Vol. 15 · pages 511–515

494 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES Shri J. R. Kapoor : That is what my amendment seeks to provide for. Dr. Ambedkar : I am coming to that. Therefore, it may be open to contention that article 330, which directs that representation shall be on the basis of population may not apply to Scheduled Castes which do not fall within the definition in clause (24) of article 366. That being so, it is necessary to make a separate provision for that. That is my reply to Mr. Kapoor’s point. With regard to the point raised by Pandit Munishwar Datt Upadhyay, article 82 is worded in the widest sense. It says: “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 Schedule……”. My submission is this: That this power is so wide that in making provision for the representation in the House of the People of Part C States it is certainly open to Parliament to say that so many seats shall be allotted to the scheduled castes and so many seats shall be general seats. I cannot understand what more he wants by way of specific provision. If in making provision for the representation in the House of the People of any Part C State Parliament decides that there shall be a certain reservation for scheduled castes, then my submission is that it carries with it an implied power also to set out who are the scheduled castes. Shri J. R. Kapoor: May I say one word? Mr. Speaker : By way of reply? Shri J. R. Kapoor: I do not know whether I have a right to reply. Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Member thinks over the reply given by the Hon. the Law Minister just now, he will perhaps agree not to press his amendment. Shri J. R. Kapoor : I will make one small submission and then seek your guidance on the subject. Mr. Speaker : Let me repeat what I have understood, so that he may point out in the submission he makes whether I have committed any mistake in understanding the position.

495PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES The Hon. the Law Minister—he will correct me if I am wrong—has pointed out the difficulty, in the interpretation o the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes, which is possible and then it may land us into a very inconvenient, position The terms “Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes” an defined in article 366 (24) and (25). Now, that definition specifically mentions the castes and tribes that are to be deemed as scheduled castes or tribes under specific articles 341 and 342 with the result that possibly, so far as Part C states are concerned, it may be contended that what you cal scheduled castes as defined by Parliament cannot be recognised as scheduled castes under the Constitution. In as much as article 330 gives a general direction so far as the scheduled castes under the Constitution are concerned, the cases of Part C States scheduled caste representation are not covered by article 330. Is that the intention? Dr. Ambedkar: Yes; that is so. Mr. Speaker: If that is so, then his further argument is that “ let there be a superfluity, if you so call it, but why not make the position sure? ” Therefore, even if it is assumed that the legislation is a superfluity, let us have it, so that no legal technicality might come in the way of the representation o the scheduled castes. He wants to make that position quite clear and leave nothing to the ingenuity of the lawyers or technicalities of law. Shri J. R. Kapoor: Sir, the argument of the Hon Dr. Ambedkar is plausible enough indeed. Mr. Speaker : If that is so, let there be no reply. Shri J. R. Kapoor: The definition of scheduled castes and scheduled tribes in article 366 is not an absolute definition This definition has to be read along with the preamble or the introductory words of article 366 which run thus : “In this Constitution, unless the context otherwise requires, the following expressions have the meaning hereby respectively assigned to them...” Obviously, therefore, the context of article 330 does not fit in with this definition of scheduled castes and scheduled tribes.

496 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES The context of article 330 obviously means that there shall be reservation of seats for the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes in the House of the People. Therefore, these definitions should not be taken at their face value. Mr. Speaker : I may point out to the hon. Member that the position may be said to be left in doubt and uncertain in the Constitution. That is why we are going to have special legislation. Shri J. R. Kapoor: What about the second point? Can we fix a number, and not go by the formula of clause (2) of article 330? Mr. Speaker: If the argument is conceded that it is desirable, as a matter of safety, to have a special definition of scheduled castes for the purpose of representation in Part C States, the other thing follows automatically. The two go together. You cannot rely upon that definition for one purpose and still reject it for another. Shri. J. R. Kapoor: Is it your ruling or your view that it is open to Parliament to reserve seats for any particular section of the community unless it is specifically provided for in the Constitution? If it is not so provided, can we do it? Mr. Speaker: In the first place that question does not arise. It is a problematical one and the Chair should not be called upon to go on interpreting it. The matter is very clear. We are not going into the wider question of interpretation of the Constitution. Dr. Deshmukh : Have you considered the objection raised by Mr. Deshpande which relates to section 6 of the representation of the People Act by which the number is to be determined by the President and not by Parliament? Mr. Speaker: We are again in the same vicious circle. The interpretation of that is practically based on the same view of the article. I think we need not go into that. The discussions are no doubt very interesting and involve very interesting and very good points of legislation. But let us legislate as common people, going by common sense.

497PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES About the hon. Member’s amendment, I shall put it to the House. Shri J. R. Kapoor : If that be your view, it need not be put. Mr. Speaker : He need not depend on my view, it may be a mistaken one. Shri J. R. Kapoor : No. Sir, I go by your superior wisdom, particularly in the matter of law. I beg leave of the House to withdraw the amendment. The amendment was, by leave, withdrawn. Mr. Speaker : The question is : “ That clause 2 stand part of the Bill. ” The motion was adopted. Clause 2 was added to the Bill. Clause 3.—(Addition of Sixth and Seventh Schedules etc. ) Mr. Speaker: I find a number of amendments here making small corrections, perhaps of spelling or putting the names in proper order. For instance there is one substituting “Adi-Dharmi”. It is a pure mistake of spelling. That will be corrected. Is it necessary to have it as an amendment ? Dr. Ambedkar: Sir, I am pressed to say that in clause 3, in the proposed Sixth schedule, under the heading ‘Delhi’ in entry No. 14, after the word “Dhanak” the words “or Dhanuk” be inserted—If that satisfies some Members. Mr. Speaker: That is amendment No. 4 in the list, by Mr. Chandrika Ram. Dr. Ambedkar: Mine is No. 5 in the list. Anybody’s may be taken. Mr. Speaker: I would take the amendment about “Adi Dharmi” also. Mr. Chandrika Ram’s amendment No. 2 is what the Hon, the Law Minister is accepting as his No. 3. Shri J. R. Kapoor: In a different form that is “Ad Dharmi ”. The correct expression is “Adi-Dharmi”. Shri Chandrika Ram (Bihar): It should be “Adi-Dharmi”.

498 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES Dr. Ambedkar : I am prepared to accept his amendment. Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. Member Mr. Chandrika Ram accept the Law Minister’s version in regard to his amendment No. 4? Some Hon. Members: Both are the same. Mr. Speaker: I think the hon. Minister’s amendment (No. 5) is better than Mr. Chandrika Ram’s amendment (No. 4). And I think amendment No. 7 by the Law Minister is also better in form than No. 6 of Mr. Chandrika Ram. Dr. Deshmukh: I want amendment No. 8 of mine. Dr. Ambedkar: I have examined the list and I have also consulted authority. Those contained in No. 8 have never been part of the Schedule. I do not accept amendment No. 8. Amendments made : In clause 3, in the proposed Sixth Schedule, under the heading ‘Delhi’, in entry No. 1, for “ Adharmi ” substitute “Adi-Dharmi”. —[Shri Chandrika Ram ] In clause 3, in the proposed Sixth schedule, under the heading ‘Delhi’ in entry No. 14, after “Dhanak” insert “or Dhanuk”. —[Dr. Ambedkar ] In clause 3, in the proposed Sixth schedule, under the heading ‘Delhi’ in entry No. 34. after “Rehgarh” insert “or Raighar”. —[Dr. Ambedkar ] Dr. Deshmukh: I beg to move: In clause 3, in the proposed Sixth Schedule, under the heading ‘Delhi’, at the end, add new entries: “40. Nai (Barber). 41. Dhiwar (fisherman)”. While replying to my speech the hon. the Law Minister referred to my being discontented with Government. From the recent speech that he made it appears that he is also not too pleased with the Government of which he himself is a part. Shri Sidhva: Are barbers untouchables? Dr. Deshmukh: I am bringing this amendment on the strength of a representation that has been made to me. Secondly, in the list which was referred to by the Hon. the Law Minister— which is a notification by the Federal Public Service Commiossion, India, dated the 12th March 1949— these two castes are included.