Vol. 2 · pages 811–815

790 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES that would appear to permit discussions that we think would be harmful to the area ; that is what it comes to. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: I was only suggesting that the Governor’s power would be adequate protection against that That is all I ask. ***** †13,923. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Might I ask one question on that point ? As I understand it in the concurrent field there will be an appeal to the Privy Council from the decisions of the High Court ? Sir Samuel Hoare: Yes. 13,924. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: What I do not understand is this, if there can be an appeal to the Privy Council in an issue arising out of an interpretation of the concurrent law in the concurrent field, what difficulty can there be in allowing such an appeal to the Federal Court ? Sir Samuel Hoare: One of our reasons anyhow is that we do not want to flood the Federal Court with an enormous amount of work and the demand for a very large number of Judges at the beginning. ***** ‡14,373. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Secretary of State, I just want to ask one question about paragraph 155. This para 155 relates to exclusive original jurisdiction of the Federal Court. I do not understand the distinction that seems to be made there. I find on reading paragraph 155 that you make a distinction in the matter of the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Federal Court on the basis that where the parties to the dispute are as there mentioned in sub-clauses ( a) and (b), the exclusive original jurisdiction is given to the Federal Court, but the Federal Court cannot have an exclusive original jurisdiction if the parties are private individuals. Now the question I would like to ask is this. The issue in both cases is the same, namely, the constitution issue involving the interpretation of the Constitution Act. What I do not understand is this. Why there should be this distinction in the matter of an exclusive original jurisdiction of the Federal Court based on parties when the issue is the same ? Sir Samuel Hoare: I think this is what usually happens with Federal Courts that the original jurisdiction is jurisdiction between units, and it is in the appellate jurisdiction that the individual comes into it as of right 14,374. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: I mean, if the intention is that where, for instance, the interpretation of the Constitution Act is involved, the matter should at once go to the Federal Court, then I think there can be no distinction made whether the parties are parties which are units of the Federation or of individuals ? Sir Samuel Hoare: I would have thought that this was one of the necessary working conditions of a Federal Court. I think if it had original jurisdiction in individual cases as well it would be entirely swamped with cases. † Minutes of Evidence, Vol. II-B, 19th October 1933, p. 1247. ‡ Ibid., dated 20th October 1933, p. 1292.

791 EVIDENCE : RIGHT HON. SIR SAMUEL HOARE AND OTHERS Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: But, all the same, the issue in both cases would be the same, namely, the interpretation of the Constitution Act. I can quite understand the distinction being based upon different causes of action, but where the cause of action is the same, or rather the plea is the same, namely, that there is a breach of the constitution, I do not see any justification in making this distinction based upon units and parties. ***** †14,380. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Now there is another question which I wish to ask the Secretary of State, and it is this. I do not find any provision in the White Paper about it. Do not you think, Secretary of State, it is desirable that there should be provision made allowing private individuals to sue for a declaration that a particular act is unconstitutional, although he is not seeking any specific relief ? I mean, all the cases that you have provided for I find are cases in which some specific relief is asked for. It may be desirable that a private party, in order to safeguard his future, may like to test at once if he has any doubts whether the particular proposal made by the Federation or by a Province is unconstitutional so that he may safeguard his position for the future, although, at the moment, when he is filing the suit for the proceedings, he has no reason to seek any specific relief ? Sir Samuel Hoare: I have some hesitation, not being a lawyer, in answering a question of that kind, but if I may give offhand the answer of a layman I would have said that it was extraordinarily difficult to allow a general right of that kind without any specific issue affecting the individual. Marquess of Reading: May I make the observation that what you have said is really the law as it is applied in this country ? We do not allow these applications of what are called Qia timet, that is to say, merely a case of difficulty hereafter to get a declaration when there is no substantial dispute and the moment there is a dispute it can be done. We never allow it, and I do not think they do in India. Sir Hari Singh Gour: No cause of action ; no right of suit. Mr. Zafrulla Khan: Indeed there would be very great difficulties if such a provision were inserted in the Constitution. You would start a million suits being instituted in India the moment the Act was passed. 14,381. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: I do not know whether everybody will exercise his right ? Sir Samuel Hoare: It would be an excellent affair for the legal profession in India. ***** ‡15,741. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Just one question, Secretary of State, dealing with the exceptions in (c), “Special Powers” (Special powers of the Governor-General) as I understand, the position is this : Generally † Minutes of Evidence, Vol. II-B, 20th October 1933, p. 1293. ‡ Ibid., 7th November 1933 p. 1344.

792 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES speaking, the Legislature cannot pass a discriminatory Act. I am speaking quite generally ? Sir Samuel Hoare : Yes. 15,742. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Administratively the Government of the day cannot discriminate unless it satisfies the Governor that there is no discrimination in fact ? Sir Samuel Hoare: No. Mr. M. R. Jayakar: The Governor-General. 15,743. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: The Governor-General or the Governor, because the proviso refers to both. That is theoretically and generally the position, is it not ? Sir Samuel Hoare: Yes. 15,744. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Now under sub-clause (c) the Governor-General will have the power to pass a legislative enactment making a discrimination if it came within the terms of this proviso. I mean, this power you give to the Governor not only for administrative purposes, but also for legislative purposes ? Sir Samuel Hoare: It is the general power under Proposal 18 of the White Paper. 15,745. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Governing both ; so that the Governor may discriminate although the Government may not ? Sir Samuel Hoare: For the prevention of any grave menace to peace and tranquillity. 15,746. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Yes ; Now I want to ask what is the import of this. I will put one or two specific illustrations to see if that is what you mean. I suppose under (his clause it would be possible for the Governor-General, by way of prevention of any grave menace, to say that certain persons shall not be employed in the Army. Would it be open to the Governor to do so under this ? Sir Samuel Hoare: I suppose theoretically it would be, but the case would be very remote in connection with a grave menace to peace and tranquillity. I cannot, for instance, imagine putting the concrete case which is perhaps in Dr. Ambedkar’s mind, a Governor-General saying that a proposal to start a unit endangered the peace and tranquillity of India. 15,747. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: I am glad to hear that. That is what rather disturbed me ? Sir Samuel Hoare: I am not saying whether from a military point of view it would be a good or a bad plan but I cannot see that this would come within the scope of this safeguard. 15,748. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Nor would it come within the special powers of the Governor in this clause to say that the Depressed Classes shall not be employed in the Police ? Sir Samuel Hoare: No. zzz

INDEX A Aboriginal Tribes : 246, 418, 463, 471, 547, 718, 737-41. Acharya, M. K. : 730-35. Ad-Dharma : 418-19. Administrative Report (Blue Book): 10, 27, 28. Adult Franchise : 107, 465, 471, 476, 488, 534, 540, 555-61, 563-66, 568, 577, 614-15, 660, 663, 697, 701. 745. Aga Khan, His Highness : 654-55, 657-58, 666. Agra : 496. Aharwar (Caste) : 495. Ahilya : 266. Ahmedabad : 22-24, 222, 248-49, 302-03. Ahmedabad Majoor Mahajan : 222-23. Ahmed, Maulavi Sir Rafiuddin : 116-17, 290-91. Ahmednagar : 76, 81, 87, 408. Aiyangar, M. S. Shesha : 213. Akbar Hyderi, Sir : 712, 775-76. Albenia : 353; 361. Amalner : 302. Ambedkar, Dr. B. R. : In the Bombay Legislature— Bills introduced on— Hereditary Offices : 72-74, 90-93. Khoti Abolition : 96-100. Speeches delivered on— Birth Control : 263-66. Communal Disturbances : 233-37. Hereditary Offices Act : 72-74, 90-93. Industrial Disputes Bill : 201-32. Judiciary : 183-87. Karnatak Separation : 188-200. Khoti Abolition : 101-03. Local Boards : 123-28. Maternity Benefit : 166-67. Ministers’ Salaries : 170-78. Municipal Act : 161-62. Police Act : 138-60. Primary Education : 64-71. Probation of Offenders : 179-80. Prohibition : 163-65. Small Holdings : 129-37. Tobacco Duty : 181-82. University of Bombay : 45-63. University Reforms : 292-312. World War-2, Participation of : 238-61. Questions : 277-91. With the Simon Commission — Bombay Presidency Constitution— Report by : 313-406. Evidence of : 459-89. Lothian Committee— Note on Franchise by : 491-500. Memoranda by— on Depressed Classes Education : 407-28. on Depressed Classes Safeguards : 429-58. 4t the Round Table Conferences — In the Committee of Whole Conference— Defence : 579-80. Discussion of Reports on Federal Structure : 510-11. Provincial Constitution : 528. In the Plenary Session : 503-09, 596-99. In the Sub-Committees on— Minorities : 528-45. Provincial Constitution : 512-27. Services : 600-51. Memoranda submitted : 546-56, 669-72. Witnesses examined by— Acharya, M. K. : 730-35. Amrit Kaur, Rajkumari : 698-704. Benthal, Edward : 692-96. Bruce, C. E. : 736. Churchill, W. S. : 742-45. French, J. C. : 747. Gidney, Henry : 746. Hoare, Sir Samuel : 748-92. James, F. E. : 736-41. Layton, Lady : 696-98. Michael O’dyer : 685. Mir Mqbool : 679-85. Moonje, B. S. : 714-29. Sachchidananda Sinha : 675-79. Sen, Mrs. P. K. : 704-707. Ambegaon : 281. America : See U.S.A. Amrit Kaur, Rajkumari : 698-704. Anantacharya, Sri Jagadguru : 447. Anderson, Mr. F. G. H. : 129, 131. Anglo-Indians : 344, 356-57, 400, 413, 579, 594, 655-58, 666, 710, 723, 746. Annie Besant, Mrs. : 612. Anti-Untouchability Board : 767. Antroiikar, Dr. K. B. : 254, 267. Antyaja : 447-48.

794 INDEX Arakh Group : 494-95. Armstrong, Prof. : 276. Aryan : 465. Arya Samaj : 719. Asarle, R. S. : 455. Asquith, Lord: 617. Assam : 2, 16, 33, 273, 369, 583, 647, 670, 789. Atchison Commission : 389. Athenian : 341. Ati-Sudras : 256, 409. Attlee, Major : 472-73, 736, 788. Australia : 15, 170, 175, 269, 275, 379, 383-84, 519, 603, 622, 632, 637-38, 641, 643-44, 776. Australian Commonwealth : 386. Australian Constitution ; 618, 621-24, 632, 641-42, 646. Austria : 27, 268,443. Austrian Constitution : 602-03. Autocracy : 259. Ayurveda : 12. Ayyar, Sir P. Siwaswami : 396. Azad, Maulana Abul Kalam : 320. B Babu Ramcharan : 497. Backbay Reclamation : 40. Backward Classes : See Depressed Classes. Badlapur : 283, 287. Bahishkrit Hitakarini Sabha— Memoranda: 407-58. Bajpai, Mr. : 436-37. Balais : 447, 452, 453. Balfour, Mr. : 371. Baluchistan : 318-26. Bania: 110, 111, 247, 249. Bannerjee, J. : 714, 716, 720-23, 726-31. Bardoli : 183. Barker, Mr. : 329. Baroda : 447, 462. Basu, J. N. : 565, 570, 574, 580, 583, 594, 711. Belgaon : 77. Belgium : 631. Bellari : 194. Bell, Sir Robert D. : 117, 168, 202, 216. Benaras Hindu University : 614. Bengal : 2, 16, 33, 319-20, 369, 404-05, 413, 419, 499, 560-62, 583, 700-13, 719, 721-22, 725, 728, 747, 764-67, 770. Benthall, Sir Edward : 692-96. Berar Committee : 85. Berkeley, George : 509. Berlin : 264. Bernhardt : 269. Bhagwat : 266. Bhai Parmanand : 714, 718, 719, 725. Bhangi : 249,482. Bhangiwada : 246. Bhoksa Group : 494-95. Bhole, R. R. : 64, 148, 151, 154-55. Bhurgi, G. M. : 318. Bihar & Orissa : 2, 32, 33, 170, 190, 194 369, 712. Bijapur : 194. Birla : 709-13. Birth Control : 257-76. Biswas, Mr. Rasik : 726. Blunt, Mr. : 494-98. Board of Education, London : 296. Bole, S. K. : 87, 279, 280-81, 289. Bombay— Chamber of Commerce : 162. City : 22-25, 87, 138-39, 145-46, 150, 15758,168,178,181-82,192, 203, 211, 230, 249, 300-03, 324, 339, 369-70, 404, 410, 422, 472, 475-76, 485. Hereditary Offices Act : 72-95, 283. Legislative Council (Debates) : 1-29, 316, 326, 328, 351, 356, 367, 378, 429, 433, 435, 441-42, 466-67, 470, 487, 526, 609. Municipal Act : 35-37. Municipality : 23, 36, 37, 161, 193, 219, 249, 279, 290, 475. Native Education Society : 408. Presidency : 2, 7, 15, 16, 27, 30-33, 47, 81, 85, 101, 140, 167, 171, 173, 193, 275, 297, 315-16, 318-24, 326, 330, 344, 367-68, 400, 403, 408, 413, 415, 420-21, 426, 429, 433, 437-38, 442, 464, 466, 469, 473-74, 477, 481, 485, 516, 527, 530, 547-48, 560, 576, 583, 637, 643, 647, 670, 699, 703-04, 714, 721-24, 731, 738, 740, 760, 766. Primary Education Act, 1923: 64-71, 280. Port Trust : 279. Trade Disputes Conciliation Act, 1934 : 201, 202. University : 45-63, 292-95, 302. 305-12. Borsad : 249-51. Bose, Babu Subhas Chandra : 263. Brahmins : 109-10, 119-20, 394-97, 404-05, 414-15, 420-21, 426, 444-45, 452, 576, 614, 685, 709, 716, 731-34, 765. Brahmo Samaj : 709-16. Bramble, Mr. : 180. Brazil : 245. British Govt. : 77, 80, 195, 206, 240, 405, 40809, 415, 447, 482, 504-05, 534, 580, 597, 604, 637, 665.