Vol. 15 · pages 291–295

274 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES The House then adjourned for Lunch till Thirty Five Minutes Past Two of the Clock. The House re-assembled after Lunch at Thirty Five Minutes Past Two of the Clock. [MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER in the Chair ] Clauses 2 and 3 Clauses 2 and 3 were added to the Bill. Clauses 4 to 11 Shri Raj Bahadur (Rajasthan) : I have an amendment to clause 4 but I would not like to move it formally. I only want to say one thing. Nowhere in the Constitution has the Central Government as such been empowered to constitute a court. The authority that is there in this behalf is exercised in the case of the Supreme Court by the President and in the case of the courts in the States by the Governor of the State. My objection pertains only to this point. I think that if we simply substitute the words “under the authority of the Constitution” for the words “Central Government” it would be much better. Dr. Ambedkar : I Cannot accept the suggestion. The Constitution has established certain courts—the Supreme Court and the High Courts. As far the establishment of special courts, Parliament has been given the power and the Central Government can act under the authority given by Parliament. Therefore, it is inappropriate to use the words “the Constitution of India”. Besides, “Central Government” has been used throughout in all the adaptation orders and I think it would be very unfortunate if a departure is made in the matter of terminology in this particular Bill. Mr. Deputy Speaker : So, the hon. Member’s point is answered. I shall put clauses 4 to 11 together as there are no amendments to them. The question is : “That clauses 4 to 11 stand part of the Bill.” The motion was adopted.

275PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES Clauses 4 to 11 were added to the Bill. Mr. Deputy Speaker : On a point of information, in regard to clause 9 may I know from the Hon. Minister what is the need for saying “execution of a decree of any revenue court in any State in any other State”. Could it not be “a revenue court in that State”? Why should it be augmented? Dr. Ambedkar : The object of putting it in larger terms is to facilitate. Dr. R. U. Singh : When the general discussion on the motion for consideration was on, I raised the same point and the Hon. Law Minister was pleased to say that the word ‘Ruler’ is used in some of the sections of the Civil Procedure Code under discussion. I have looked through the various sections of the Civil Procedure Code which are under discussion under clause 12 of the amending Bill, and I dare say that the word ‘Ruler’ is not used anywhere else. As I said earlier, it is only the sub-title that uses the word “Foreign Rulers”. In the sections themselves the word ‘Ruler’ is not used. ‘Ruling chiefs’ may have been used because this term was in vogue in this country or some such term may have been used, but I dare say, Sir, the term ‘Ruler’ has not been used. As the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code stand, it was not necessary to define the term Ruler. The point that was made by me was that it has been done unnecessarily and I reinforce that argument by saying that when we are dealing with questions of International Law, we might use terminology which is familiar to International Law. I observe that the term “Ruler” is not used. The words used generally are, “Head of a State” or “Sovereign”, “foreign State” or “Foreign Sovereign”. I do think that Government have taken pains unnecessarily to introduce the term “Ruler”. I do feel that if the word ‘Head’ only is substituted now, because they have re-arranged the section and framed the thing in such a manner, some of the clauses will become clumsy. In some places ‘Head of the State’ will have to be used, in some places ‘Head’ only will do. Therefore, while sticking to my original point of view, I observe that it is unhappy that the term “Ruler” has been used. I think the clumsy phraseology used

276 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES in the amending Bill may be allowed to stand. Or if that is not to stand, then, in some places, the word “Head” has to be used and in other, the ;erm “Head of a Foreign State” has to be used, because the draftsmen have some-how rearranged the clauses in such a manner that there is no escape from this position. Dr. Ambedkar : I am really at a loss to understand why my hon. friends are unhappy over the phraseology that has been used in this Bill My hon. friend Mr. Raj Bahadur says that it is better to distinguish foreign Rulers from Indian Rulers by giving them a different name. Supposing that was true, would it not be necessary again to define “Head of a Sate”. Shri Raj Bahadur : No, no ……… Dr. Ambedkar : In the United States of America, there is the President; in Great Britain, there is the King; in Switzerland, there is some other machinery to represent the State. If the facts are various, you will have to have a definition of “Head of State”. Another hon. Member says that he has examined the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code to which I made reference in the morning. He thinks that the words that we have used in this amending Bill do not occur there. I hope he has got a copy of the Civil Procedure Code in front of him. Dr. R. U. Singh : I have got it here. Dr. Ambedkar : Please look up the heading of section 83. Dr. R. U. Singh : That I stated earlier. Dr. Ambedkar : The heading is, “Suits by Aliens and by or against Foreign Rulers and Rulers of Indian States.” I would like to draw his attention also to the fact that this amendment was made in 1937 by the adaptation of Indian Laws Order. I cannot say that I am quite up-to-date in the matter of International Law and the phraseology that they use. But, I am quite content in saying that any one who made this Adaptation—and he will permit me to say that the adaptation was made by the India Office—must have been advised by some Parliamentary Lawyer, who could not have gone very much wrong in using the phraseology ‘Foreign Rulers’

277PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES Then, he says that the term ‘Ruler of an Indian Sate’ has never been used in sections 83 onwards. I quite agree that a variety of designations have been used. The Indian Rulers have been called Princes, Rulers, Chiefs and so on. But, what I want to submit is this. When the Constitution by several articles has given them a particular description, namely. ‘Rulers of Indian States’, is it permissible for the draftsmen to use a language other than the one that is used in the Constitution? The Justification for using the words “Rulers of Former Indian States” is simply that that is the language that is used in the Constitution. We do not want to have any departure from the language used in the Constitution so as to leave it open to anybody like my hon. friend Mr. Naziruddin Ahmed to come up and say, “well, this provision does not apply to the people to whom it is intended to apply.” Mr. Speaker : The question is : In clause 12 in the proviso to the proposed new section 84 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for “Ruler” substitute “Head”, The motion was negatived. Similar 3 other motions were negatived * Dr. R. U. Singh : …………. So far as the immunity of the Rulers of the Indian States is concerned, we do not have any such assurance from the Law Minister, in regard to things done even in their personal capacity. We are concerned with that aspect of the question. It has not been said that a certain amount of notice would be sufficient or some such thing. The immunity now sought to be conferred on them is much greater than the immunity conferred on the Head of the Indian Republic, as also the Heads of the various States of the Union. And if Government would indicate their mind and their policy in this regard, as to the duration of the immunity and the extent of that immunity—I dare say it ought not to be very wide—it would be extremely nice indeed.. * P. D., Vol. 8, Part VIII, 9th February 1951, pp. 2664-65.

278 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES Dr. Ambedkar : Before recess, I was also called upon to answer some of the questions which have been raised by my friend. I think I gave replies to those which I thought one should very safely give, and I do not know that I have anything further to add to what I have said. All that I would like to say now is this. My hon. friend if he will forgive my saying so, seems to lack sufficient imagination. Shri R. U. Singh : All lawyers do not have much of it. Dr. Ambedkar : Lawyers sometimes have very long imagination. If he had sufficient imagination he should have realised the fact that the Constituent Assembly very definitely and very rightly said that whatever was included in the covenant made before a certain date, matters contained in it were not justiciable. Now, I think that was a very great protection and a very important fact. It means that Parliament or Government is free to make any change it likes, notwithstanding the fact that the matters were mentioned in the convenant. That being so, I think the House at any rate, should feel satisfied that the future is in no way closed or dark. I do not think that anybody would expect me to say anything more than that. Mr. Speaker : The question is : In clause 12, omit the proposed new section 87B. The motion was negatived. Mr. Speaker : The question is : “That clause 12 stand part of the Bill,” The motion was adopted. Clause 12 was added to the Bill. Clauses 13 to 18 were added to the Bill. Clause 19.—(Special Provisions etc.) Amendment made : In Clause 19, omit “Code of ” occurring in line 2. —[Dr. Ambedkar] Clause 19, as, amended, was added to the Bill.