Vol. 15 · pages 971–975

952 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Even the Communists say that theirs is socialism and I want to know why they call themselves Communists if they are only Socialists. It would lose all the terrors which the word ‘Communism’ has for many people and they might easily have won a victory in Andhra if they had made a change in name. What I wanted to tell my friend Mr. Pant is—I hope he is listening to me……….. Mr. Chairman: Of course he is listening with the greatest attention. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: What I wanted to tell him was this, that this is quite interesting. Anyone who has studied the legislative programme of the British Labour Party, after the close of the War, will see that the Labour Party, in accordance with the report of the Trade Union Congress, published in 1945, carried out nationalisation of various industries and various services including the Railways and even the Bank of England. I have not understood what changes have been made by the Labour Party in the working of the Bank of England by nationalisation. I am a student of currency and I know something about the Bank of England but there it is that they had it. But what I wanted to tell my friend Mr. Pant is this, that in everyone of those cases where the Labour Party has carried out nationalisation, they have paid full compensation—full. That is to say, they have paid the market value for the shares that they have acquired. Payment of compensation, therefore, cannot come in the way of nationalisation but as I said, I am quite prepared for that proposition because the values of the shares are not due merely to the share capital that is invested. It is due to a variety of social circumstances. It is social causes which have brought about the rise in the value of the shares and there is no reason why a private shareholder should be entitled to appropriate to himself the social values which have become part of the values of his shares. I don’t also understand how the theory of no-compensation can be supported. In Russia they paid no compensation, it is true. But it must not be forgotten that the Russian Government undertakes to give employment to people, to feed them, to clothe them, to house them, to scrub them and to provide for all the human needs.

953PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES If the State can undertake to feed the population whom it has deprived of compensation, then of course, in those circumstances, the theory that no-compensation shall be paid is a valid one. Why do you want compensation ? Compensation is necessary simply because the State has deprived an individual of his instruments of earning a living. You cannot deprive a man of the instruments of his earnings and at the same time say, “Go and feed yourself”. That theory, in my judgement, is a very barbarous one. It is therefore not possible to accept it. But why can we not accept the theory that just compensation means compensation determined by the law of Parliament ? Why not ? It does not mean that Parliament shall make a law exactly in terms of the Land Acquisition Act. You can scrap the Land Acquisition Act. You have a right to do so because it is within the purview of both Parliament and the State Legislatures. It can enact a new Land Acquisition Act with a new set of principles. There is no harm in doing that and no difficulty for doing that. If you do that, well, nobody can have a right to complain because when you bring forth such a measure for determining compensation by law, all sections of the House will have a right to say what they have to say. It would be the result of common agreement. If one Parliament finds certain principles to be good and another Parliament finds that those principles are bad, Parliament may change but it should all be done and it can be done by Parliament. Therefore my suggestion to the Government is this, that rather than bring in this kind of a Bill, a bald one and, as I am going to show later, really a very trifling thing, its corpse ought to be carried unwept, and unsung and nobody ought to cry over it. I am not going to cry over it because it is not going to do any good or going to do any harm, as I will show. Therefore, my suggestion to the Government was this that rather than keep on encroaching upon these fundamental rights from time to time, it is much better to give Parliament once for all the power to determine compensation. This tampering with the Constitution from time to time is a bad thing. I said so last time but I don’t suppose the Government has cared to pay any heed. I would like to repeat the same caution again and I should like to

954 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES give some reasons why the Constitution should not be amended and tampered so easily. Anyone who is familiar with what is called the interpretation of law by courts—and there are well-set rules as to how Statutes are to be interpreted—will recall that there is a famous rule of interpretation which is called stare decisis which means this, that when the courts have given an interpretation for a long number of years in a very uniform sense, and if after a long number of years some lawyer gets up and convinces the court that the existing interpretation is wrong and ought to be changed, the courts say that they shall not do it, although they are convinced that the interpretation is wrong. The reason why the courts adopt this rule stare decisis is very important. The court says : “Whether the interpretation we have given is right or is wrong is now not a matter of moment, for the simple reason that a large number of people have acted upon our interpretation as being the correct law, have incurred obligations, have secured rights. Now to say that all these obligations and rights are founded upon a mistaken view of the law would be to unsettle the society altogether. Let, therefore, the wrong continue.” That is the attitude that the courts have taken. The same reason prevails, in my judgement, why the Constitution should not be constantly amended. People know that the Constitution contains certain rules, certain obligations, and in accordance with them, they make their contracts, they make their plans for the future. It is not right, therefore, to come in every year and to disturb these values. That is the reason why I say the Constitution should not be so lightly and so frequently amended. I do not know whether the Government would listen to it, perhaps not. Shri Tajamul Husain (Bihar): Why should they ? Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Well, Sir, it is a habit. Once a cow gets the habit of running into the fields of another, you cannot convert her by morality. It is a habit. Mr. Chairman: Go on, go on. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: In other countries wherever a clause of the Constitution has been interpreted by the judiciary in a way which the Government does not like, Government concurs in, it does not like to upset the decision

955PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES of the court. Here, in our country, we have cultivated a different mentality. Our mentality is that if the Judges of the Supreme Court do not give a judgement which is to our liking, then we can throw it out. That is what it is. I am rather glad with regard to the behaviour of our Supreme Court. In the short time that it has been in existence, I see some different phases of the Supreme Court. Being a sick person I have not been attending the Supreme Court for the last two or three years, but I am in contact with what is happening. I remember that in the very first flush of its power, the Supreme Court declared or had the courage to declare that a certain section of the Indian Penal Code was ultra vires. Our Government at once reacted and brought in an amendment to declare that the interpretation of the Supreme Court was wrong. (Interruptions.) Mr. Chairman: Let us avoid comments upon the Supreme Court. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: I hope that notwithstanding the constant amendments which the Government seems to be prone to bringing forth, the Supreme Court will continue to have its independent judgement, notwithstanding what the Government may have to say. I do not find that the Supreme Court has given any judgement which, any independent man can say, is not in consonance with the terms of the Constitution. Now Sir, I will proceed to deal with the different clauses in the Bill. The first clause is clause 2. This clause 2 of the Bill divides clause (2) of the original Article 31 into two parts, clause (2) and clause (2A). With regard to clause (2) one has nothing to say, because it is merely a reproduction, probably with a certain economy of words, of the terms, contained in the original colause (2). I have therefore nothing to say about it. But clause (2A) is a new thing and it must be examined carefully. In the first place, I cannot understand the meaning of this clause. It has not been explained by the Prime Minister, nor do I find any explanations from my hon. friend the Minister for Home Affairs. What exactly is it intended to convey ? It is a sort of mysterious clause; it has been shrouded in mystery. Now, let me analyse this clause (2A). What does

956 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES it say? To put it in plain language, quite different from the language that is used in the clause, as embodied in the amending Bill, it seems to say this. If Government buys up ownership of any property, it will amount to acquisition and Government will pay full compensation in accordance with article 31. If Government buys up ownership, that is the important point. If Government buys up ownership, then that is tantamount to acquisition and Government will be bound to pay compensation. Secondly, it means that if Government takes possession of the property, then the taking possession will also amount to acquisition and the Government will be bound to pay compensation in accordance with the terms of article 31. That is what the clause in the Bill says : What is it that will not amount to acquisition ? What is it that is left which Government can do and wants to do and yet escape compensation ? If it acquires ownership, it is said, it will pay compensation; if it takes possession, it says, it will pay compensation because that would be tantamount to acquisition. Shri Tajamul Husain: What about the Sholapur Case? It was only temporary possession for improving matters. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: I have got the case here; I shall come to it. It seems that the only case which will be out of these two, acquisition of ownership and acquisition of possession, is the cancellation of a licence, because, when you cancel a licence you do not acquire ownership and you do not take possession and, therefore, by reason of the cancellation of the licence you do not become liable for paying compensation. That is what this clause means. I wish it had been stated in positive terms that in the following cases, Government shall not pay compensation but having been put the other way, the real meaning of this clause is very much concealed from the sight of the reader. If my interpretation is right, then, what the clause intends to do is to exempt Government from the liability for paying compensation whenever it cancels a licence. Is that a justifiable ground for not paying compensation ? I believe 12-00 Noon