Vol. 2 · pages 176–180

157ON THE BOMBAY POLICE ACT AMENDMENT BILL going to be the subject matter of judicial interpretation. The preamble merely contains a rule of guidance for the purpose for which we are to use this Act and I therefore submit that even though the word “mavali” has not been judicially interpreted, it is a term which is so well-known today to both the Honourable the Home Minister and the Commissioner of Police that I think there should be no difficulty about it The Honourable the Speaker: The amendment is to be divided in two parts— one referring to habitual offenders, as the honourable member has stated, is the one which he is prepared, I understand, to drop. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: No, I am prepared to split it into one dealing with persons who are either dangerous characters or mavalis, and the other I submit is a direct reference to the amendment which gives the emergency powers. The Honourable the Speaker: The other I can see. If divided into two parts, then about the first, I think that even the expression used “mavalis” will not ............ Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Then my amendment will be this : — “ for dealing with persons who are dangerous characters”. I am prepared to take away the word “habitually”. The preamble is intended to make clear our intentions. Mr. Jamnadas M. Mehta: I submit, Sir, that the learned Doctor’s amendment should be held perfectly in order, because it is now realised that the whole Bill has two intentions; one to deal with an emergency and the other to deal with characters which are described in the Act The preamble must express what the House has enacted ; otherwise the preamble will be incomplete and will not express what the object of the Bill is. The Honourable the Speaker: I am not considering any technical objection. I am only considering how the phraseology would express what has been stated in the Bill and what has been passed by the House. The Honourable Mr. B. G. Kher: May I suggest to the honourable member that the word “dangerous” is vague ? It must be “dangerous to society”, “danger to the city” or something to that effect. We are accustomed to receive telegrams “so and so dangerous, start immediately”. The word “dangerous” by itself is vague. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: I may suggest “for the purpose of dealing with persons who are a danger to the residents of the City of Bombay for preserving the peace and tranquillity during the riots”. The Honourable Mr. K. M. Munshi: You have left out “factions and gangs” during riots. The words of the section are “between communities, factions and gangs”. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: We can put it this way : “for preventing disturbance of public peace and tranquillity by reason of conflicts between communities and sections thereof, and gangs and factions”. The Honourable the Speaker: This is what I have taken down : “for the purpose of dealing with persons who are a danger to the City of Bombay and for preventing disturbance of public peace and tranquillity by reason

158 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES of conflicts between communities and sections thereof, or gangs or factions.” The Honourable Mr. K. M. Munshi: “And for other purposes hereinafter mentioned”. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: What other purposes ? The Honourable Mr. K. M. Munshi: “And other purposes hereinafter mentioned”. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: What are the other purposes ? The Honourable Mr. K. M. Munshi: There are various procedural purposes also. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Then, I will make it clear by saying “and for prescribing the procedure for dealing with such cases”. The Honourable the Speaker: Is that all necessary in the preamble ? We should not make it cumbersome. The Honourable Mr. K. M. Munshi: There is the question of immigrants also in the Act. And so, “other purposes hereinafter mentioned” is necessary. Mr. Jamnadas M. Mehta: “Hereinafter” is not necessary. Mr. S. V. Parulekar: We may adjourn till tomorrow, so that we may arrive at an agreed wording. The Honourable the Speaker: It seems there is agreement as to the substance, and now it is only a question of phraseology. The amendment now moved being accepted in substance, it may be incorporated in the Bill at this stage, and later on, at the third reading any verbal amendments necessary may be made. The Honourable Mr. K. M. Munshi : Sir, may I have the final word ? I do not want to miss these immigrants. The Honourable the Speaker: This is what is being proposed by the honourable member Dr. Ambedkar : “Instead of the words ‘hereinafter appearing’ substitute : ‘for the purpose of dealing with persons who are a danger to the City of Bombay and for preventing disturbances of public peace and tranquillity by reason of conflict between communities and sections thereof or gangs or factions, and for certain other purposes hereinafter appearing’.” The Honourable Mr. K. M. Munshi: I accept the amendment Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: May I know what other purposes there are ? The Honourable Mr. K. M. Munshi: For dealing with immigrants. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: The immigrant is an object and not a purpose. The Honourable Mr. B. G. Kher: The question is that immigrants who come into the city with certain diseases have to be dealt with. It is not the object of the preamble to describe all purposes seriatim. “Certain other purposes hereinafter appearing” clearly means the purposes embodied in the Bill itself. No other purpose can be brought into the Bill. The Honourable the Speaker: Are the words “for certain other purposes” to be taken out ?

159ON THE BOMBAY POLICE ACT AMENDMENT BILL Sir Ali Mahomed Khan Dehlavi: They must disappear, because we are dealing with section 27 only and not the Act as a whole. The Honourable Mr. B. G. Kher: If you do not want it, we are willing to take it out. The Honourable the Speaker: The consensus seems to be that the word “hereinafter” should remain. The amendment would then read : In place of the words “hereinafter appearing”, substitute the following : “of dealing with persons who are a danger to the City of Bombay and for preventing disturbance of public peace and tranquillity by reason of conflict between communities .........” The Honourable Mr. B. G. Kher: May I suggest that the phrase should be “public peace or tranquillity” and not “public peace and tranquillity” ? So also, “by reason of conflict between communities or sections.” The Honourable the Speaker: “......... disturbance of public peace or tranquillity by reason of conflict between communities or sections thereof or gangs or factions, and for certain other purposes hereinafter ......... ” Sir Ali Mahomed Khan Dehlavi: “Or for certain other purposes”; I think we agreed to that ? The Honourable Mr. K. M. Munshi: I will agree to anything. Mr. R. A. Khedgikar: Are we not to be given a chance to examine the wording ? We have not, fully understood it. The Honourable the Speaker: I am now reading the final draft. It is open to correction, in case I have committed any mistake. Mr. S. V. Parulekar: Will you give us an opportunity of studying the amendment before we make up our mind about it ? The amendment is very long, and we do not know the implications of it just now. So, we should be given an opportunity to study it. It may be taken up for discussion. The Honourable the Speaker: As I stated, the preamble, after all, merely tries to give a summary, and a very general summary, of what is following, Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: It is a direction to the executive authority. The Honourable Mr. B. G. Kher: We are willing to accept anything that you propose. Mr. Jamnadas M. Mehta: Anything that will shorten this discussion will be welcome ! (Laughter) The Honourable the Speaker: It is therefore that I am suggesting the final wording as it seems to have been agreed to. I am reading the whole amendment again ; honourable members will please hear it patiently : “In place of the words ‘hereinafter appearing’, substitute the following : ‘of dealing with persons who are a danger to the City of Bombay and for preventing disturbance of public peace or tranquillity by reason of conflict between communities or sections thereof or gangs or factions and for the purposes hereinafter appearing’.” Mr. Jamnadas M. Mehta: “Other” must be there.

160 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES The Honourable the Speaker: “And for other purposes”. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: “Such as dealing with immigrants”. The Honourable the Speaker: After all, lawyers know as to how a preamble is construed and what importance is attached to it so far as the construction of the sections is concerned. If I may be permitted to say so, I do not think this point is really such as to be such a debatable point as that. Mr. Jamnadas M. Mehta: “Other” must be there, because those which are mentioned previously are also purposes. The Honourable the Speaker: “And for other purposes hereinafter appearing”. Mr. Jamnadas M. Mehta: That will do. The Honourable Mr. K. M. Munshi: I accept the amendment. The Honourable the Speaker: So then, I take it that this will be the wording. (Interruption). The phraseology is taken from the sections themselves. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: I accept it. zz

33 *ON THE CITY OF BOMBAY MUNICIPAL ACT AMENDMENT BILL Dr. B. R. Ambedkar (Bombay City, Byculla and Parel): Sir, I rise to support the amendment moved by the honourable member Mr. A. V. Chitre. Sir, the amendment is that in addition to the 4 councillors who are to be elected by the workers’ delegates there should be two councillors elected by the municipal workers. Now, the reason why I think this amendment ought to be supported is this. There is no doubt about it that the municipal workers are directly interested in the administration of the Municipal Corporation. They are under the authority of the Municipal Commissioners, they are under the authority of the various officers employed by the municipality under whom they are working. Now, Sir, having regard to the municipal constitution, there is one thing which is clear and abundantly clear and that is that these municipal workers have no right of redress against any order that may be passed by their superior officers. Their position is certainly very much different from the position of the ordinary civil servant who is working under the Government of Bombay. For instance, any civil servant, whether he is employed in the provincial service or subordinate service, has a right of appeal given to him in the case of any order passed to his prejudice. There is no such provision in the Bombay Municipal Corporation. Any order may be passed by any officer against any municipal worker and that worker has no right of redress. One of the advantages this amendment will give to the municipal workers is that any order that may be passed by any officer under the Bombay Municipal Corporation, could be ventilated through their representatives on the floor of the Corporation and certainly this amendment will enable them to get some redress. They do not possess this advantage under the present constitution. The Honourable Minister in charge said that we are now providing for adult franchise and, because we have provided for adult franchise, it is not necessary to provide any representation for organised labour. I am sure the Honourable Minister has not paid efficient attention to what provisions he has introduced in the Bill which is before us. What I would like to ask the Honourable Minister is this, whether in his opinion adult franchise is the *B.L.A. Debates, Vol. 3, pp. 2807-08, dated 3rd May 1938.