Vol. 15 · pages 286–290

269PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES suitable notifications in order to be in conformity with the largest political international opinion in this country. This is all that we propose to do by way of changes in the old section 86 of the Civil Procedure Code. Now, I come to section 87B in which I know most Members are deeply interested. Section 87 deals with the Rulers of the Former Indian States. The question is whether they should also be given any privileges, such as the one they had under the existing. Civil Procedure Code. Obviously, since they have ceased to be rulers in the political and legal sense of the term, they of course cannot claim any immunity from the operation of the law which is applicable to the rest of the citizens of this country. But the House will know that certain commitments have been made both by the Government of India and, if I may say so, also by the Constituent Assembly when the Constitution was before them, and it is necessary that we must recognise what we have already done. What is, therefore, proposed to be done by the new Section is to make section 85 and sub-sections ( 1) and ( 3) of Section 86 applicable to the Rulers of the former Indian States. If hon. members will refer to section 85 as put down in this amending Bill, they will find that it only says that when a foreign Ruler proposes to sue or if he is being sued, he may be permitted to appoint any particular individual, and the Government of India may permit him to do so, to conduct the litigation on his behalf either as a plaintiff or as a defendant. There is nothing wrong in extending this. The only privilege, so to say under section 85 that a ruler of a former Indian State gets is that he may not be required to attend personally when the suit is proceeding against him. He can defend by proxy. With regard to 86( 1), it says that the consent of the Government of India may be necessary before any proceedings of a civil character are launched against a Ruler of a former Indian State. This matter, again, I believe, was considerably debated yesterday when we were dealing with the Bill to amend the Criminal Procedure Code. The point was that in the present circumstances, there are grounds to believe that those persons residing in the Indian States may have many grounds or reasons for giving effect to their grudge, to their 12 NOON

270 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES enmity, or personal hostility to a prince, and they may, without any bona fide reason drag him to a court and harass him. The object of requiring the consent of the Government of India is not that there shall be vested in the Government of India an absolute power to protect the prince from any kind of litigation in which the opponent may have a substantial ground for proceeding against him, but to see that the claim that is made against him is of a bona fide character. Beyond that there is no purpose in requiring this consent. With regard to sub-clause ( 3) it gives him freedom from arrest and execution of decree against his property except with the consent of the central Government. As I said, these are merely, what I might say, fulfilment of certain undertakings that we have given in order to maintain the dignity of the Indian Rulers. Beyond that there is nothing. I might also draw the attention of the House to the definition of the word “Ruler” which is given in section 87B (2) (b), I think that definition is important. It is not that every Ruler of a former Indian State will get the benefit of the provisions contained in section 87B. The definition is of a restricted sort, namely, that the Ruler must be recognized by the President as one entitled to these privileges. If a prince were to behave in such a manner that the President thinks that he ought not to be recognized, it would be perfectly possible for the President to delete his name from any notification, so that he would be reduced to the status of an ordinary citizen and be liable to the ordinary process to which every citizen will be liable in this country under the Civil Procedure Code. The other clauses are just to clear any ambiguity, difficulty and so on. The most important clause is clause 12 and think I have given the House sufficient explanation as to the fundamental basis of the amendments which have been introduced by this Bill. Mr. Speaker : Motion moved. “That the Bill further to amend the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, be taken into consideration.”

271PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES * Dr. Ambedkar : There is not much that calls for a reply. But as certain points have been made I should like to make my position clear. The first speaker who took part in this debate said that the provision contained in this Bill with regard to the immunity to be granted to the retinue of a diplomat was not in accord with international opinion. He felt that he was convinced that there was unanimity among the writers dealing with international law that not only the diplomat should get the privilege but also his retinues. I am sorry to differ from him. I have before me several extracts from treatises dealing with international law and I do not wish to weary the House by reading them. I can assure the House that I do not find any such unanimity from the extracts before me. It is on that account that the section has been worded in the way in which it has been worded. My friend will also realise that whatever may be the method of defining the positions, the result will not be in any way different if the clause is allowed to stand as it is. Because whether the immunity is granted by the section itself or whether it is granted by a notification issued under the section, the result cannot be very different. His second point was that we were not justified in using the word “Ruler”, because there are heads of States who are not called “Rulers”. I should like to draw his attention to the fact that in drafting this clause we have been following practically the same language which has been followed in the existing Civil Procedure Code. I would like to draw his attention to the heading of section 83 of the Civil Procedure Code, also to section 85, sub-clauses (1) and (2) and section 86, where the wording which we have used is also the wording used there. There is therefore no departure from the language that has been adopted in the existing Civil Procedure Code. But in this connection I would like to draw his attention to the definition that we have given of a “Ruler” which is contained in proposed section 87A of the Bill which says : “Ruler” in relation to a foreign State, means the person who is for the time being recognised by the Central Government to be the head of that State.” * P.D., Vol. 8, Part II, 9th February 1951, pp 2646-62.

272 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES Therefore, whether any particular State has a monarchical form of Government and the Ruler is a monarch or whether any particular State has a republican form of Government with a President or some other dignitary at the head of it, it really cannot make any difficulty at all in view of the fact that our definition leaves the matter to the Central Government to State who is to be regarded as the head of the State. Coming to the position of the Indian Rulers, I have been asked to clarify one or two things. One is how long these privileges are going to last, and then, secondly, whether the privileges are personal privileges of the present, existing Rulers or whether they have any hereditary character which will pass on from father to son. My lawyer friends will realise that a lawyer never undertakes to solve a problem unless the problem is present to him, before him. No such problem is present before me and therefore I am not in a position nor willing to commit myself to any particular interpretation. Mr. Deputy Speaker : It is there : Rulers for the time being. Dr. Ambedkar : Yes, for the time being. Therefore, what I am saying is that this is a matter which is open to consideration, to revision, at all times. It is not a matter which has been so to say taken out of the purview of Parliament or of Government. If Parliament so chooses, it can decide that these privileges and immunities shall end because enough time has intervened for us to suppose that these enemies of the Indian Princes have died out or disappeared without leaving any kind of progeny to harass them further, or they may take the view that these privileges may be permitted to last till the life time of the present holder. Therefore, the issue is quite open, not a closed one. With regard to the assurances that have been demanded from me on behalf of Government as to how Government propose to utilise this power of granting or refusing consent, speaking for myself, I cannot have the slightest doubt in my mind that any Government or a Member of Government who may be dealing with this matter would ever think it advisable or proper to withhold consent in a matter where the claim

273PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES is absolutely bona fide. I have no doubt in my mind at all because any Member who might be dealing with such a matter would be answerable to the House. Pandit Kunzru (Uttar Pradesh) : Sir, it is past one o’clock now. Mr. Deputy Speaker : If possible let us complete the first reading now. Pandit Kunzru : The Hon. Minister might take half an hour. Mr. Deputy Speaker : How long will the Hon. Minister take to finish? Dr. Ambedkar : I will not take long, Sir. My friend, Mr. Sarwate, in his anxiety to criticise Government for giving certain privileges to the former Rulers of Indian States said that he did not quite understand why sub-section (2) of section 86 was not made applicable to the Indian Princes, I am sure my friend, Mr. Sarwate, will realise that we have done the wisest thing in not applying it because if we had applied it Government would have been debarred from giving any consent to a suit against a Prince unless the four conditions mentioned in sub-section ( 2) had been satisfied. Clauses (a), (b), (c) and (d) embodied in sub-section (2) of section 86 are really rules of International law. There can be no dispute about them and we don’t want to treat the Indian Princes on the same footing as ambassadors or heads of States or Rulers of other foreign States. The immunity that we have granted therefore, is of a very small dimension. If sub-section (2) had been made applicable the thing would have been worse. I do not think, therefore, that any serious objection can be levelled against this Bill. Mr. Deputy Speaker : The question is : “That Bill further to amend the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, be taken into consideration.” The motion was adopted. Mr. Deputy Speaker : The House will stand adjourned till 2-35 p.m.