Vol. 15 · pages 86–90

69PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES Pandit Balkrishna Sharma (Uttar Pradesh): And it is only transitional. Dr. Ambedkar: That is a different matter. The transition has not ended. The Article is in operation and we must therefore take it as it is. Therefore, in my judgment, Article 371 does give the power to the Centre of issuing directions to States in Part B even though there is no emergency. It is an Article which is to be used in normal times. Now, Sir, the question you have been good enough to raise is one which if you will permit me, I would like to take up towards the close. In so far as Article 371 is concerned and in so far as a direction has been issued—I am using my language very deliberately—in so far as Article 371 is concerned and in so far as it has been used for the purpose of issuing a direction to the State Government, it seems to me that there is a possible basis for discussion of that matter by this House. That is my view of the matter. Now, I would like to take up ……………… Mr. Speaker: May I have clarification on one point at this stage? Will the failure to give direction ………. Dr. Ambedkar: I am just coming to that. That is the very point I want to deal with, because that is a very important one, and we must be very clear about it. Pandit Balkrishna Sharma: May I know what direction has been issued under Article 371 ? Dr. Ambedkar: I am coming to that. I am stating the position generally. My. Hon. colleague, the Home Minister will say what direction he has issued. I am not in charge of administration, and I have merely been asked to explain the legal position. Now, Sir, I was trying to find out whether there was any precedent in the past procedure of our Legislature which could help us to come to some definite conclusion on the issue before the House. I have examined the provisions of the Government of India Act, 1919, in order to find out whether there was any ruling which could furnish to us some kind of a precedent.

70 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES As the House will remember, the scheme of the Government of India Act, 1919, was to divide, so far as the Provinces were concerned, the field of administration into two parts: the transferred part and the reserved part. The House will also remember that under the old Government of India Act the superintendence and control of the civil and military Government of India was vested in the Secretary of State in Council. It was also provided that the Governor-General in Council as well as the Governors would carry out their respective duties of administering this country, subject to the power of superintendence and control of the Secretary of State. When the field of administration was demarcated into the reserve and transferred sides in 1919, a rule was made that those subjects which were classified as ‘transferred subjects’ were not to be under the supervisory control either of the Secretary of State or of the Governor-General or of the Governor, because they were administered by Ministers who were responsible to the Legislature. Now, the question that arose under the provisions of the 1919 Act was this : whether it was possible for the Central Legislature to ask a question with regard to the administration in the Provinces. The researches that I have made—and I am grateful to the Secretariat of the Speaker for the help they have rendered me in this connection—show that the then President of the Assembly took the view that in so far as the question related to transferred subjects, he would not allow them, but if they referred to ‘reserved subjects’, he would allow them subjects to the sanction of the Governor-General. You will recollect that such sanction was necessary, because the Assembly worked under both Rules and Standing Orders. The Rules were made by the Governor-General, which sometimes restricted the scope of Standing Orders. Therefore, his permission was necessary. But the principle was conceded that in so far as the administration continued to be under the superintendence, direction and control of the Governors, of the Governor-General and ultimately of the Secretary of State, it was possible for a Member of the Central Legislature to ask a question relating to those subjects and the President, subject to other conditions being fulfilled, would admit that

71PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES question. That is one precedent. Of course, it must not be extended to a field which it did not cover. As I said, it extended only to questions and not to other matters. Now, I come to the Government of India Act, 1935. Probably, some Members of the House will remember that as soon as the Government of India Act, 1935, was passed, certain members of the House of Commons were considerably agitated as to their rights to ask questions to the Secretary of State in Parliament with regard to the administration of India and a question was put to the then Prime Minister, Mr. Chamberlain, in the year 1937. Mr. Chamberlain gave the reply to the effect that since the administration of the country was transferred to agencies in India and to that extent the Secretary of State ceased to possess to have any kind of responsibility for the actual administration, it would not be possible or permissible for Members of Parliament to put any questions to the Secretary of State on those matters. That matter was taken up in the Assembly here immediately after the interpellations had taken place in the House of Commons and a question was put by our old friend Mr. Pande, who was a well-known Member of this Assembly, to the then Law Member, Sir Nripendra Sarcar. I propose to read the answer which Sir Nripendra Sarcar gave, because it is a very illuminating reply and, in my judgment, supports the conclusion to which I have come and to which I have given expression just now The answer of Sir Nripendra Sarcar was this : “(a) The general position is that where the executive and legislative authority are vested under the Act in the provinces, it would not be appropriate for the Central Legislature to discuss those matters. There are likely, however, to be matters in which the Central Legislature may be properly interested, (e.g., a direction under sub-section (1) and (2) of section 126 of the Government of India Act) and thus the prevention of any encroachment on the provincial sphere may well be left to be regulated by the powers vested in the Hon. the President under Rule 7 of the Indian Legislative Rules in regard to questions and in the Governor-General under Rule 22 in regard to the Resolutions.” My submission is this : that the provisions contained in Article 371 are more or less analogous. I do not say they

72 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES are exactly alike to the provisions contained in Section 126 of the Government of India Act. The Act of 1935 vested power in the Governor-General. It says : “The executive authority of the Federation shall extend to the giving of such directions to a province as may appear to the Federal Government to be necessary for that purpose”. Further it says ; “The executive authority of the Federation shall also extend to the giving of directions to a province as to the carrying into execution thereunder any act of the Federal Legislature, etc.” As I said, Section 126 deals with power to give directions to the provinces. Similarly, Article 371 also gives power to Central Government to give directions. As interpreted by my predecessor Sir Nripendra Sarcar, on the basis of the discussions and clarifications that took place previously in the House of Commons, he came to the conclusion that a matter such as the one lying within the purview of section 126 could be discussed in this House. My submission, therefore, is that that opinion of his is a sound one. Shri T. T. Krishnamachari (Madras): May I Sir, suggest to the Hon. the Law Minister to give us his opinion on Section 126 of the Government of India Act vis-a-vis Articles 257(1) and 73(1) proviso of the Constitution. Dr. Ambedkar: I have not considered those sections. If at any other time the point is raised I would be prepared to clarify it. For the time being, it does not seem relevant to the subject we are discussing. Pandit Kunzru: Will the Hon. Law Minister read out Article 371 and tell us whether under it orders can be issued by the Government of India to Governments of the States only in regard to Central (Federal) subjects, or also in regard to subjects included in the State list? Dr. Ambedkar: It is quite clear that Article 371 contemplates issue of directions relating to matters lying within the purview of the State Legislature and the State Executive. It is really in relation to the administration of the States that Article 371 has been drafted. In my mind there is no doubt on the point at all. Now, Sir ……………….

73PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES Pandit Kunzru: May I ask the Hon. the Law Minister how he then regards Article 371 as analogous to Section 126 of the Government of India Act which restricted the executive authority of the Government of India to matters included in the Federal list ? Dr. Ambedkar: I do not think my hon. Friend has understood me. The point is this. Let me put it in a somewhat pointed manner. When one Government has the right to give directions to another, could such directions be the subject matter of discussion in an Assembly to which that particular Government is responsible ? That is the question. I am not using Section 126 for the larger issue. I am using it for the limited issue, namely, that wherever there is power to give direction, that power implies responsibility and wherever there is responsibility there must be discussion. That is my point. Now, Sir, you were good enough to ask me to explain what “general control” meant. Now, it seems to me that the words “general control” are used in order to include every matter of administration arising within that particular State. The direction need not be confined to any particular matter. Today the direction may be given with regard to the Police administration; tommorrow it may be given with regard to revenue administration; at a later stage it might be found necessary to issue a similar direction with regard to finance. “General control” means control extending over the whole field of administration. That is how I use the word general control. It would not be permissible for me, I suppose, to give the history as to how this Article came to be drafted. I would not ask your permission, nor if you give it would I use it. But I have a very clear picture in my mind as to what this Article was intended to cover. This Article does not take away the powers given to the State under the various Articles to which I have referred, namely, 154, 162, 163 and 168, the power of executive authority, of administration and of legislation. But in the interest of good Government it superimposed the authority of a direction given by the Centre in order that the levels of administration may not fall down. That. Sir, is the implication of Article 371.