Vol. 15 · pages 486–490

469PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES there seems to be little reason why this legislation should be brought forth. Article 341 of the Constitution specifically mentions that: “(1) The President may, after consultation 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 a provision has been made in article 342 with regard to the Scheduled Caste. I want to know what is the necessity of introducing such a measure when the President is empowered, vide article 341 and 342, to do so by a public Notification. If article 330 provides for any such legislation for the Scheduled Castes then that legislation has already been enacted and in case it does not provide for one, the Constitution does not indicate any necessity of enacting such a legislation. Therefore as the hon. Member speaking before me said, this Bill is superfluous. That is why I would like the Hon. Minister to pay his attention to this legal intricacy so that it may not give rise to any legal clash later on in the Supreme Court. The Hon. Minister is an eminent legal expert and as such is in a better position to study the situation, that this legislation does involve legal complexities. I hope he will throw light upon the subject and, if necessary, either amend the Bill accordingly or withdraw it after its consideration because, as Shri Deshbandhu Gupta said and the representative of Vindhya Pradesh also supported him there seems to be no such condition that the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes will get representation only by enacting such a legislation. Representation will be provided to them even in the absence of any such measure. It is my duty to draw the attention of the House to the legal intricacies involved in the present Bill. The second thing is that the Hon. Minister may take recourse to article 82 of the Constitution. It states : “Notwithstanding anything in clause (1) of article 81, Parliament may by law provide for the representation in the House of the People of any State specified in Part C of the First Scheduled or of any territories comprised within the territory of India but not included within any State on a basis or in a manner other than that provided in that clause.”

470 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES Parliament have the power to enact such legislation under the above article and they have already enacted one Clause 2 of article 330 clearly states that the number of seats allotted by the President to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes will be in proportion to the population, Under such circumstances, I think there was no necessity of any Bill like this one. What is needed now is that this intricacy should be removed. As far as I could understand, the Hon. Minister has not stated anything to that effect and, therefore, I have drawn the attention of the House to this issue. Besides this, I would also invite the attention of the Hon. Minister to the fact that when the Peoples Representation. Bill was moved here, the population of Vindhya Pradesh was nearly 33 lacs. Then a population of about two and a half lacs to three lacs was included within the bordering territories in accordance with the Enclaves Merger Act. At that time six seats were agreed upon to be allotted to Vindhya Pradesh. Now that the census has taken place. I am told the population of Vindhya Pradesh has increased by five lacs. Under these circumstances, I believe Vindhya Pradesh has every right to claim for more seats to be allotted to it. I will therefore, make a couple of important suggestions. Firstly, it should be considered, if possible, as to how these two seats should be allotted. It would be better that decision in this respect may be taken after having consultation with the Delimitation Committee for Vindhya Pradesh. In view of the fact that the population of Vindhya Pradesh has increased by five lacs, the number of seats allotted to it should also be increased by one by bringing an amendment to the Peoples Representation Bill. With these words I support this Bill. (Translation concluded) Dr. Parmar (Himachal Pradesh): I rise not only to support this Bill but also to congratulate the Government for giving representation to the scheduled castes and tribes in Part C States. It has been said in this House that this Bill has been brought by the Law Minister unnecessarily and for certain other extraneous reasons. I must, however, contradict this and say that what the Law Minister and the Government of India

471PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES have done in bringing forward this Bill is only an implementation of the policy which has been laid down in the Constitution. Whatever my friends from Delhi and Vindhya Pradesh feel about this matter—and their feeling is that even without this legislation the representation of the scheduled castes and tribes would have been assured in the House of the People— I welcome this measure for certain definite reasons. I can speak with some amount of knowledge as far as Himachal Pradesh is concerned and my feeling is that in spite of all that the Central Government and the other State Governments have done, our machinery is moving so slowly that the schedule castes do not feel that enthusiasm that should have come with the Constitution. And that is all the more reason why we on our part should give a feeling, should give ample proof of our idea, of our determination to see that the scheduled castes do receive a fair deal in the next elections. What is happening in Himachal Pradesh makes it all the more necessary. I do not want to take very much time of the House, but I will just refer to an incident or two to show how very necessary it is to make this provision. It was about four months back— on the 4th January 1951—that the Himachal Pradesh Advisory Council recommended to the Government to introduce, at least extend, the Untoucability Removal Act as it is in force in Uttar Pradesh, to Himachal Pradesh for there are a number of disabilities which the scheduled castes suffer from in those areas. I was surprised to learn from certain quarters in the States Ministry that some of them at least consider that there is hardly any necessity for this measure, for there is no such problem there as in Madras, nor is there such a serious demand from the people that it should be extended. If that is the view which is prevailing in the Central Government too, I am afraid that much that has to be done will remain undone. When I had been to my constituency recently, a section of the scheduled castes, known as kolis, met me there in the interior of Himachal Pradesh in district Sirmur. They narrated to me a recent incident in which some members of that

472 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES scheduled caste of kolis who tried to assemble to consider some problems relating to their betterment were pounced upon by the landlords, fled hand and foot and locked up for about three days. If that is what the scheduled castes are to expect under the new Constitution, I am afraid we have to give the matter a very serious consideration. We have to admit the fact that our machinery has not yet geared itself to this new idea : they are still going along the same old rut and since not one scheduled caste is represented in the whole of the services, this sort of thing is allowed to happen. I was told of this incident not only by those people but also by people who contacted the police and the local congress committee which has taken the matter in hand with a view to doing justice to these people. But the Police feel that they will not be able to prosecute the offenders as no evidence will be forthcoming because those scheduled caste people, who are tenants, have been told that if they give evidence against the landlords, they will be howhere and that their lands will be taken away from them. That is why I feel that they should have representation, so that one of them at least will have a chance of coming here and expressing what they feel about the state of affairs. That will have a reaction on people who have not changed and who do not see the writing on the wall. I personally feel that unless we solve this problem, solve it of course in a spirit of friendship, unless this discrimination is done away with, the social order will go to pieces. I personally feel very strongly on this measure has been brought none too early. Shri P. Y. Deshpande: (Madhya Pradesh) : I wish to draw the attention of the Hon. the Law Minister and of this House to certain legal aspects which have so far escaped notice. This Bill proposes to amend the Representation of the People Act of 1950 and it is brought forward with the object of providing representation to scheduled castes and scheduled tribes. My submission is that this has already been provided for in the Representation of the People Act, 1950. Section 3 of the Act, which is sought to be amended, provides for the

473PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES allocation of seats in the House of the People, and states in sub-section (2) that “to each State specified in the first column of the First Schedule, there shall be allotted the number of seats specified in the second column thereof opposite to that State”. In the First Schedule the seats have been allotted to Part C States also. The question arises, what about the scheduled tribes and the scheduled castes ? Now, that too has been provided for. In section 6 of the Act, in sub-section (2), it is stated, “As soon as may be after the commencement of this Act, the President shall, by order, determine—(a)......(b) ...... (c) ...... and (d) the number of seats, if any, reserved for the scheduled castes or for the scheduled tribes in each constituency.” This section authorises the President to determine reservation even for scheduled castes and scheduled tribes. Therefore, it seems to me that this Bill is altogether unnecessary. There is the Constitutional mandatory provision in article 330. The Representation of the People Act, 1930 goes further—in fact it implements that Constitutional mandate and provides seats for Part C States and also provides for representation to scheduled castes and scheduled tribes. Therefore, it seems to me there is only one matter which is left rather in doubt. And that is the specification of the particular castes and the particular tribes which would be entitled to be recorded as such. That could be done, as it has been done in the case of Part A and B States, by order of the President, not only under articles 330 and 392 of the Constitution but also under section 6 of the Act which is sought to be amended by this Bill. Although, I wholeheartedly agree with the purpose of this Bill—I do want that the scheduled castes and tribes should be represented and all doubts about their representation should be removed. There is no question about that—it seems to me that when a mere order of the President specifying these tribes and castes will do. when such an order could have been placed before Parliament and as in the case of the Part A and B States, it could have been revised, altered or modified by Parliament later on, giving enough time to the people of these States to