Vol. 15 · pages 26–30

9PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES Forests Act and the Tolls Act. Now, Sir, without any intention of casting any reflection upon the work of the Committee, I think it will be agreed that the production of five laws in a period of eleven years is certainly not an enormous piece of work which could be expected from a Committee of this kind. On the other hand when the Committee was dissolved and when the responsibility fell upon the Government of India to do the work which the Committee was appointed to do—if I may say so again without reflection on the work of the Committee or without trying to take any credit for the Legislative Department of the Government of India—the Acts produced after the Committee were the Sale of Goods Act, 1930, the Partnership Act, 1932, Factories Act, 1934, Tariff Act, 1934, Petroleum Act, 1934, Insurance Act, 1938, Motor Vehicles Act, 1938 and Arbitration Act, 1940. Any one who knows these Acts will admit that each one of them is an enormous piece of legislation, The reason why the Statute Law Revision Committee failed to fulfil the promise which it was expected to fulfil was that there was a great defect in composition and constitution of the Committee. First of all, the Committee consisted of six members ; it was elected mostly from members of the legislatre. No doubt the members who were elected were elected purely on the basis of their legal knowledge and legal acumen, but in my judgment that was a pure accident. The Chairman of the Committee was the President of the Council of State. I fail to understand what virtue there was in appointing the President of the Council of State as Chairman of this Committee which, as all of us know, requires specialised legal knowledge. The second difficulty about the Committee was that its members were not paid members. I do not wish to suggest that if members are not paid they do not discharge the duty which all people are conscientiously required to do. But it did happen, and it is a fact, that the Committee met very seldom. The members of the Committee having been drawn from the legislature met only during the sessions, and when they were asked that now that they were present in Delhi they might devote some portion of their time to the discharge of their functions as members of the Statute Law Revision

10 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES Committee, all of them pleaded that their legislative work was more important than the work of the committee. At the end of the sessions all of them naturally repaired to their homes in order to perform either their personal or their professional duties. The result was that the Committee was not able to devote all the time that it was expected to devote. Now obviously my Honourable friend Sir Hari Singh Gour will agree that if his purpose is to be carried out we must have an altogether different sort of Committee. It is no use having, a Committee of the sort that we had and which, for the reasons I have mentioned, did not fulfil the functions with which it was charged. Now, Sir, there are two ways, in my judgment of doing the thing. First of all we might have a permanent Commission sitting for no other purpose except that of revising and codifying the statute. Secondly, if it is to be a permanent body it undoubtedly must be a body of experts who know their job. And I think every one will agree that if experts are to be called away from their professions we must make it worth their while to come and serve on the Committee. Obviously it is a matter of cost. That being so, it is not possible for me to say off-hand that without examining the question of cost it will be possible for Government to say here and now that we shall agree to appoint a Statute Law Revision Committee of any sort that might be suggested either by Sir Hari Singh Gour or by any other member of the legislature. There is also another way of carrying the purpose into practice. That might be by the appointment of a small standing committee consisting of the Law Minister of the Government of India, a Judge of the Federal Court, the Advocate-General of India, one or two Judges of the High Courts in India and two or three eminent lawyers. The Committee might be asked to sit at stated periods of the year and a person from the Law Department of the Government of India may be deputed to act as a Secretary, to collect the information and to place it before the Committee for the Committee to take notice of what might be done.

11PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES As I say these are various ways of carrying the purpose into effect. That as I said requires time and examination and it is not possible for the Government, besieged as it is with an infinity of problems of all kinds to find time for the work which it will have to do if I were to accept the resolution of Sir Hari Singh Gour with the immediacy with which I believe he has charged it. Therefore, what I would like to suggest is this : that Sir Hari Singh Gour would realise that so far as the ultimate purpose is concerned, there is no difference of opinion between me and him. Both of us are agreed that this is a matter which the Government of India ought to take into consideration. The only difference is when and how, and that is a matter on which he need not press the Government for the immediate issue. Therefore my suggestion is this that as I have given a reply which meets more than half the ground on which he stands, I think he will agree that it will be gracious on his part to withdraw it. * Mr. Chairman : Amendment (by Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad) moved: “That in clause 2 of the Bill, in the proposed new section 289B— (i) the word, figures, letters and brackets ‘57 & 58 Vict., c. 60) be omitted; and (ii) the word, figures, letters, and brackets ‘(57 & 58 Vict., c. 60)’ be inserted in the margin.” The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar (Minister for Law): I should like to explain the position. I would say that the amendment has no substance in it. The identifying clause may either be in margin or may be in the context of the section itself. All that is necessary is that there should be some identification. Originally it is true that in all the Bills that we have presented to the Assembly, such identification references were in the margin. But recently the printers have adopted the method of giving the references in the very body of the section itself and the purpose is to economise paper. For instance, when you have to give the references in the * C.A. (Leg.) D., Vol. II, 2nd December 1947, pp. 1199-1200.

12 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES margin obviously you want to use a larger piece of paper. Since the war started this device was adopted just for the purpose of economising paper. I do not think there is any violation of the principles relating to drafting nor any violation of any law with regard to marginal notes. As a matter of fact marginal notes are unnecessary and need not be printed. Shri Suresh Chandra Majumdar (West Bengal: General): There is such a thing as “inner margin” note which does not waste paper. * Mr. Speaker: Amendment (by Shri M. Ananthasayanam Ayyangar) moved: “That in part (c) of clause 2 of the Bill, after the word ‘Province’ wherever it occurs the words ‘or a State’ be inserted.” The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar (Minister for Law): As the amendment moved by my friend Mr. Ananthasayanam Ayyangar raises a question of law, it is only right and proper that I should take the responsibility upon myself to meet the point that arises out of his amendment. No one can deny that the object underlying the amendment of Mr. Ananthasayanam Ayyangar is a very laudable one. A Bill like this which deals with the nursing profession and tries to regularize and establish that profession on a footing which would gain the confidence of all those who take service from the nurses and that it should be extended to the whole of India. I say, is a very laudable thing. But unfortunately, situated as we are, and governed as we are by the Government of India Act, 1935, as adapted, I am afraid it will not be possible to accept his amendment because I have no doubt that his amendment would make the Bill ultra vires of the Legislature. Sir, to explain my point I should like to state to the House that for the moment the States are linked with the Union of India in two different ways. The one way by which they are linked is what is called the standstill agreement which has been made between the Union of India and the various Indian States. The second link by * C.A. (Leg.) D., Vol. II, 9th December 1947, pp. 1480-82.

13PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES which the States are bound to the Indian Union are the Instruments of Accession. Now there is a fundamental difference between the two links. The standstill agreements are purely contractual. They preserve such agreements as existed between the old Government of India and the Indian States under paramountcy before the 15th of August 1947. As I said they are purely contractual. They do not confer any jurisdiction upon the Government of India to legislate either by way of altering those arrangements or making them the foundation of any law which would bind the Indian States. Therefore, so far as we are concerned, in the matter of making any law by this legislature which is intended to be applicable to the Indian States, it is quite clear to my mind that we cannot take our stand on the standstill agreement. We must therefore, rely upon the Instruments of Accession which is the only foundation which gives us legal jurisdiction to pass any law. My submission is this, that if you take the Instruments of Accession, the Instruments of Accession, as they stand now—and I shall presently explain to the House why I emphasize ‘as they stand now’—this House has no jurisdiction. In the first place this legislation relates to entry No. 16 in the Concurrent field. It does not relate, so far as the matter under legislation is concerned, to the Federal List or to the Provincial List. It relates only to the Concurrent List. Now, as everybody is aware, the Instruments of Accession, whatever power they give to the Central Legislature to legislate, definitely exclude all items which are included in the Concurrent List. I should have thought that by that very proposition, that the Concurrent Lists are not covered by the Instruments of Accession, the jurisdiction of this House is completely ousted. The only thing therefore that we have to find out is whether the Instruments of Accession which have been passed by the different States in favour of the Union of India cover anything which relates or which is equivalent to entry No. 16 in the Concurrent List. Now, Sir, these Instruments of Accession were placed on the Table of the house, and anybody who has had the time to scrutinize them would have found that the States have acceded only in respect of three subjects, and none of the subjects can be so interpreted