issued by the President some time in January 1950, with the result that this Supplementary Bill, so to say, became necessary. I do not think that there is any clause which requires any further explanation. The motion of Dr. Ambedkar was adopted. Clauses 1 to 4, were added to the Bill. The Title and the Enacting Formula were added to the Bill. Dr. Ambedkar : Sir, I move: “That the Bill be passed.” Mr. Chairman : The question is : “That the Bill be passed.” The motion was adopted.

195PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (22) * INDIAN TARIFF (FOURTH AMENDMENT) BILL The Minister of Law (Dr. Ambedkar) : I am very much surprised that a point like this should have been raised by my hon. friend, Mr. Tyagi, who always in the House has said that he represents the most ignorant class in this country. It is a point which I think baffled many lawyers and I should have thought it was worthwhile for my friend to have left this matter in other hands. Now that the point is raised and you have expressed your own opinion that a point like this is important and must be decided, I propose to offer a few remarks on the subject. While I was listening to Mr. Tyagi’s remarks, I thought he was confusing two different issues which must be kept quite separate. One is whether Parliament can delegate its authority. The second is whether Parliament should. The two are, in my judgment, quite different questions. We must apply very different considerations in coming to a conclusion on either one of them. I will take the first question whether Parliament can delegate. Shri J. R. Kapoor (Uttar Pradesh) : That is the only question. Shri Tyagi : No. Dr. Ambedkar : No. On that subject, so far as I am concerned, I have not the least doubt that Parliament can delegate its authority to other agencies subject to one condition and that condition is this that Parliament does not by such delegation completely divest itself of the authority to resume back the powers which it has delegated. A delegation for a purpose, a delegation for a time, and a delegation which permits Parliament to resume back their * P. D., Vol. 6, Part II, 4th December 1950, pp. 1171-76.

196 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES authority is really no delegation at all, and therefore, Parliament is quite competent to enact a measure which conforms to this particular test. I think I cannot do better than read from a judgment of the High Court of Australia which deals with this matter. I will, of course, later on specifically cite an authority on this very point raised by the Bill. The case is Meakes Vs. Dignan, 46 Commonwealth Law Reports, page 117. This is what Mr. Justice Evat says : “ The Statesmen and Lawyers concerned in the framing of the Australian Constitution, when they treated of ‘legislative power’ in relation to the self-governing colonies, had in view an authority which over a limited area or subject-matter, resembled that of the British Parliament. Such authority always extended beyond the issue by Parliament itself of binding commands. Parliament could also authorise the issue of such commands by any person or authority which it chose to select or create. “Legislative power” connoted the power to deposit or delegate legislative power because this was implied in the idea of parliamentary sovereignty itself. It was of course always understood that the power of the delegate or depository could be withdrawn by the Parliament that had created it, and in this sense Parliament had to preserve ‘ its own capacity intact’.” I can read many passages : but I do not wish to trouble the House. In deciding the question whether Parliament can lawfully delegate, the test to be applied is this : whether Parliament has kept its capacity intact to withdraw the authority which it has deposed in somebody else. Therefore, the question that has to be considered so far as the first question is concerned, whether Parliament can delegate, is to examine the causes in order to find out whether the test that has been laid down is fulfilled or not, whether there is anything in this Bill which prevents Parliament from resuming that authority. That is one point. Now, on this very question I am glad to say that there is a ruling of the Privy Council reported in House of Lords, Appeal Cases, Volume 10, on page 282. The case is exactly on a par with the present one. There, the legislature of one of the Commonwealth countries passed a law permitting the Governor, which of course means the Executive, to levy a customs duty on certain articles which were not mentioned in the schedule attached to the Customs Act, some new article or similar article.

197PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES Shri Sondhi (Punjab) : Was it a fixed rate or a varying one? That is the only point. Mr. Speaker : Let him proceed. Dr. Ambedkar : No, that is not the point. Here, by this law, we are empowering the Executive to levy a customs duty on an article,—I am not concerned with the amount or its variability: an article which is not found in the schedule. That is the position. Here, the case is exactly on all fours. The Supreme Court of that country held that the law was ultra vires because it was a delegation. The Privy Council reversed the decision, and I shall read only one small passage from the judgment of the Privy Council on page 291. This is what the Privy Council said : “ It is argued that the tax in question has been imposed by the Governor and not by the legislature, who alone had the power to impose it. But the duties levied under the Order in Council are really levied by the authority of the Act under which the Order is issued. The Legislature has not parted with its perfect control over the Governor and has power at any moment to withdraw or alternate the power which they have entrusted to him. Under these circumstances, their Lordships are of opinion that the judgment of the Supreme Court was wrong in declaring section 133 of the Customs Regulation Act of 1879 to be beyond the power of the legislature.” Pandit Balkrishna Sharma : May I submit, Sir..... Mr. Speaker : Let us hear him patiently. If there is anything to say, I shall hear the hon. Member. Dr. S. P. Mookerjee (West Bengal): Which country is that? Dr. Ambedkar : Some colony in Australia. If my hon. friend is anxious, I shall give it. Shri Tyagi : It may be too small a country. Dr. Ambedkar : The law is never small or big. Law is law. It is New South Wales. Thus, so far as the first question is concerned, whether Parliament can delegate, my submission is this. So far as this condition is observed, namely that Parliament has kept within its hands the power to withdraw any such delegation, there can be no legal objection.

198 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES Before I proceed to the other point, I should like to say that I cannot see how this House is competent to decide that question. Surely, this is not a point of order’ A point of order relates to rules of business. We are dealing here with the competency of the House. Supposing, Sir, this House or you decide that this was ultra vires, and notwithstanding that, Parliament proceeded to make the law, and the matter went to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court decided that the Act was intra vires, what a difficult situation would arise? Or supposing we proceed to deal with the point on the belief that it was intra vires, the matter went to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court decided that it was ultra vires, we would be creating a great difficulty for ourselves. What I would like to say is this. All this attempt to raise questions regarding competency is really an attempt to convert this Parliament into a court. It is not a court. It is much better that justiciable matters had better be left to the Supreme Court to decide and we proceed on our understanding that whatever we are doing is within the competence of Parliament. Therefore, my submission is that this is not a point of order at all and should not be treated as such. Then, I come to the other question whether Parliament should delegate. That is a matter which is entirely within the competence of this House : entirely, I make no reservation whatsoever. If in certain circumstances Parliament thinks that it should not delegate, well, Parliament should insist that it will not delegate, and that the matter shall be dealt with by Parliament itself. In certain circumstances, such as an emergency and so on, when Parliament cannot meet, and when executive action must be speedy, Parliament will, no doubt, consider it, and it may be that circumstances are such that a certain amount of delegation may be permitted. Therefore, this Bill has to be considered from this point of view. The second question is whether we should or we should not delegate. My friend Mr. Tyagi referred to Campion and referred to the opinion given by Mr. Campion on the question of taxation. I have no doubt in my mind that that is the correct attitude which Parliament should adopt in the matter of taxation. The power to tax is 3-00 P.M.