Vol. 15 · pages 61–65

44 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES the proper thing for him would be to bring in a resolution before the House and say that all laws relating to insolvency may be abolished. Shri Biswanath Das: May I state that I never said that the Insolvency Law is not necessary. All that I said is this law is unnecessary, undesirable and breeds immorality into society. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Yes, therefore not necessary. However with regard to the point made by Dr. Punjabrao Deshmukh he is not here—I was somewhat surprised when he said that the Bill ought to be circulated. He has accepted a place on the Select Committee and I am sure about it that the two positions are quite inconsistent. I do not wish to say anything more about what he has said. With regard to the point Shrimati Durgabai, namely that the Bill should have retrospective effect, I was bound to make a reference to it because I had induced her to withdraw her own Bill on a promise that when I bring my Bill I will say something about her Bill also. But as to the substance of it, as I say I feel a certain amount of doubt and difficulty, and I cannot very readily say in this House that I shall accept the proposition that the Bill should have retrospective effect. In fact one of the friends on the bench there who spoke said something which has a great deal of force and we must be very careful in giving retrospective effect to a measure of this sort. Now coming to the point made by my friend Professor Ranga—he of course has the habit of entering into subjects which undoubtedly he himself will acknowledge are not his own—I am prepared to modify his argument and to give it some sort of a shape so that it might appear respectable. Now if I understand correctly, what he said was that there was a difference between the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act and the Provincial Insolvency Act, inasmuch as one contained a clause or a section like 6 and 52 while the other did not. One could infer from what he said that the legislature in passing the law had different intensions from the very beginning that while they intended that since interest must pass to the Official Assignee under section 52 when the father

45PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES became insolvent, the legislature has no such intention when they passed the Provincial Insolvency Act. I think my friend Professor Ranga, not being a lawyer, has not understood the position correctly. If he refers to the definition of the term ‘property’ to which I made reference, he will see that in both the laws, provincial as well as Presidency Towns, the definition of ‘property’ is just the same. There is no difference at all. In both cases the phraseology as property or power. The difference is that under section 52, the official assignee can pursue property, but somehow there being an omission in the Provincial Insolvency Act, he has no right to pursue that property. Therefore, there is no doubt about it that this must have been a very inadvertent omission. If the legislature did not intend that the father’s righ to dispose of the property of his son under the Provincial Insolvency Act should not accrue to the official assignee, the definition of the term ‘property’ in the Provincial Insolvency Act would be very different to what it is now, and therefore, I submit with all respect to my friend that his point really has no substance. Sir, I move. Mr. Speaker: The question is : That the Bill further to amend the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920, be referred to a Select Committee consisting of Shri Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar, Dr. Bakshi Tek Chand, Shrimati G. Durgabai, Dr. P. S. Deshmukh, Shri M. Ananthasayanam Ayyangar, Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava, Mr. Naziruddin Ahmed, Shri Ram Sahai and the Mover, with instructions to report on or before the 16th March 1948, and that the number of members whose presence shall be necessary to constitute a meeting of the Committee shall be five.” The motion was adopted.

46 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES (7) *RESOLUTION RE. EXTENSION OF PERIOD MENTIONED IN SECTIONS 2 AND 3 OF INDIA (CENTRAL GOVERNMENT AND LEGISLATURE) ACT, 1946 AS ADAPTED. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar (Minister for Law): Sir I move : “In persuance of the proviso to section 4 of the India (Central Government and Legislature) Act, 1946, as adapted by the India (Provisional Constitution) Order, 1947, this Assembly hereby approves the extension of the period mentioned in sections 2 and 3 of the said Act for a further period of twelve months commencing on the first day of April, 1948.” Now, Sir, it is not necessary for me to enter upon a very lengthy discussion in support of this resolution. It will suffice if I tell the House that the Central Legislature has passed various legislations imposing controls on commodities, requisitioning land, and so on, matters which are purely in the Provincial List. This power the Centre was able to exercise because of the proclamation of emergency which was issued by the Governor-General when the war broke out: and as the House knows, since the proclamation is issued by the Governor-General the Central Legislature gets the necessary power to make any order or to pass any law notwithstanding the fact that the subject falls in the Provincial Legislative List. It is also provided in the Government of India Act that this power of legislating upon provincial subjects would disappear six months after the Proclamation of emergency has been withdrawn. Now this power was exhausted in the year 1946. The Government of the day felt that although technically the emergency had disappeared, yet factually there did exist a certain urgency for the controls imposed by the Central Legislature to be continued. There was no * C.A. (Leg.) D., Vol. II, 25th February 1948, pp. 1228-29.

47PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES method by which the Central after the emergency had ended, could get the power to keep the controls alive and therefore, the Central Legislature approached the British Parliament which was then the only authority which could confer such power on the Central Legislature to make due provision in this matter, and Parliament, as the House will remember in 1946 passed an Act called the India (Central Government and Legislature) Act, 1946. Section 2 of that Parliamentary statute permitted the Dominion Legislature make laws with regard to the matters which it had done during that emergency. But what the parliamentary Statute did was that it gave the power to the Central Legislature one year only in the first instance. Under the provisions of that Act, the Central Legislature passed Acts called the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946 and the Requisitioned Land (Continuance of Powers) Act, 1947. That law was passed in 1946. Under the Parliamentary Statute it continued in existence for one year ; that is up to 1947. Now, Section 4 of the Parliamentary Statute as I said provided that the Centre could exercise these powers for one year. It also provided that the power could be extended by another year if the Governor-General so certified. Consequently those two Acts to which I made reference were continued in existence by another year by the fiat of the GovernorGeneral and we are now exercising those powers under that extension effected by the Governor-General. Now, under the extension effected by the Governor-General, these would continue up to 31st March 1948. The various Departments of the Government of India have been consulted in this matter in order to ascertain whether they could do without these controls after the 31st March 1948. I believe that almost all the Departments who are charged with the administrative control feel that they need at least one year more to continue these controls. As I said, section 4 of the Parliamentary Statute gave the power for one year in the first instance, in the second instance one year on the fiat of the Governor-General, and thereafter

48 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES by a Resolution of this House. The position, therefore, is this, that unless this House passes a Resolution extending that power, these powers will come to an end on the 31st March 1948. As the House will remember, I am only a Law Minister, I have no administrative responsibilities for the affairs of the Government of India, and I am therefore not in a position to answer any questions if they are asked as to whether in fact this extension is necessary, but I can tell the House that all the Departments are agreed that this extension is necessary, and I hope that the House will accept the view of the Departments of the Government of India and pass this Resolution. I have taken the precaution of calling my friend Dr. Syama Prasad Mookerjee to be by my side in order to reply any questions requiring detailed particulars with regard to the necessity of a provision of this sort. Sir I move. Mr. Speaker: Resolution moved: “In pursuance of the proviso to section 4 of the India (Central Government and Legislature) Act, 1946, as adapted by the India (Provisional Constitution) Order, 1947, this Assembly hereby approves the extension of the period mentioned in sections 2 and 3 of the said Act for a further period of twelve months commencing on the first day of April, 1948.”