Vol. 15 · pages 446–450

429PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES With regard to the Scheduled Tribes, we have selected Manipur and Vindhya Pradesh. There again, it does not seem that the reservation of seats to the Scheduled Tribes would cause any injustice to the general population. Manipur has got two seats. It is proposed in this Bill to reserve one to the Scheduled Tribes as you know the population of Scheduled Tribes in Manipur is very large. Secondly, we propose to give one seat to the Scheduled Tribes in Vindhya Pradesh which has got six seats. The rest of the States will have no representation either for the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes. Now, I come to the question of the Schedule of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. I might say that in this mater I have really no opinion of my own. These castes have been supplied to us by the Home Department and the Census Commissioner who has made a most recent investigation into the matter. [SHRIMATI DURGABAI in the Chair ] I hope that the list that is given in the Bill is an exhaustive one and that no important community which can be included either in the Scheduled Castes or in the Scheduled Tribes has been omitted. If any hon. Member draws my attention to any omission or to any addition of a community which ought not to be there, I have an open mind and I shall certainly consider any suggestion made to me on that account. I do not think that there is anything more that requires explanation. With these words, Madam, I commend my motion to the House. Mr. Chairman: Motion moved : “That the Bill further to amend the Representation of the People Act, 1950 be taken into consideration.” Shri J. R. Kapoor (Uttar Pradesh): I have listened to the speech just made by the Hon. Law Minister with attention. I have also carefully read the Statement of Objects and Reasons of this Bill, and I have also carefully persued the various clauses of this Bill, But I must confess that I have not been able to appreciate the necessity of this Bill.

430 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES Shri Sonavane (Bombay): You will never. Shri J. R. Kapoor: To me, the Bill appears to be an absolutely unnecessary one. I am afraid, the valuable time that will be spent in the consideration of this Bill could have been more appropriately devoted to the consideration of the many other important Bills that are pending before us. I will just explain why I say so and I hope I will be able easily to bring conviction to my hon. friend who has somewhat impatiently interrupted me. We are hard-pressed for time and I consider it not only unfair but improper that we should be called upon to indulge in this sort of luxury legislation, if I may say so. What is it, after all, that this Bill seeks to provide? It seeks to provide, firstly, reservation of seats for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes on the House of the People. Secondly, it seeks to provide for specification of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. If I draw the attention of the House to Article 330 of the Constitution, it will be apparent that the Constitution itself specifically provides for reservation of seats for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Article 330 states : “(1) Seats shall be reserved in the House of the People for— ( a) the Scheduled Castes; ( b) the Scheduled Tribes except the Scheduled Tribes in the tribal areas of Assam; and ( c) the Scheduled Tribes in the autonomous districts of Assam.” Para. (2) of Article 330 runs as follows :— “(2) The number of seats reserved in any State”— Not in a Part A State or Part B State, but in any State which obviously includes Part C States also— “for the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes under clause (1) shall bear, as nearly as may be, the same proportion to the total number of seats allotted to that State...” I need not read the rest. My contention is that this article 330 specifically provides that seats for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes shall be reserved in the House of the People in respect of any State. This word ‘State’ has been defined in Article 1 of the Constitution which reads thus : “1. (1) India, that is, Bharat, shall be a Union of States.

431PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (2) The States and the territories thereof shall be the States and their territories specified in Parts A, B and C of the First Schedule.” Therefore, Madam, it should be obvious that Article 330 read with Article 1 does specifically provide for reservation of seats in the House of the People for Part C States also. Mr. Chairman: For the hon. Member’s guidance, Article 330 covers only Part A and Part B States. The Constitution does not provide specifically for the Part C States. Shri J. R. Kapoor: My contention is that Article 330 is not confined to Parts A and B States, but it extends its provisions to any State and according to the definition of ‘State’ in article 1, a Part C State is also covered. Therefore, my contention is that Article 330 is obviously wide enough to cover all States, Parts A, B and C. Therefore, Madam, there is absolutely no necessity for bringing forward a Bill specifically again providing for the reservation of seats for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes in respect of the Part C States. And then, Madam, I find from the Bill that it seeks not only to make this unnecessary provision for the reservation of seats in respect of the Part C States, but it goes further and even fixes the number of members who should be elected to fill up the reserved seats. According to clause 2 of the Bill we are asked to agree to a new section, section 3A which runs thus : “Of the seats in the House of the People allotted under section 3 to each of the States of Delhi, Himachal Pradesh and Vindhya Pradesh, one shall be reserved for the Scheduled Castes; and of the seats so allotted to each of the States of Manipur and Vindhya Pradesh, one shall be reserved for the Scheduled Tribes.” Now, that means that we are called upon to commit ourselves for all times, unless of course amending legislation is brought forward before the House to give one seat and no more and no less than one—of course there cannot be less, than one—to the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes of Part C States. In respect of Part A and the Part B States we may remember we have not specified either in the Constitution or in any Bills we have passed so far in respect

432 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES of the representation or election of Members to the House of the People, as to how many seats shall be allotted to the Scheduled Tribes and how many to the Scheduled Castes. No doubt sub-clause (2) of Article 330 gives us the formula for the reservation of the seats, that it shall be in accordance with the population of the Scheduled Castes and Tribes in that State. That is reasonable, logical and understandable. But here it is sought to specifically fix the number. Obviously, in the case of Parts A and B States this calculation is presumably left to be done by the Election Commissioner. But here the Hon. Law Minister wants to arrogate to himself or to this House this function which normally, in the case of the Part A and Part B States has been vested in the Election Commissioner. I do not grudge the arrogating to this House of this right. But I feel that this is a wrong way of legislation. Suppose five years later, the number of the Scheduled Tribes and the Scheduled Castes increases in all these Part C States it becomes very much more than their present strength and they require according to Article 330 much more than the one or two seats that you are now providing here, what will happen? They will then be entitled to more seats but the present Bill will stand in the way. Therefore, I submit that this is an ill-conceived clause which is being incorporated here, which first of all unnecessarily asks us to reserve the seats and then makes us commit ourselves to a specific number of seats. The second thing that this Bill seeks to provide for is to specify the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes who should be taken into consideration for the purpose of determining how many reserved seats should be provided for. Here also, I must submit that ample provision is made in the Constitution itself whereby merely by a notification of the President this thing could well be done. Article 341 provides that: “The President may, after consulation with the Governor or Rajpramukh of a state, by public notification, specify the Castes, races or tribes or parts of or groups within castes, races or tribes which shall for the purposes of this Constitution be deemed to be Scheduled Castes in relation to that State.” Similarly article 342 relates to a notification in respect of Scheduled Tribes. Of course, it might be said that in Part C States you have neither a Rajpramukh nor a Governor to be

433PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES consulted by the President. But to that my reply is that, visualising some such difficulty in the working of the Constitution, a specific article—Article 392—has already been incorporated in the Constitution itself which says : “The President may, for the purpose of removing any difficulties, particularly in relation to the transition from the provisions of the Government of India Act, 1935, to the provisions of this Constitution, by order direct that this Constitution shall, during such period as may be specified in the order, have effect subject to such adaptations, whether by way of modification, addition or omission, as he may deem to be necessary or expedient:” Therefore all the words, “addition”, “omission” and “modification” are there. Therefore, I say that immediately any such difficulty is experienced, the President may be requested to issue a notification under article 341 adapted or modified by article 392, saying that for the purpose of reservation of seats for Scheduled Tribes and the Scheduled Castes, the following castes shall be considered as Scheduled Castes and the following tribes shall be considered as Scheduled Tribes. Therefore, I submit that this Bill is unnecessary. The provision relating to reservation of seats is already there and the specification of the Scheduled Tribes and the Scheduled Castes could be done by a notification by the President. I therefore, submit that this Bill may very well be withdrawn and no more time need be spent over its consideration. The question, however, may arise as to why the Law Minister, an intelligent man that he is and an eminent jurist as he is should have taken to this unnecessary course of coming forward with an absolutely unnecessary piece of legislation. An Hon. Member: Teek hai (It is true). Shri J. R. Kapoor : I am obliged to my hon. Friend for giving me such encouragement and support. I have been at pains to find out what could be the reason for the Law Minister to come before us with such an unnecessary piece of legislation. I could find very easily the reason. About two days ago I read in the papers a speech which he delivered while laying the foundation stone of a building. He had the boldness, indeed very great boldness to...