Vol. 15 · pages 391–395

374 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES My principal ground for rising to take part in the debate is to deal with the point that was raised by my hon. friend, Ch. Ranbir Singh. His argument, if I understood it correctly, was this that while in some States in India the word “estate” is used in a limited sense so as to include only what we call intermediaries but not to include what we call the ryotwari estates, that is, people holding it in their own right without there being any intermediaries between them and the State, it is quite true that there are some States where the definition of the word “estate” is a wide one and might possibly include holders under ryotwari or occupants under the Bombay Land Revenue Code, or ryots in other parts of India. At one time I thought that it might be possible to give a limiting effect to the word “estate” by the addition of an explanation, but on further consideration I find that it is more or less impossible to give an explanation which would cover the point. But I would like to say this, that there is no intention on the part of Government that the provisions contained in article 31A are to be employed for the purpose of dispossessing ryotwari tenents. Shri Hussain Imam: However big they might be ?” Dr. Ambedkar: Well, that is a different matter. We are making a distinction between intermediaries and ryotwari holders. Now, that is certainly not the intention of the Government: I know that friends who are interested in this matter would hardly be satisfied with any expression of intention on the part of Government, but I think there is much more than mere intention in the Bill itself. If my friend Ch. Ranbir Singh, would refer to the proviso attached to article 31A which requires that every such Bill shall be reserved for the consideration of the President, I think he will see that there is a certain amount of safeguard in it, and, as I hope the Prime Minister in his speech in reply to this debate will also make it clear, there is no such intention on the part of Government and I believe that whenever any such measure before the President for consideration, the undertaking given in this House would be binding upon the President in giving his

375PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES sanction so far as any such measure is concerned. Therefore, I submit there is no ground for any fear of any such thing happening and I believe that there is also no justification for any kind of propaganda that may be carried on by interested parties that this Bill proposes to give power to Government to expropriate everybody including the ryotwari tenants. I hope that this will satisfy my friend, Ch. Ranbir Singh. With regard to the question that has been put to me by Durgabai...’ Shri R. K. Chaudhuri (Assam) : Shrimati Durgabai. Dr. Ambedkar: These encumbrances I do not think are very necessary. I feel terribly embarrassed when somebody calls me Shri. Shri means wealth—I have none of it. Shri R. K. Chaudhuri: May I mention that sufficient mischief has been caused by my friend, Dr. Ambedkar, calling me by my short name the other day ? Dr. Ambedkar: I thought you agreed, that that did not change your sex? Shri R. K. Chaudhuri: That is how jealousy has been created in the minds of some sections of the House. Shrimati Durgabai: At least not in my mind. Dr. Ambedkar: Now with regard to that, the relevant provision in the Madras Act is section 45. That section 45 deals with impartible estates. It does not deal with ordinary estates and the provision, so far as I understand it, is that the matter of deciding whether and how the compensation is to be distributed is left to a tribunal. This Bill does not add to the powers of the tribunal; this Bill does not take away any of the powers that are given to the tribunal for that particular Act. I think within that ambit things will proceed in the way the Madras Act has determined. Dr. Deshmukh: May I ask a clarification of the Hon. Law Minister? The Hon. Doctor has told us that there is no intention to dispossess or limit the ryotwari tenures. There are six Acts of Bombay in the Schedule. If any of these Acts

376 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES do limit the ryotwari tenure, how far would it be proper to add those to the Schedule and how far does it cover the intention of Government not to bring in the ambit of this amending Act the ryotwari tenure or to limit their extent ? Dr. Ambedkar: I know something of these Acts, coming from Bombay as I do and having practised in the High Court. Having had to deal with many cases, I have no doubt about it that the Khoti Abolition and other Acts to which my hon. friend has referred deal only with what we call intermediaries. Shri Jawaharlal Nehru : My colleague the Law Minister has dealt with many of the points that heve been raised, ………… * The Minister of Law (Dr. Ambedkar): On listening to the debate I believe the House desires that the powers of adaptation vested in the President should continue and that it is a very useful instrument which has been forged by the Constitution for the purpose of bringing the laws already passed into conformity with the provisions of the Constitution. On that, I do not see any kind of difference of opinion. The only question that has been raised is this : why is it that the President has not been able to make modifications in the laws that appear to be inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution during the period that has elapsed between now and the passing of the Constitution and why is it that further time is necessary. That seems to be the only point which requires clarification. It has been stated that the Law Department has been very lax. Some friends have said that it has gone to sleep. Babu Ramnarayan Singh (Bihar): That is right. Shri Hussain Imam (Bihar): Dozing. Dr. Ambedkar: I do not know whether such statements are mere matters of imagination or whether there is any * P.D., Vol 12, Part II, 2nd June 1951, pp. 10007-13.

377PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES substance behind them—I think all hon. Members will agree that the Law Department is the smallest Department in the Government of India. Babu Ramnarayan Singh: Why ? Shri T. Husain (Bihar): There is the Department of Parliamentary Affairs. Dr. Ambedkar: The Department of Parliamentary Affairs has nothing to do with the Law Ministry ; it is quite separate from it. I should like to say that in the Law Ministry there are only three draftsmen. I have pressed on the Finance Ministry the necessity of increasing the number of draftsmen ; but I have failed. Shri Kamath: A Deputy Minister ? Dr. Ambedkar: A Deputy Minister cannot do anything in this matter, because no Minister can do drafting. The House also will remember the amount of legislation that is being put forth before it ever since the Constitution came into existence. I believe, I am speaking from memory, that in each session there are something like 30 or 40 Bills which are presented. Some of them are (carried) through and some of them are left over. Out of those that are left over, some are converted into Ordinances and the House again sits to convert the Ordinances into laws. Now, it might well be imagined whether it is possible for three draftsmen to draft 40 or 50 Bills for each session, and yet have spare time for doing something else. That is a point which I think the House should consider in judging the work. Shri P. Y. Deshpande (Madhya Pradesh) : Who is responsible for there being only three ? Shrimati Durgabai: May I ask a question ? Is it only a question of drafting or changing the substance of the laws ? Dr. Ambedkar: I am coming to that; please do not be in a hurry. Therefore, the normal work of the Law Ministry is so heavy and it is very difficult to cope with it. The adaptation work

378 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES is something abnormal and something that is new that has been thrown upon the Law Ministry. There has been no expansion of the staff to cope with this new work. That is one point which I think the House will remember when criticising the Law Ministry for not completing the work of adaptation. The work of adaptation obviously fails into two categories. There are adaptations which are merely of a formal character. For instance, in the existing laws, the expression used is ‘Provincial Government’. Today, the expression that is used for the corresponding, purpose is “State Government”. These are formal amendments. These amendments have already been carried out and I do not think any part of that work remains. But, the other part of the adaptation work, namely, making substantial modifications in the existing laws in order to bring them into conformity with the provisions of the Constitution is a totally different business from the formal kind of adaptation to which I have referred. Now, let us consider how it is possible to proceed methodically with regard to making modifications of a substantial character in the existing laws of the country, in order that they may be brought into conformity with the provisions of the Constitution. Obviously there must be some officer somewhere at the Centre whose duty it would be to, what we call, note on the Acts in the various States and Acts made by the Centre, in order to ascertain for himself whether there is anything in any of the existing laws—whether they are made by the Centre or by the Provinces—which he thinks at the initial stage requires consideration from the point of view of adaptation. After that work is done, the matter may come to the Law Ministry for further examination whether there is any substance in the note made by that particular officer. There again the matter cannot end. Obviously, there must be further correspondence between the Law Ministry and the Law officers in the States in order to find out whether they agree with the view that certain of their laws are inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution. If they agree, well and good; action may be taken. But, if they do not agree, then, obviously, the matter has to be referred to the Advocate