Vol. 15 · pages 941–945

922 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES majority in each House. That is the first condition Secondly it shall be submitted to the electors to obtain their decision upon the amending law passed by the two Houses by absolute majority. If the two Houses are not unanimous in the proposed amendment then the Governor-General is empowered to put the last proposed law for amendment to the electors for their decision. And then these are the conditions. If in a majority of the States a majority of the electors voting in favour of the proposed law and if a majority of all electors voting also approve of the proposed law, then and then only the proposed law shall become part of the Costitution on receiving the assent of the King. The conditions are that in the first place both Houses must pass the proposed law by absolute majority, and if they do not agree, or are not unanimous, then the power is given to the Governor-General to refer the matter to the electors. Even in the first case the matter must be referred to the electors and even then it is not merely by the majority of the electors voting in favour of the Bill but majority of the States, a majority of electors and a majority of all the electors voting must approve the Bill before the Constitution could be amended. Now let us take the Constitution of the United States. In the Constitution of the united States, article 5 which deals with the amendment of the Constitution provides thus : “When two-thirds of both houses propose an amendment, then and then alone further action could be taken.” The first condition is that two-thirds of both houses must pass the amending Bill or two-thirds of the States may call their conventions, that is to say, a meeting of the electors who may propose constitutional amendments as suggested by the State Government. Such amendments then will become law provided it is ratified by three-fourths of the States or by the Conventions in threefourths of the States. I have taken these two Constitutions merely for the purpose of illustration. Many other provisions would be found in other constitutions. Now what is the basic principle underlying this provision relating to the amendment of the Constitution ? It seems to me that a student who scrutinises these two articles relating to the amendment of the Constitution in Australia and

923PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES America will find that there are two principles which underlie any action relating to the amendment of the Constitution. The first is this that there must be notice to the people. The people must know that the Government is going to undertake the amendment of the Constitution. The second principles is that there must be consent of the voters either directly as in America or indirectly by the States by ratifying resolution. Now, Sir, is our Government observing these fundamental rules ? It is quite true that our Constitution is a very fluid one. It is not as rigid, not half as rigid as the American Constitution or the Australian Constitution, and those who were in charge of framing the Constitution were fully conscious of the fact that the situation must be left fluid because it may be that circumstances would arise which would require amendment of the Constitution, and you cannot allow the Constitution to hold up the solution of social problems which are emergent. It was because of that that it was proposed that the provisions contained in Article 368 should suffice. We don’t require except in certain cases reference back to the States or reference back to the voters, but I have not the least doubt in my mind that no one who had anything to do with the drafting of the Constitution ever thought that the government would rush in on the spur of the moment to amend the Constitution without giving notice to the voters. Notice to the voters, if I may submit, is a general principle of political life and party life. Even in England no party would undertake any piece of legislation which did not form part of its political programme for the election. Every party must have a mandate to do a certain thing. Without a mandate a party cannot do anything. You cannot take the voters by surprise and you cannot assume absolute authority to amend even the Constitution simply because you are elected. This is exactly what our Government has been doing. Simply because they have obtained a majority they assume that they have not only the power to make any law whatsoever relating to any of the entries which give them the power to make laws but they have also got the power, merely by being elected, even without notifying their intention to the people as such, to even amend the Constitution. Is the Constitution 3-00 P.M.

924 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES not different in any sense from an ordinary law ? Is it merely a scrap of paper to be amended at the whim of anybody ? There is a saying in Marathi—I do not know whether I can translate it into English properly—and that saying is a very good one and very appropriate. We say, if the old woman dies it really does not matter very much but what we are afraid of is that Yama gets habituated to coming often and often and what we want to prevent is the Yama’s invasion. It does not matter if the old woman is dead or snatched away. This is exactly what has been happening and I have been noticing the great contempt or the low regard or respect which the Government has for the Constitution. You may amend the Constitution; nobody has any objection to amending it but certainly you ought to treat the Constitution on a somewhat different footing, a better footing, a special footing. Tell the people what you are intending to do and then you may do it. Otherwise it might become necessary even to amend Article 368 in a manner so as to prevent this facile invasion of the constitutional provisions. This is all that I wanted to say.

925PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (52) UNTOUCHABILITY OFFENCES BILL 1954 *Dr. B. R. Ambedkar (Bombay) : Mr. Deputy Chairman, I propose to speak on the Bill. I think it is impossible for me to remain silent during the discussion on this Bill, but I find that my hon. friend, the Minister-in-charge, has condescended to put me on the Select Committee on this Bill. There is a convention that a member who is on a Select Committee shall not speak or take part in the Debate on the motion for reference to a Select Committee. I do not know to what extent the rule has been observed in all its strictness. Mr. Deputy Chairman : It has not been violated. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : I think in the other house it is not strictly observed and I understand that a member in such a position could speak. However, if the convention is a rigid one here I beg permission to withdraw my name, and I hope the Hon. Minister will concede. Prof. G. Ranga (Andhra) : It is not a rigid one. Mr. Deputy Chairman : Yes, it is a rigid one; we have been opbserving it. Prof. G. Ranga: If either within the time Mr. Deputy Chairman : It will be setting a bad precedent. Prof. G. Ranga : There is no question of any bad precedent. What I understood always was that when other Members who are not Members of the Select Committee are anxious to speak, then the Members who are placed on the Select Committee are expected to give way, but it does not debar any Member of the Select Committee from exercising his privilege of speaking. Only if………. * P. D., (R. S.) Vol. 7-B, 16th September 1954, pp. 2417-18.

926 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES Mr. Deputy Chairman : We have been observing the convention that the Members of the Select Committee ……… Prof. G. Ranga : We have not observed it that way. It is not rule; it is a convention. Mr. Deputy Chairman : The convention should be interpreted in that manner because it has been observed that way. Prof. G. Ranga: There is no definite rule on this point but the convention we have been following is that generally Members who are Members of the Select Committee do not speak. Mr. Deputy Chairman : On two or three previous occasions I have refused the Members. Shri Biswanath Das (Orissa) : Because they have got the chance to place their views before the Select Committee, it is felt not desirable to give them the necessary …….. Mr. Deputy Chairman : It will be setting a bad precedent. Shri Biswanath Das : Therefore the non-Members in the Select Committee are given the chance to place their views so that the Select Committee may have the advantage of considering those views as well. There is, I submit, no rule and we should not have any rigid convention to make it binding on the Members of the Select Committee not to speak. I would therefore appeal to my hon. friend Dr. Ambedkar not to consider it in that light and think of withdrawing his name from the Select Committee which I consider will be most useful and helpful. *Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Mr. Deputy Chairman, before I actually deal with the provisions of this Bill, I think it is desirable that I should draw the attention of the House to the responsibility created by certain articles in the Constitution and the responsibility placed upon the Government to give effect to those provisions. * P. D. (R. S.), Vol. 7-B., 16th September 1954, pp. 2424-66.