Vol. 15 · pages 81–85

64 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES the position under that part of the Constitution is. But so far as the Constitution is concerned and the relation of Hyderabad State to the Centre is concerned, this, I submit, would be a matter falling within law and order which is absolutely a States subject. * The Minister of Law (Dr. Ambedkar): Sir, I am grateful to you for the second opportunity which you have given to me to clarify and to explain further the points that were made by me as well as by other Members of this House in the course of the debate that took place yesterday on the adjournment motion. Since you have been good enough to point out to me, before I commenced my remarks, the difficulties which you feel, I will follow the line of points which you have to set out: I will first of all try and explain the Constitutional position of the States on the one hand and the Centre on the other and to what extent the States are free and independent of the Centre, to what extent they are under the subservience or surveillance or superintendence or control of the Centre. The first thing I would like to draw the attention of the House to is this that there is a certain amount of parallelism in the constitutional frame-up of the Central Government and of the States. For instance, with regard to the Central Government you have article 53 which says that the executive power of the Union shall be vested in the President. Corresponding to that article, you have article 154 which states that the executive power in the States shall be vested in the Governor or the Rajpramukh, as the case may be. Coming to the question of actual administration, article 74 of the Constitution provides that there shall be a Council of Minister to aid and advise the President in the matter of the exercise of the executive authority which is vested in him by the Constitution. Analogous to that article, we have also * P.D., Vol. 2, Part II, 8th March 1950, pp. 1236-44.

65PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES article 163 which relates to the States. It also is worded in the same language as article 74. It says that there shall also be a Council of Ministers to aid and advise the Governor in the carrying out of the administration which is vested in the Governor, or the Rajpramukh. Then we have another article, 79 which vests the legislative power of the Centre in Parliament consisting of two Houses. Analogous to that, we have article 168 constituting a legislature for the States in almost the same terms except for the fact that in some cases there are two Houses and in other cases there is one House. There is a further provision, namely, that where at the commencement of the Constitution there does not exist any popularly constituted legislature in any States, then the Rajpramukh of that State shall be deemd to be legally the legislature for that State. It will therefore be seen that the paraphernalia, so to say, of administration in accordance with the Constitution is parallel in both cases. Supplementing this by what I stated yesterday that the legislative authority of Parliament is primarily confined to subjects enumerated in List I, and the legislative authority of the States is confined to subjects mentioned in List II, with the further proposition—to which there can be no objection raised because it is a well-established judicial proposition—that the legislative authority is co-extensive with executive authority, it follows that so far as the States are concerned, primarily and fundamentally they occupy an independent position in the Constitution. That being so, it is quite clear that by the rule of comity and also by the rule governing responsibility, it would not be open to this House to discuss any matter, either in the form of legislation or in the form of administrative action, which has been taken by the State which lies within the ambit of subjects mentioned in List II. As I stated yesterday, so far as I can understand the subject-matter of the Adjournment Motion relates primarily to law and order. Law and order is a subject which is included in List II and therefore, it would not be open to this House to discuss such a question when the Legislature of the State is competent by the rule of the Constittuion to deal with it. That I think is a general proposition which must be accepted.

66 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES I should like, if hon. Members want to see the thing in a clear light to ask them to compare the provisions of article 239 with the provisions of the article to which I have referred in regard to the States. Article 239 refers to States in Part C ; they are what are called “Centrally Administered Areas”. The language of article 239 is absolutely different from the language of article 154. The language of article 154 is that the executive power, which also includes administration, vests in the Governor, while article 239 begins by saying that the States in Part C shall be administered by the President, which means “President on the advice of his Council of Ministers”, which in turn means that the responsibility for any matter of administration so far as States in Part C are concerned, directly falls upon Parliament and upon the Central Government. It is therefore open for any Member to discuss any matter relating to States in Part C on the floor of the House, which would not be the case so far as the other States are concerned. With regard to the States, I should also like to point out that although our Constitution divides the States in Part A and Part B for certain purposes, that is for the purposes to which I have referred, namely the frame of their constitution, the vesting of the executive authority, the authority to make law, and all that, they are on a parallel footing and there is complete parity. True enough that the Consitution contains an article, article 238, which applies with certain modifications, the articles which apply to States in Part A to States in Part B. But anyone who has the curiosity to examine the provisions of article 238 will find that the changes made in the articles which are applicable to States in Part A in their application to States in Part B are of a very minor character—substituting “Governor” for “Rajpramukh” etc. a sort of terminological difference. Beyond that there is no difference at all. Therefore, from that point of view, just as it would not be competent for this House to discuss any matter falling within the jurisdiction of States in Part A, it would also not fall within the jurisdiction of the House to discuss any matter relating to Part B States because both of them, as I said, are placed by the Constitution on the same footing.

67PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES At this stage I would like to endorse what the Hon. the Home Minister has said just now. The mere fact that the Nizam is a Rajpramukh, the mere fact that there is no legislature, the mere fact that certain officers have been lent by the Home Ministry to the Nizam for carrying on the administration of the State, would not alter the character of the Hyderabad State being exactly on the same footing as other States in Part B, which is the same thing as being equivalent to States in Part A. I shall have to say something at a later stage by way of a small qualification, but I should like to say that the mere fact that the officers have been lent would not alter the status and the character or position of the Hyderabad State within the field of the Constitution. Now, this is the general proposition, namely that the States in Part A as well as the States in Part B are free and independent of the Centre in the matter of executive authority, in the matter of legislative authority and in the mode and manner of administering the legislative and executive authority that they possess. This is the general proposition. The question that we have now to consider is the provision contained in article 371, and the question is: does the provision of this article make any change in the position of States in Part B ? Because, as everyone knows, article 371 applies only to States in Part B and does not apply to States in Part A. In the course of the debate yesterday, I found that one hon. Member said that the Central Government possess no authority to issue any directions to the States except under emergency provisions, which gave me the impression that in his view article 371 could not be the foundation for the Ministry of States or the Government of India to issue directions to States in Part B. With all respect, I submit that I cannot accept that position. To explain the matter fully, the Centre has the power to issue 352 directions under the Constitution to the various States, under four different articles. The first is article which is what is called an emergency article arising out of war or internal aggression and things of that sort. The second article which permits the Centre to issue directions to the States is article 360 which deals with financial emergency; when the President is

68 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES satisfied that the credit of the State is in jeopardy he can declare a state of financial emergency and under that article he can issue certain directions to the States. The third article is article 356 which is called a breakdown article. When the President finds that the Constitution in any particular State is not being carried on in accordance with the provisions contained therein, then also, the President issues certain directions to see that the Constitution is carried on in accordance with its provisions. Then comes the last Article, Article 371, which is the supervisory Article. It has to be understood that Articles 352, 360 and 356 are, in a general sense, emergency articles, that is to say, they can be invoked for the purpose of giving directions to the States only when certain circumstances arise and the President is satisfied that those circumstances have arisen. Pandit Kunzru (Uttar Pradesh) : May I ask the Hon. Minister of Law whether he has made this observations with reference to Article 371 also? Dr. Ambedkar: No, I am taking it separately. I am trying to point out the distinction between the provisions contained in Article 371 on the one hand and Articles 352, 360 and 356 on the other. As I said, these latter Articles are emergency Articles. They are not Articles which deal with normal administration in normal times. Circumstances must justify their invocation. The second thing with regard to them is that they apply to States in Part B to the same extent, in the same degree and in the same manner as they apply States in Part A, provided of course, that the emergency has arisen. Article 371 stands on a different footing. It does not require an emergency. It can be used in normal times. That is one feature of distinction. The other feature of distinction is that it applies only to States in Part B. It does not apply to States in Part A. Therfore, in my judgment it is not correct to say that the Central Government must use either Article 352 which is an emergency Article, or Article 360, or Article 356, to issue directions to States in Part B. ( Pandit Kunzru : Hear, hear). Independently of these three Articles, the Centre has the power to issue directions to States in Part B under Article 371.