Vol. 15 · pages 296–300

279PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES Clause 20 was added to the Bill. Clause 1.—(Short title etc. ) Amendment made : In Sub-clause (1) of clause 1, for “1950”, substitute “1951”. —[Dr. Ambedkar] Clause 1, as amended, was added to the Bill. The Title and the Enacting Formula were added to the Bill. Dr. Ambedkar : I beg to move : “That the Bill, as amended, be passed.” Mr. Speaker : The question is : “That the Bill, as amended, be passed”. The motion was adopted.

280 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES (28) *PART B STATES (LAWS) BILL The Minister of Law (Dr. Ambedkar) : Sir, I move for leave to introduces Bill to provide for the extension of certain laws to Part B States. Mr. Speaker : The question is : “That leave be granted to introduce a Bill to provide for the extension of certain laws to Part B States.” The motion was adopted. Dr. Ambedkar : Sir, I introduce the Bill. **PART B STATES (LAWS) BILL The Minister of Law (Dr. Ambedkar) : I beg to move : “That the Bill to provide for the extension of certain laws to Part B States, be taken into consideration.” The Bill is a very simple one... An Hon. Member : As all other Bills are. Dr. Ambedkar : Much simpler than the others. The object of the Bill is this. There are certain Acts passed by the Central Legislature which on account of the jurisdiction formerly exercised by the Central Government were confined in their operation to Part A States only. Part B States (formerly called the Indian States) which were sovereign and independent, had their own laws which might be compared to the laws passed by the Central Legislature under Lists I and III. Now this Parliament has obtained jurisdiction over the territories covered by Part B States so far as Lists I and III are concerned. There are already in existence a large number of Acts passed by the Central Legislature covering the field of Lists I and III, which on account of their territorial limitation did not apply * P. D., Vol 6, Part II, 20th November 1951, p. 183. ** P. D., Vol 8, Part II, 9th February 1951, pp. 9665-66.

281PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES to Part B States. It is for this purpose that this Bill has been brought forward. Hon. Members will see that to this Bill is added a Schedule giving the list of Acts which it is proposed under the powers given by this Bill to be extended to Part B States. There are altogether 135 Acts, so far as I have computed them, which are sought to be extended to Part B States. While seeking to extend the Central Acts to Part B States it is felt that these Acts themselves required some small amendment according to the views of the various administrative departments of the Government of India which are working these Acts. Consequently the occasion which now exists for the purpose of extending these 135 Acts is also utilised for the purpose of making certain amendments in these Central Acts, so that when this Bill is passed, not only these Acts will come into operation in Part B States but they will also come into operation in the form in which they are modified by the provisions contained in the various Acts in the Schedule as mentioned therein. I do not think any controversy is likely to arise over the principle of this Bill. There are one or two omissions which we have discovered since and I propose to move amendments in order to bring them under this Schedule. Mr. Speaker: Motion moved: “ That the Bill to provide for the extension of certain laws to Part B States, be taken into consideration. ” * Dr. Ambedkar: With regard to the point made by my friend from Travancore-Cochin, Shri Sivan Pillay the position is quite easy as I see it. There are some laws which are sought to be extended by this Bill which fall in the Concurrent List. Consequently, it would be open to any State in India to amend these laws in the manner that they wish to do. To take his illustration, namely, the Indian Penal Code, it is quite true that the Indian Penal Code sanctions death as one of the * P. D., Vol 8, Part II, 9th February 1951, pp. 2669-77.

282 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES penalties. It is equally true, as he has said, that the Penal Code as it now operates in Travancore abolishes that penalty. Well, after the Indian Penal code has been made applicable under this Act, it would be perfectly possible for the TravancoreCochin Legislature to pass an amending Bill and amend the Indian Penal Code in the way they wish to do. Consequently, so far as the laws which fall under the Concurrent List are concerned, all States in India which have the power to make laws will certainly make laws to suit their circumstances. With regard to the point made by my other hon. friend, it seems to me that he has not read correctly the provisions of clause 3 of this Bill which says : “ The Acts and Ordinances specified in the Schedule shall be amended in the manner and to the extent therein specified ”. Therefore, this Bill is both a Bill to amend and also to extend. Of course, he might stay that this is a very inelegant method of legislation, but let him consider his plan of doing the thing. We will have to stay here and pass 135 different laws, first to amend and then to extend. I think it is desirable, although it may not be quite so straight or elegant, to adopt the summary procedure that has been adopted in this Bill, namely, both to amend and to extend. I do not think my hon. friend will have any quarrel after this explanation. Mr. Speaker: The question is : “ That the Bill to provide for the extension of certain laws to Part B States, be taken into consideration. ” The motion was adopted. Clauses 2 to 6. Clauses 2 to 6 were added to the Bill. Clause 7.—(Power to remove difficulties) Amendment made: In sub-clause (2) of clause 7, after part (b) insert: “(c) specify the areas or circumstances in which, or the extent to which or the conditions subject to which, anything done or any action taken (including any of the matters specified in the second proviso to

283PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES section 6) under any law repealed by that section shall be recognised or given effect to under the corresponding provision of the Act or Ordinance as now extended. ” —[ Dr. Ambedkar ] Clause 7, as amended, was added to the Bill. The Schedule Dr. Ambedkar: I was wondering whether all the amendments to the Schedule standing in my name may be taken as moved. Mr. Speaker: Is the House agreeable to this course? Hon. Members: Yes, Sir. Shri Shiv Charan Lal: I would like to have clarification on one point before you put these amendments to vote. On page 4 of the schedule, under the Government Savings Banks Act, 1873, it is said that that Act would not apply to any deposits made in the Anchal Savings Bank of the State of Travancore-Cochin. It is not clear to us why it won’t apply to this Bank. Dr. Ambedkar: I am afraid it would be very difficult for me to reply to the various queries. I should therefore like to explain my position. This Bill is like a supplementary estimate which the Finance Minister puts before the House, although the actual responsibility of defending the different estimates falls upon the different Ministers who are responsible for them. I am merely sponsoring what the other Departments desire should be done. I am sorry that the Finance Minister is not here, otherwise, he might have explained to my friend exactly why he wants this particular amendment to be made. All the same, I hope that my friend will agree that this must have been done after very deliberate and mature consideration. Mr. Speaker: I do not wish to raise any objection, if the House has none, but this is not a satisfactory procedure. An hon. Member is entitled to know before he votes what he is called upon to vote and why. Even if the position be like the supplementary estimate, it should be the practice to append some kind of notes for the benefit of hon. Members explaining