Vol. 15 · pages 946–950

927PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES I would first like to refer to article 13 of the Constitution. Article 13 says that all laws inconsistent with the Fundamental Rights are void from the date on which the Constitution comes into existence. That is a general provision which is laid down in article 13. It is, as a matter of fact, a general notice given to the public as well as to the Judges of the Court that if any question was raised before them which involved the adjudication of the Fundamental Rights, the court shall not give effect to any existing law that was in conflict with the Fundamental Rights. But the makers of the Constitution were not satisfied with the general declaration because they felt that it was too much to expect a common citizen to go to a court of law in order to get relief from the court for the invasion of his Fundamental Rights. That was too much of a burden on the common citizen. And, therefore, the Constitution enacted another article, which is article 372, sub-clause (2), which gives power to the Government to make modification and adaptation in existing laws in order that the laws may be brought in conformity with the Fundamental Rights. If my hon. Friend will allow me to make a personal reference, I would say that when I was in charge of law, I immediately took up this queston about adaptation and modification of the existing law in order to bring it in conformity with the Fundamental Rights. And I did succeed in getting repealed one of the most important pieces of legislation in the Punjab, called the Punjab Land Alienation Act, under which certain communities, or as the law speaks of them, certain tribes, were declared to be the only tribes which could hold property or acquire property in the Punjab. The law, in my judgement, was so iniquitous that a man who was actually an agriculturist, but whose community or tribe was not declared by the Government to be an agricultural tribe, was not entitled to get any land. But a person who was a barrister all his life, and never hoped to grow even two blades in a field, became entitled to acquire property, because the Government had chosen to declare his tribe to be an agricultural tribe. I succeeded in having the whole Act cancelled under the provisions of article 372, clause (2). There

928 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES remained another law or a custom which went along with the Punjab Land Alienation Act, and which referred to what is called the shamilat land, that is to say, the land held in common by the villagers. Under the customary Punjab law, the shamilat land could be shared only by those communities which were called zamindars, hereditary land-owning communities. The others were non-zamindars. They were called kaminas, that is to say, they belonged to a low class, and they were not entitled to share in the land. Consequently, they could not build their houses in a pucca form on the land on which they stayed. They are always afraid lest the zamindars of Punjab may, at any time, turn them out. And the people did not venture to build permanently. I left a note in the Law Ministry, when I left, that this matter should be taken up and dealt with by the Government under the provisions of article 372, sub-clause (2). I have no idea what the Law Ministry has done or what the Home Ministry has done. I believe, no action has been taken on that account so far. I had, for my own guidance; made a list of certain laws, which I felt it was absolutely essential to modify in order to bring them in conformity with the Constitution. The first that I would like to mention is Madras Regulation XI of 1816. This is a criminal law enacted by the East India Company. In that, there is a provision, I think, section 10, which says that if the offender belongs to the lower classes, then the punishment to be inflicted on him is to put him in the stocks. This punishment is not to be inflicted if the offender belongs to the higher classes. There can be no question, Sir, that this Regulation is a discriminatory Regulation, and should be repealed. Then the next item that I would refer to is the Bombay Municipal Servants Act V of 1890. Under that Act, it is provided—I think it is section 3—that if a municipal servant, whose duties fall within the Schedule attached to the Act, absents himself from work without permission, or resigns his office without at least giving three months’ notice in writing, he shall be sentenced to imprisonment. It is a well-established principle now that a contract of employment is only a civil contract for which, if there is to be any punishment that punishment must be only damages and not imprisonment.

929PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES But this Municipal Law still remains on the Statute Book. The result has been that under this Act—if my hon. friend will refer to the Schedule, he will find that the Schedule practically mentions, although in terms of duty, people who are doing scavenging work or street-cleaning work, and things of that sort, and who are mostly Scheduled Castes or the untouchables—it has become quite impossible for them even to go on strike, because the terms of resignation must be three months’ notice. Nothing has been done so far as that Act is concerned. I will take now another item, the U. P. Municipalities Act, II of 1916. I think it is section 85. Yes. There again, the provisions of that section are more or less similar to the provisions of the Bombay Municipal Servants Act. There again it is said that a sweeper employed by a Board who, except in accordance with the terms of a written contract of service, or without a reasonable cause, of which notice has been given, resigns or abandons his employment, shall be liable upon conviction, to imprisonment which may extend to two months. I think these laws, if I may say so, are absolutely uncivilised laws. No country in the world today regards breach of contract of service as an offence punishable with imprisonment or with fine. It is just damaging, but nothing has been done here. Then, I will refer to three other Acts, one is the Bombay Herediatary Village Officers Act of 1874. Those who work or officiate under this Act are divided into two classes. My friend, Mr. Dhage, must be quite familiar with it, although the Home Minister himself may not be. I do not know what the system is in his province, but there the servants are divided into two classes, one class are called officers and the other are called village servants, although both are paid in the ancient form of payment, viz., land assigned for service out of which they have to eke out their income. The land that has been assigned to them was in ancient times, probably during the time of Shivaji or during the time of the Peshwas. No addition has been made to the land then assigned. They have been cutting up and sharing their land into bits and bits, and probably no one individual owns more than one-hunredth of an acre of land, yet these poor people are sticking to that land. Now,

930 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES when the British came in they started a scheme of what is called commutation that is to say, releasing a person from the obligation of hereditary service and allowing him to retain the land provided he was prepared to pay what is called ‘Judi’ or land revenue, as the Government thought fit. That process has been going on for ever and many, many hereditary officers have been liquidated so far. Recently the Bombay Government took up on itself the responsibility of further commuting these village hereditary officers, but notwithstanding the incessant demand of the scheduled castes in the Bombay State that their workers and their hereditary officers should also be commuted so that they may be free from the obligation of service and be allowed to retain the land on payment of land revenue—they were very liberal and wanted to pay the full land revenue and did not want any concessions—the Bombay Government refused their requests. They confine their law to the commutation of officers other than the scheduled castes. This—I speak from experience—is one of the most cruellest pieces of legislation, because it is quite possible for the village who is an officer under this Act to require the whole body of the scheduled caste people to go and serve under him not merely for Government purposes but also for his private purposes. Any village patel, for instance, if there is a death in the family, would not sent a postcard to his relatives informing them of the death in the family, because it is a derogatory method. He must insist upon one of his village servants, as they are called, to walk miles and miles to convey the message that a death has occurred in the house of the patel. If a married girl comes to the house of the patel and wishes to go back, he must insist upon one or two of the village servants to go along with her, accompany her, chaperon her, and to see that she has safely arrived at her father-in-law’s house. If a marriage takes place, he must insist on the whole of people to go and break wood and do all services without paying them anything. If they refuse, he is competent to report to the Collector that his village servants are not doing their duty, and the Collector under the Act is able to fine them or to take away their land and dispossess them. I wonder whether this is not a piece of legislation which is fundamentally

931PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES opposed to the Fundamental Rights in the Constitution, and whether such a piece of legislation does not require modification at the hands of the Law Department or the Home Department. There are two other Acts which are, so to say, correlative to this Bombay Hereditary Village Officers Act. One is the Bombay Revenue Jurisdiction Act, and the other is the Pensions Act. (Seeing the Home Minister rising from his seat) My hon. Friend finds it too hot perhaps. Dr. K. N. Katju : I find it too cool on the other hand. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : It will be hotter as I go on. Both these Acts prevent access to the judiciary for any wrong that may have been done by the officers, the Director, or the Commissioner or the Minister. No relief can be had from the courts, because the Revenue Jurisdiction Act says that the courts shall not have any jurisdiction either to alter or to modify or to revise the decision of the Collector, who is an executive officer. The Pension Act says that no one who has any kind of inam shall be entitled to go to court and the court shall not exercise any jurisdiction unless it obtains a certificate from the Collector that the case may be tried by the court. It is quite impossible, therefore, for these poor people to have any kind of remedy against the many injustices which are being practised under the name of this particular Act. If I had remained as Law Minister, it was my intention to carry out these reforms, but I think it is the duty of any Law Minister and particularly of the Home Minister to look into our laws and to find out to what extent the laws are in conflict with the Fundamental Rights. I am sorry to say, Sir, that both these departments are the most laziest departments that I have ever seen. They have neither the zeal nor the urge or the conscience to move in this matter. They have no idealism either. I hope that, after what I have said, they will be spurred to some kind of action in this matter and to see that relief is given where relief seems necessary. Well, Sir, this is what I wanted to say by way of preliminary observations. I will now turn to the Bill itself.