Vol. 15 · pages 346–350

329PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (33) The House re-assembled after Lunch at Three of the Clock. [PANDIT THAKUR DAS BHARGAVA in the Chair ] *CONSTITUTION (FIRST AMENDMENT) BILL The Prime Minister and Minister of External Affairs (Shri Jawaharlal Nehru): I beg to move. “ That the Bill to amend the Constitution of India be referred to a Select Committee consisting of Prof. K. T. Shah, Sardar Hukam Singh, Pandit Hirday Nath Kunzru, Dr. Syama Prasad Mookerjee, Shri Naziruddin Ahmad, Shri C. Rajagopalachari, Shri L. Krishnaswami Bharati, Shri Awadheshwar Prasad Sinha, Shri T. R. Deogirikar, Dr. B. R. Ambedkar, Shri V. S. Sarwate, Shri Mohanlal Gautam, Shri R. K. Sidhva,- Shri Khandubhai K. Desai, Shri K. Hanumanthaiya, Shri Raj Bahadur, Shrimati G. Durgabai, Shri Manilal Chaturbhai Shah, Shri Dev Kanta Borooah, Shri Satya Narayan Sinha and the Mover with instructions to report on Monday the 21st May, 1951.” This Bill is not a very complicated one ; nor is it a big one. Nevertheless, I need hardly point out that it is of intrinsic and great importance. Anything dealing with the Constitution and change of it is of importance. Anything dealing with Fundamental Rights in corporated in the Constitution is of even greater importance. Therefore, in bringing this Bill forward, I do so and the government does so in no spirit of light-heartedness, in no haste, but after the most careful thought and scrutiny, given to this problem. I might inform the House that we have been thinking about this matter for several months consulting people, State Governments, Ministers of Provincial Governments, consulting, when occassion offered itself, a number of Members of this House, referring it to various Committees and the like and taking such advice from competent legal quarters as we could obtain, so that we have proceed with as great care as we could * P. D., Vol. 12, Part II, 16th May 1951, pp. 8814-15.

330 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES possibly give to it. We have brought it forward now after that care, in the best form that we could give it, because we thought that the amendments mentioned in this Bill are not only necessary, but desirable, and because we thought that if these changes are not made, perhaps not only would great difficulties arise, as they have arisen in the past few months, but perhaps some of the main purposes of the very Constitution may be defeated or delayed. In a sense this matter of course, has been mentioned rather vaguely and has been before the public for some time. But in the precise form that it has been raised in this Bill, it came up only when I introduced this Bill in the House a few days ago. * Pandit Kunzru (Uttar Pradesh): The Bill before us seems to be very simple, but it is nonetheless of a very far reaching character. It affects not merely the Constitution but also the spirit in which the Constitution is to be dealt with. A measure of such importance requires careful consideration and I think that we ought, all, to welcome the scrutiny to which it has been subjected by previous speakers. In order to justify the important changes that are sought to be made in the Constitution, Government should have taken care to supply us with full information on every point to tell us exactly why each particular amendment was needed. The Prime Minister spoke at considerable length but dealt, generally speaking with principles. When he dealt with specific matters he was very tantalizing; he did not throw much light on the reasons for the specific measure that the Government have placed before us. In view of this some other Member of the Government should have given us fuller information than the Prime Minister gave. Perhaps my hon. friend. Dr. Ambedkar would have been the fittest person to explain to us in detail the provisions of the Bill, particularly those which relate to the amendment of article 19 and the insertion of two new articles 31A and 31B. I have no doubt that he will take part in the debate. He will probably get up in the end in order to have the last word on the subject. * P. D., Vol. 12, Part II, 17th May 1951, p. 8896.

331PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES The Minister of Law (Dr. Ambedkar): No, no. Pandit Kunzru: That may suit him and the Government of which he is an important member, but it is most unfair to the House that it should be called upon …….. Shri Sidhva (Madhya Pradesh): What is the unfairness ? Pandit Kunzru: If Mr. Sidhva will have a little patience he will realise that every Member is not as enlightened as he is and that most of them require a little more instruction than he has ever done or ever will do ………. *The Minister of Law (Dr. Ambedkar): In the course of the debate yesterday, my friend Pandit Hirday Nath Kunzru said that Government had done great injustice to the House by not explaining the necessity and the purposes of the various clauses in this Bill and that some one on the side of Government—and he referred particularly to me—should have got up to discharge that duty to the House. I do not know that any Member of the House will believe that a person of the intelligence of my hon. friend Pandit Hirday Nath Kunzru is one who requires an explanation of this Bill. My friend Dr. Syama Prasad Mookerjee evidently did not require any explanation of the Bill. As soon as the Prime Minister finished, he stood up and opened his fire. And I do not think that my friend Pandit Kunzru is less intelligent than my friend Dr. Mookerjee. However, as Pandit Kunzru expressed the wish of many Members of this House, I thought it incumbent on my part to intervene in this debate and to clarify the position so as to dispel the two arguments which had been used in the course of the debate, that there was no necessity for the amendment of the Constitution, and secondly, that Government could wait and give the country and the public larger and longer time and should not rush through this measure. In the observations that I propose to make, I will take the Bill clause by clause and try to explain the necessity for making the changes which the Bill proposes to make. * P. D., Vol. 12, Part II, 18th May 1951, pp. 9004-32.

332 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES I will begin with clause 2 of the Bill. Clause 2 of the Bill proposes to amend article 15. The necessity for the amendment of article 15 has arisen on account of the judgments recently-delivered by the Supreme Court in two cases which came up before them from the Madras State. One case was Madras vs. Shrimati Champakam Dorairajan and the other was Venkatraman vs. the State of Madras. In the case of Venkataraman the article involved was article 16, clause (4) and in the case of Shrimati Champakam the article involved was article 29, clause (2). In the one case the question involved was the reservation for backward classes in public services and in the other case, the question involved was the reservation for backward classes in educational institutions. The question turned upon what is known in the Madras Presidency and elsewhere as the Communal G.O. The argument on which the Communal G.O. of the Madras Government was declared to be void and invalid was this. It was said by the Supreme Court that article 29, clause (2), did not have a saving clause like clause (4) attached to article 16. As the House will remember under clause (4) of article 16, a special provision is made that article 16 shall not stand in the way of the Government making a suitable provision for the representation of backward classes in the services. Such a provision of course is not to be found in article 29. With regard to article 16, clause (4), the Supreme Court came to the conclusion that it involved discrimination on the ground of caste and therefore it was invalid. I have carefully studied both these judgments of the Supreme Court and with all respect to the judges of the Supreme court I cannot help saying that I find this judgment to be utterly unsatisfactory. Shri Naziruddin Ahmad (West Bengal): Sir, on a point of order. Is it in order for any Member to express disrespect to the highest judiciary in the land ? It is the custom in Parliament not to speak disparagingly about the courts. Dr. Ambedkar : There is no disparagement of the learned Judges at all. Mr. Speaker: I myself felt that the word should not have been used but I think what the Hon. Law Minister meant

333PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES was that judgment was unsatisfactory from the point of view of what the Government proposed to do. Dr. Ambedkar: The judgment does not appear to be in consonance with the articles of the Constitution. That is my point. Mr. Speaker: I am afraid the Hon. Minister will not be in order to pass any such structures on any judgment expressed by the Supreme Court. Dr. Ambedkar: I am very sorry. Mr. Speaker: I was thinking whether what he expressed was not capable of a different interpretation viz. that the judgment was unsatisfactory from the point of view of what the Government proposed to do. The Minister of Home Affairs (Shri Rajagopalachari): Will the hon. Speaker forgive my intervention ? I think really what the Hon. Law Minister meant is that a doubt has arisen on account of the judgment. Mr. Speaker : Let us now proceed. Dr. Ambedkar : My view is that in article 29, clause (2), the most important word is ‘only’. No distinction shall be made on the ground only of race, religion or sex. The word ‘only’ is very important. It does not exclude any distinction being made on grounds other than those mentioned in this article and I respectfully submit that the word ‘only’ did not receive the same consideration which it ought to have received. Then with regard to article 16, clause (4), my submission is this that it is really impossible to make any reservation which would not result in excluding somebody who has a caste. I think it has to be borne in mind and it is one of the fundamental principles which I believe is stated in Mulla’s last edition on the very first page that there is no Hindu who has not a caste. Every Hindu has a caste—he is either a Brahmin or a Mahratta or a Kunby or a Kumbhar or a carpenter. There is no Hindu—that is the fundamental proposition—who has not a caste. Consequently, if you make a reservation in favour of what are called backward classes