Vol. 15 · pages 361–365

344 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES Dr. Ambedkar: No, I do not think so. You will presently see that we have no such confusion. At any rate my mind is very clear about it. Shri Kamath: Government as a whole, not you. Dr. Ambedkar: What does maintenance of friendly relations imply ? Most Members are under the impression that if this category was added they would not be in a position to criticise the foreign policy of the Government. I like to say that that is a complete misunderstanding and a misconception. Shri Kamath: That is your opinion. Dr. Ambedkar: The underlying principle of this category, namely maintenance of friendly relations with a State, is nothing more than an extension of the principle of libel and defamation, that you shall do nothing, you shall say nothing, you shall circulate no rumour which will involve a foreign State in any kind of ignominy. Beyond that there is nothing in this category. Even the English Common Law is based upon this, namely that it is a part of the law of defamation—that you shall not defame a foreign State which has a friendly relation with this country. Now, I want to know from Dr. Syama Prasad Mookerjee whether he thinks that even asking him or others that they shall not defame a friendly nation is such a serious inroad upon the liberty of speech that it should be condemned. Dr. S. P. Mookerjee: Why not specify it ? Dr. Ambedkar: It is understood that this is so. I know my friend is a great reader, but if he were to read the debates that took place in this Assembly in 1932 when this law was enacted, if he will read the Statement of Objects and Reasons—which I have read—and also the Report of the Select Committee on that Bill he will find that in this particular law there is nothing more than what I have stated. Shri Kamath: Is not the expression “running dog” used by the Peking Government libellous or slanderous ? Dr. Ambedkar: There the Peking Government ought to make a law.

345PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES Shri Kamath: If someone retaliates here ? Dr. Ambedkar: This policy of tit for tat is not good for the State. Shri Kamath: What about reciprocity ? Dr. Ambedkar: It may involve us in great deal of trouble. If we are responsible to our friendly neighbours that our citizens shall not defame them, in the same way the Chinese Government is responsible that the Chinese citizens shall not defame India and the remedy must be left for each Government to adopt in accordance with its own executive authority. Prof. Ranga (Madras): And sense of honour. Dr. Ambedkar: Yes, and sense of honour. Shri Naziruddin Ahmad: But the present law of defamation will protect foreign States also. Dr. Ambedkar: My friend has provoked me to do something more which I did not want to do ! Now, let me read to him—this is very important—the law in the United States. Incidentally I would like to remind my friend Dr. Syama Parasad Mookerjee who so vehemently asked (Is there any country which has such a law ?’, well, I point to the United States of America. I have got this big volume with me Foreign Relations and Intercourse. Shri Frank Anthony (Madhya Pradesh): Is it part of the Bill of Rights. Dr. Ambedkar: It says—this is an important point— “Notwithstanding the fact that the United States does not permit the Congress to make a law on this particular subject, the Supreme Court on the basis that every State has a police power to protect itself has permitted such a legislation to be on the statute book.” Shri R. K. Chaudhuri (Assam) : But not on the Constitution. Dr. Ambedkar: “What is the law ?”—my hon. friend Mr. Naziruddin who asked the question may read it. It goes much beyond our Indian law. The first clause says that “anybody wilfully and knowingly making any untrue statement, either

346 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES orally or in writing, about any person shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten years and may, in the discretion of the court, be fined not more than five thousand dollars”. I want him to compare the punishing clause of our law with the punishing clause of this law. Shri Naziruddin Ahmad: I raised a different question. Dr. Ambedkar: Let me read it again. Mr. Chairman: Order, order ; I do not think that too many interruptions help the debate. Dr. Ambedkar: I do not mind replying if I can understand what they ask. Shri Naziruddin Ahmad: I raised a different question altogether. My question was whether our law of defamation does not protect foreign States also. Dr. Ambedkar: It does not. Shri Naziruddin Ahmad: I think it does. Dr. Ambedkar: No, it applies only when one person defames another. That is the point. Then the second clause in that law is about “wrongful assumption of character of a diplomatic or consuler officer”. That also is made punishable under the law relating to foreign relations. One more important clause is about “conspiracy to injure property of a foreign Government”. There again the punishment is imprisonment of not more than three years or fine of not more than five thousand dollars or both. Therefore, our law is a very mild one. Shri Kamath : If all untrue statements are tabooed it will put an end to all diplomacy. Dr. Ambedkar : We are talking of citizens doing harm to the Government of the foreign State. Shri Kamath: Not Government-to-Government. Dr. Ambedkar: With the explanation that I have given so far, Members of the House, I think will agree that there is a necessity for amending article 19 in the way in which sub-clause (1) of clause 3 of the Bill makes provision for it.

347PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES Some Hon. Members: No. Dr. S. P. Mookerjee: If it is only for protection against defamation, why are you having it separately ? Dr. Ambedkar: Sometimes it is better to separate a certain category. Shri Kamath: Expediency. Dr. S. P. Mookerjee: Which is the Constitution in the rest of the world where such a separate provision is made ? You contradicted me. Dr. Ambedkar: The whole point is that the British Constitution is an unwritten Constitution and therefore nothing is necessary; Parliament is supreme. Dr. S. P. Mookerjee: What about the American Constitution ? Dr. Ambedkar: There are no Fundamental Rights in the United Kingdom. That is the difficulty. Dr. S. P. Mookerjee: In any written constitution does a similar provision exist ? Dr. Ambedkar: It does not, but in the United States of America according to the canons of interpretation adopted by the Supreme Court such a law is possible. Dr. S. P. Mookerjee: That is a different matter. Dr. Ambedkar: It is not different at all. Now I come to clause 3, sub-clause (1)( b). This clause seeks to amend clause (6) of article 19 which deals with trade, profession, etc. Shri Deshbandhu Gupta (Delhi): Before the Hon. Minister goes to clause 3(1)( b), may I ask him one question ? The words are “defamation or incitement to an offence” and all laws existing today will become……. Dr. Ambedkar: I have not come to that. Shri Deshbandhu Gupta: I want you to answer that.

348 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES Dr. Ambedkar : I will not answer it now. I will answer it at my own time. I have noted it and I think it is a question to which some answer should be given. There is no ground for running away from it. It may be that the House may not accept my explanation, but that I have no explanation to offer is not the presumption that should be made. With regard to this clause it will be noticed that the latter part of clause (6) has been separated into two parts, one dealing with the qualifications for practising any profession, and the second part dealing with the actual carrying on of any trade etc. The important part of that second part lies in this that it permits the State to make a different classification between private members carrying on the trade and the State carrying on the same trade. This clause and the necessity for its introduction has arisen on account of the judgment of the Allahabad High Court reported in 1951 A.I.R. (Allahabad) 257, Full Bench, known as Motilal versus the Government of Uttar Pradesh. As hon. Members will remember, U.P. Government have introduced a scheme of nationalisation of motor transport. They were proceeding with their scheme piecemeal, territory by territory; certain territory they had said would be subject to their monopoly and that no private individual would be entitled to run their buses within that territory; certain territory which they thought in the beginning they could not cope with they left to private bus owners. In doing so, they said that it would not be necessary for the State to obtain a licence for the running of their buses within the territory that they had ear-marked for themselves, but required the private owners to obtain licences from the State. This question was raised before the Allahabad High Court on the ground that they involved discrimination. It seems to me that if nationalisation is a desirable thing and in the best interests of the country, then it must also be admitted that it may not be possible for the State to undertake nationalisation all throughout the country at one and the same time. It involves administrative problems ; it involves many other problems and consequently, in order to fully carry out the scheme and to consolidate it, it may be necessary for the State to define a territory and to leave others to carry