Vol. 15 · pages 766–770

747PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES or some other provision might be introduced into the treaty, whereby voluntary transfer of nationality may be made a condition of cession. As it involved citizenship and nationality, the British Government always felt that it was desirable to place before Parliament any treaty though it was made by the prerogative of the king and by virtue of which did not require the sanction of Parliament. It was felt that Parliament should be given a voice in determining the nationality of the people in the territory which was being ceded. The third thing is that under the English law, while it was the prerogative of the king to transfer territory, the treaty by itself could not affect the right of the people. If for the performance of the treaty certain existing laws were abrogated or affected, then the treaty itself was not competent to do it. It required a separate sanction of Parliament to alter those laws which regulated the rights, obligations and liabilities of the people in order to bring them in conformity with the provisions of the treaty. These were the principal reasons why under the English law, although the right to transfer territory was a prerogative of the king, the British Government introduced the practice of placing all such treaties before Parliament for sanction. That is the reason why the Government in this case felt that it was desirable to bring this matter before Parliament and obtain its sanction, because in this very Bill I do not exclude the possibility of Parliament introducing certain changes with regard to the nationality of the people in the territory which is sought to be transferred to a foreign State like Bhutan. These are my submissions with regard to the various points raised. My first submission is that it is not necessary to rely on Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution, because they relate to a different matter. The purpose of this Bill and that of this treaty come under entries 14 and 15 in legislative List No. I of the Seventh Schedule. In my judgment, according to the interpretation put upon the content and the ambit of these two entries, it is sufficient to give authority to Parliament to sanction a measure of this sort.

748 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES Shri Kamath: Before you proceed further, Sir, may I request you to summon the Attorney General to be present here during the course of the debate, as important matters are being raised in the House ? An hon. Member: He is in Australia. Shri Kamath: Is not his Deputy here ? Several Members : rose— Mr. Deputy Speaker: Hon. Members who have already spoken need not rise. They have no right to speak just because the Law Minister has raised certain new points. Dr. Pattabhi (Madras): Several points which are neither in the Bill nor in the statement of Objects and Reasons have now been adduced by the Law Minister and the whole discussion assumes a de movo form, if you have followed it carefully. There was a reference in the Statement of Objects to part (c) under Article 3 of the Constitution. There is the statement of the Law Minister that the Bill has nothing to do with Article 3 of the Constitution. You must reconsider your decision, Sir, and allow a fresh discussion on the matter. Dr. Ambedkar: Article 3 comes in only incidentlly, because the cession of territory cannot be carried out unless until the boundaries of Assam are adjusted. To that extent Article 3 is relevant. Otherwise Article 3 has no relevance. Dr. Pattabhi: You were not present in the House yesterday when certain statements were made Dr. Ambedkar: I am sorry I was not here. If somebody had told me I would have been here. ( Interruption). Article 3 comes in only incidentally. The cession of the territory was the consequence of readjustment of the boundary of Assam. So far as there, there should be reference in Article 3...... Dr. Pattabhi : For which there is no provision in the Act— I mean for cession of territory. Dr. Ambedkar: That is a difference in opinion. Entries 14 and 15 contain, if you want, the basis of action for the union territory.

749PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES Dr. Pattabhi: Then do not quote Article 3. Dr. Ambedkar: Article 3 has been reported in an incidental manner because it has reference to the readjustment of the boundaries of Assam. Shri Kamath: Is it clear then, that the matter at issue is cession and not, as the Prime Minister said yesterday, the adjustment of a boundary dispute ? Dr. Ambedkar: The cession of territory may have been the consequence of a boundary dispute. Where then is the difficulty ? Shri Kamath: Which is the cause and which is the effect?......... Dr. Ambedkar: That I do not know. The administrative department will tell you but I cannot see any difficulty there. Shri R. K. Chaudhuri (Assam): Would you request the Attorney General to be here, Sir ? We are entitled to hear his views. Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Attorney General is in Australia. I do not think it is necessary to hear the Attorney General. The House has heard the Law Minister. ( Interruptions). Order, order. Hon. Members have had ample opportunities to speak. Let others also have the opportunity to speak. Merely because an hon. Member who had the right to speak urged a particular point in favour of a particular proposition, another hon. Member who has already spoken cannot have additional time to speak again. That would be endless. Shri Shiv Charan Lal (Uttar Pradesh) : May I ask one question by way of....... Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not now. Dr. Mookerjee. Dr. S. P. Mookerjee (West Bengal): While rising to speak on this Bill I would like to state at the beginning that I do not wish to dwell at length on the merits of the Bill. Whether a small tract of territory should be given to Bhutan or not is a question which is not immediately before you. I know that what the Prime Minister said yesterday strengthens the

750 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES case of Government and perhaps there may be special reasons why the proposal which Government has made should be implemented. But I take the strongest objection to the extraordinary procedure which is being followed for implementing the wishes of the Government and it took my breath away when I heard the defence of the Law Minister. Of course he said that he was the author of the Constitution—not the sole author...... Dr. Ambedkar: I did not say I was the author but I was one...... Dr. S. P. Mookerjee: He had the largest part to play in the framing of the Constitution. That being so one would have expected that he should have been the first person to defend the sacredness or sanctity of the Constitution. I could have understood a speech like the Law Minister’s from any other Member, even the Home Minister. But so far as the Law Minister is concerned he should have explained very clearly what the implications of the proposal were. The Law Minister referred to certain judgments passed by the Supreme Court of America. After my experience last time while we were discussing the Constitution (Amendment) . Bill, I hesitate to accept the hasty recommendations of the Law Minister unless I can verify...... Dr. Ambedkar: I must protect against this kind of a thing. If my friend is going to challenge a statement that I made then I shall reserve to myself the right to challenge whatever he has stated. I must make it very clear. Dr. S. P. Mookerjee: The Law Minister is protesting too much. Dr. Ambedkar : It is not protesting too much, but I heard you said something the other day when I was not present. Dr. S. P. Mookerjee: You were here, but when I was speaking you had run away. Dr. Ambedkar: You are not such a formidable man as to make me run away.

751PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES Dr. S. P. Mookerjee : So far as Shri Bhim Rao Ambedkar is concerned who can frighten him ? Dr. Ambedkar: I dont’t like these reflections. You have made the statement. I know, I am not here to challenge it but I would...... Mr. Deputy Speaker: Should the hon. Members exchange words like this ? Dr. Ambedkar: No, Sir, it is going too far. It is deliberately saying that I have misquoted and misrepresented. Dr. S. P. Mookerjee: I have not said that. Dr. Ambedkar: I have been eager enough to allow my friend, Mr. Kamath to have the reference to the book and the pages. I do not like these things. I am treating you with great respect—if you won’t do it then I shall descend to your own level. Dr. S. P. Mookerjee : You have descended to your own level. Mr. Deputy Speaker: Both are highly respected Members of Parliament. It was not necessary for the hon. Member to say those things about the last version. The Law Minister may have given his opinion but the hon. member has always got the opportunity of reading the relevant judgment himself. All that I can say is that as far as possible, consistent with their own position in the House, and the position of the House itself, they should meet argument by argument. That is my appeal to hon. Members. Dr. S. P. Mookerjee : I had no desire to wound anybody’s feelings. I said I hesitate to accept the hasty recommendations of the Law Minister. Dr. Ambedkar: There are no recommendations. I said these are the judgments—I quoted the pages. Mr. Deputy Speaker: Hon. Members are aware that from the same book different persons can interpret differently, and therefore, it was open to the hon. Member, Dr. Mookerjee to read it differently.