Vol. 15 · pages 306–310

289PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES Dr. Ambedkar: I would like to apologise, Sir. Mr. Speaker : The question is : “ That the bill, as amended, be passed.” The motion was adopted. PREVENTIVE DETENTION (AMENDMENT) BILL * The Minister of Home Affairs (Shri Rajgopalachari): ……….. I was coming here in a hurry for I heard that Dr. Ambedkar was able to get through two solid Bills in this House as I had not at all anticipated last evening. It seems to me that people treat me much worse than they treat Dr. Ambedkar. The Minister of Law (Dr. Ambedkar): I am a Harijan; you are not. LAYING OF ADAPTATION ORDER ON THE TABLE ** Mr. Deputy Speaker : Dr. Ambedkar. The Minister of Law (Dr. Ambedkar): Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir……… Shri Syamnandan Sahaya (Bihar): Sir, before the Law Minister begins, may I make a submission? Now we have got an idea of the work to be done by Parliament up to the 16th. But we do not yet know what Bills or other legislative measures or other work will be taken up on the 17th of this month and ... Shri Sidhva (Madhya Pradesh): There is the agenda up to the 19th. Shri Syamnandan Sahaya : But it only says whether the business will be official or non-official. Shri Sidhva : No, they are all official Bills. We got it today. * P. D., Vol 8, Part II, 9th February 1951, p. 2679. ** P. D., Vol 10, Part II, 12th April 1951, p. 6659.

290 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES Dr. Ambedkar: Mr. Deputy-Speaker, yesterday, my hon. friend Mr. Hussain Imam raised a question with regard to an answer which I gave to a question put by Pandit Bhargava with regard to the Adaptation Order issued by the President. Unfortunately I was not present in the House. I wish he had given me previous notice that he was going to raise this matter; I certainly would have been present in the House to give him the answer. From the proceedings, extracts from which were supplied to me yesterday evening. I find that he raised two questions. One question which he raised was that he was not able to obtain a copy of the Adaptation Order although he made an effort to get one. On that point, the facts which I have been able to ascertain are these. The Adaptation Order was published in the Gazette Extraordinary dated the 4th instant. I gave my reply on the 7th. Copies of the Adaptation Order, or rather, of the Gazette, were received in the Constitution Branch on the 10th, the date on which he sent a telephonic message to the Constitution Branch, enquiring as to what had happened to the copies of the Adaptation Order. My information is that the Superintendent whom he contacted on that matter told him that the copies of the Gazette Extraordinary had just reached him and that he was examining whether there were any clerical or printers’ errors. I am told that my hon. friend did not specifically ask for a copy. I do not know, he is in a better position to confirm this or not. Shri Hussain Imam (Bihar): I asked for it in the Notice Office and in the Library. Dr. Ambedkar: I am telling what happened in the Superintendent’s branch. That being so, the hon. Member was not directly supplied any copies from the Constitution Branch. It is obvious that if the copies were received by the Superintendent on the 10th it was not possible for him to supply copies to the Notice Office for distribution among Members of Parliament. That is the position so far as the first complaint is concerned. I find from the proceedings, extracts of which were sent to me, that the hon. Member also raised a question of privilege.

291PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES What I understood him to say was that as soon as an Adaptation Order is made by the President, it ought to be placed on the Table of the House. Now, Sir so far as that point is concerned, my submission is this. Whatever privileges this House has, they are regulated by article 105 of the Constitution which says that the Parliament shall have all the privileges which the House of Commons has. That takes us to an enquiry as to whether, when laying a paper on the Table of the Parliament is a matter of privilege and when it is not a matter of privilege. Referring to May* one thing is quite clear.... Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the Hon. Minister. So far as the question of privilege is concerned first of all the Speaker looks into the matter, goes through the rules and regulations and then ascertains the opinion of the House. If he comes to the conclusion that a matter of privilege is involved, he then sends it to the Privileges Committee. I do not think the hon. Member seriously raised a question of privilege. The question was that a copy of the Adaptation Order ought to be made available. He went to the Notice Office and also to the Library. He said that the Adaptation Order was made as early as the 4th April and therefore normally expected it to be placed in the Library in a day or two. Now that the matter has been made clear by the Law Minister we need not go further into the question of privilege. Dr. Ambedkar : If that is your ruling I would not pursue the matter. But I only wanted to submit one point which 1 think is of general interest and which the House should know. A matter of privilege can arise only when a statute makes it obligatory upon the government that a paper should be laid on the table of the House. Now so far as the Adaptation Order is concerned there is no such obligation at all. I would like hon. members to compare article 372, which deals with Adaptation, with article 392 which deals with an order made by the President for the removal of difficulties in the Constitution during the transition period. It will be found that so far as article 392 is concerned there is a specific subclause which says that any order made by the President for the removal of difficulties shall be placed on the table of the * May’s Parliamentary Practice— ed.

292 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES House. There is no such proviso with regard to article 372. Therefore my submission was that there is really no privilege involved and the question of breach of privilege therefore cannot arise. Pandit Maitra (West Bengal): Sir, are you going to allow a general discussion as to whether or not this is a question of privilege .... Shri Bharati (Madras): The Chair has already ruled that there was no question of privilege. Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am not deciding the question of privilege at all. In as much as there was a reference by Mr. Husain Imam to the word privilege, the Hon. Law Minister thought that he must answer that other point also. He has now placed his view point. That question does not arise now and therefore I will not go into it. [MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER in the Chair .] *Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member may resume after we hear the Hon. the Law Minister. Dr. Ambedkar: Sir, I have applied my mind to the points which you were good enough to put to me and I would like to submit my opinion about those points. The real question that the House has to consider is whether this Bill offends against Article 117—either clause (1) of that article, or clause (3) of that article. Those are the main points that are to be considered and the clauses which require to be considered in the light of Article 117 are clauses (4), (5) and (6) of the Bill. I should take clauses (5) and (6) together. Now it is contended that those clauses offend against clause (1) of Article 117. The validity of that contention must depend upon the meaning that is to be attached to the word “appropriation” occurring in sub-clause (d) of clause (1) of Article 110 which defines what is a “Money Bill”. Now, I am quite certain in my mind that the word “appropriation” which is used in * P. D., Vol. 10, Part II, 12th April 1951, pp. 6725-27.

293PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES sub-clause (d)—and I have verified myself by reference to May’s “ Parliamentary Practice ” where this matter has been discussed at great length—is a term of art and it involves two things: first the naming of the service, the particular service, and secondly the exact allotment of money to be spent on that particular service. It is these two things that go to make what we know now as appropriation and it is in that sense that the word is used both in Article 114 and Article 266 of the Constitution. Reading the two clauses 5 and 6 in the Bill I do not think it is possible to import into those two clauses any such thing as we now understand by the term “ appropriation”. They are, in my judgment, mere directions to the Government that this is a service on which money may be spent which Government may or may not spend. Therefore, so far as Article 117, clause (1) is concerned, the Bill, it may be said, sails clear and no difficulty can arise on that account. Now, I turn to clause 4 of the Bill. There, we have to consider whether that clause offends against clause (3) of Article 117. My conclusion is that it does, because clause 4 of the Bill imposes a liability upon the Government to undertake a service which, if the Bill is passed by this House, would undoubtedly involve expenditure out of the Consolidated Fund. Therefore, it would require a recommendation from the President under the provisions of clause (3) of Article 117. The question that remains for consideration is this. At what stage must the recommendation of the President be forthcoming? The word used there is “ consideration ”. It has been contended that “ consideration ” means the very initation of the Bill. I am afraid I cannot agree with that contention. A bill has two stages: the first stage is called in our parlance “ Introduction ”, which is different from ‘ consideration ’. After a Bill is introduced, then the stage of consideration begins and the stage of consideration continues from that point when the Bill is taken up by the House after the stage of introduction, until it is passed. During that interval the proceedings are proceedings in respect of consideration of the Bill. Therefore, in my humble opinion, if before the motion for passing is put,