Vol. 15 · pages 366–370

349PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES on for the time being. Such a process should not be hampered by the doctrine of non-discrimination. It is to get rid of this doctrine of non-discrimination in the matter of nationalisation that this particular amendment has been introduced and I do not think that the House will very seriously object to this kind of doing. An Hon. Member: The same thing from the High Court. Dr. Ambedkar: Now I come to clause 3, sub-clause (2) about which……… Dr. S. P. Mookerjee: Why have you omitted the word ‘reasonable’ from the existing clause ? Dr. Ambedkar: The word ‘reasonable’ was not there. That is a matter which may be discussed. ( An Hon. Member ; In the Select Committee.) In the House, everywhere. Now I come to clause 3, sub-clause (2). In order to understand what this amendment precisely does, I think it is necessary to go back to article 13. It is only in the light of article 13 that one can have a clear idea of this particular sub-clause 31. As hon. Members know, article 13 declares that if any law is inconsistent with the Fundamental Rights, that law shall be declared to be void and inoperative. As I have shown in the course of my observations, certain provisions of laws, such as sections 153A and 124A of the Indian Penal Code, certain provisions of the Press (Emergency Powers) Act and the Public Safety Acts have now been declared to be void by the Supreme Court and by the various High Courts. In view of this, what are we to do ? It seems to me that there are three alternatives which we could pursue. The first alternative is to refuse to amend the constitution and to let the void provision remain as it is. I do not think that any Member of this House would like this alternative. ( An Hon. Member : It would be disastrous). The second alternative is to amend the Constitution, and then under this, there are two courses open. The first course open to us is to re-enact this law in consonance with the amended article. That is one way. Parliament and the various State Legislatures should call in their sessions and tackle with these laws once

350 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES again. The second course is to revive these laws and to say that the revival of these laws shall be subject to the provisions contained in the amended Constitution. I cannot see what else one can do. The Bill adopts the second course. The Bill says: let the laws which have been declared by the Supreme Court and the High Courts to be null and void be deemed to be alive, but subject to one proviso, and that proviso is that they shall not be alive in their original body and flesh but they shall be alive only in such degree and in such manner as may be consistent with the amended article 19. That is the position. Now, I would like to ask the House whether they will seriously contemplate the posibility of either this Parliament or the various Legislative Assemblies in the Provinces to again sit and re-enact these laws. Dr. S. P. Mookerjee: Why not ? Dr. Ambedkar: Is there time for it ? Dr. S. P. Mookerjee: What is happening ? Dr. Ambedkar: I do not know what time it might take. But I am sure about that if my hon. friend Dr. Mookerjee were to be a member of the Bengal Legislative Assembly, he will prevent such a law being passed there for at least six months. His argument, his eloquence, all that would stand as a formidable Chinese Wall against any re-enactment of these laws. Therefore, it seems to me not to be a very unnatural presumption that in the present circumstances in which this Parliament is situated or the local Legislative Assemblies are situated, you cannot presume that there would be immediately the time available for the re-enactment of these laws. I cannot think of it myself. We have so much legislation here. Shri Sarangdhar Das: Why not the new Parliament ? Dr. Ambedkar: If it is the new parliament, it means that for six, seven or eight months on a year, there will be no law for public order; there will be no law for incitement to an offence and no law for friendly relations with foreign States. If Members of Parliament can contemplate such a contingency, they are welcome to it.

351PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES Ch. Ranbir Singh (Punjab): The new Parliament can repeal these laws if they so want. Dr. Ambedkar: I have dealt with article 19. Dr. S. P. Mookerjee: Why are you giving retrospective effect ? Dr. Ambedkar : Unless you give retrospective effect, these laws cannot be revived. Shri Shiv Charan Lal (Uttar Pradesh): Is that legal ? Dr. Ambedkar: Why not ? If these laws are to be in operation, they must be in operation on the date when this law comes into existence. You can give it a new beginning if you can re-enact; but I do not see how you can re-enact. Shri Deshbandhu Gupta: Because the Hon. Law Minister is going to another article, may I ask a question with regard to this article ? The power sought to be conferred refers to incitement to an offence. Section 4 of the Press (Emergency Powers) Act, to which the Hon. Law Minister has referred, involves incitement to murder or to an offence involving violence. I want to know. Dr. Ambedkar: Do you want to advocate it ? Shri Deshbandhu Gupta: No. I want to know whether under the wide powers that are sought to be taken, it is not possible to advocate even non-violent disobedience to any order which may be against the liberties of the people, and which will constitute an offence under other enactments. I want an explanation. For instance, section 144 prevents the holding of a meeting for unlawful purposes. Some district magistrate issue an order. A newspaper, tomorrow, advises the people that this order is absolutely obnoxious and it may be disobeyed. Will it or will it not constitute an offence although it is neither an incitement to violence nor incitment to murder ? Shri Rajagopalchari: May I submit that such extensively detailed discussion may be reserved for the Select Committee. The principles have been explained. Otherwise, we will have no time.

352 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES Shri Deshbandhu Gupta: If the Hon. Minister gives an assurance that it will be modified, it is enough. Mr. Chairman: Whatever it may be, the hon. Members who are frequently interrupting, I think, have had their say already, and their points of view have been taken note of. Now, let the Hon. Law Minister, who is now speaking have his say. Shri Kamath: Does it mean that those who have not had their say can interrupt? Mr. Chairman: No ; that does not mean that. Most hon. -Members will do well to take note of this. Shri Shiv Charan Lal: Only one question. Will it be legal to give retrospective effect ? Dr. Ambedkar: Oh yes ; undoubtedly. Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava: May I ask one direct question ? Is the Hon. Law Minister satisfied with the terms of article 19(2) as he seeks to amend it ? Dr. Ambedkar: I have explained the principle. If as I said, the language requires to be modified to give effect to the principle, there can be no objection. But, the principle is that they shall be revived. Shri Deshbandhu Gupta: The Hon. Minister has not thrown any light on the removal of the word ‘reasonable’. Dr. Ambedkar: It is not removed; it was not there. Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava: But the other things were there. You have taken away all those safeguards. Dr. Ambedkar: That is a different matter. That will be considered by the Select Committee. Now, I come to clause 4 of the Bill. This clause introduces a new article 31A. Let us understand, first of all, what this article does. What this article does is to permit a State to acquire what are called estates. Secondly, it says that when any legislation is undertaken to acquire estates, nothing in the Fundamental Rights shall effect such a legislation. The merits

353PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES of this article, I think have to be judged in the light of one question, and it is this. Is there anything revolutionary in this article ? Shri Frank Anthony: It is reactionary. Dr. Ambedkar: Is there anything in this article which is not to be found in article 31 ? It is from this point of view that I want the House to consider this question. The House would remember that later clauses of article 31 provided that certain laws which were then on the anvil and had not been passed, shall not be questioned on the ground of compensation if a certificate was issued by the President. That is the gist of those clauses of article 31. The new amendment to article 31 not only removes the operation of the provision relating to compensation, but also removes the operation of the article relating to discrimination. In this amendment, I am emphasising the word ‘estate’. The new article is a very limited one. It does not apply to the acquisition of land. It applies to the acquisition of estate in land which is a very different thing. What is an estate has been defined in this particular article namely, the right of a proprietor, subproprietor, tenure-holder, or other intermediary. Of course, the terminology is different in different provinces. It does not refer to the acquisition of land. That is a point to be borne in mind. Therefore, all that article 31 A does is this. When any law is undertaken with regard to the acquisition of property, two questions can properly arise. One is the amount of compensation ; the second is discrimination as between the various proprietors as regards the amount of compensation. These are the only two questions that can possibly arise and give rise to litigation. With regard to one part of it, dealing with compensation, we have already excluded the acquisition of proprietory and zamindari interests by the original article 31. By this article, we are excluding the operation of the discriminatory provision. That is all what we are doing by this article. It seems to me that we really cannot adopt the said two articles of the Fundamental Rights relating to compensation and discrimination with regard to this land question. I have