Ambedkar On Constitution March 19, 1955
Ambedkar On Constitution March 19, 1955
Ambedkar On Constitution March 19, 1955
RAJYA SABHA
Saturday, 19th March 1955
majority, which did not possess what might It seems to be suggested that those who
constitutionally be called constitutional made the Constitution had no sense, that
morality. Their official doctrine was fundamental rights must be elastic, that they
inequality of classes. Though there is must leave enough room for progressive
inequality in every community, or whatever changes. I must, Sir, as the Chairman of the
be the word, that inequality is a matter of Drafting Committee, repudiate any such sug-
practice. It is not an official dogma. But with gestion. Any one, who reads the fundamental
a majority in this country, inequality, as rights as they are enacted in the Constitution,
embodied in their Shaturvarana is an official will find that every fundamental right has got
doctrine. Secondly, their caste system is a an exception. It says: Notwithstanding any-
sword of political and administrative discri- thing contained, the State may impose
mination. The result was that the fundamental reasonable restrictions on them. We were
rights became inevitable. What I found—and quite aware of the fact that tan-damental
I know this thing more than probably many rights could not be rigid, that there must be
do, because I had something to do with it— elasticity. And we had provided enough
was that the Congress Party was so jubilant elasticity.
over the fundamental rights. They wanted
- fundamental rights. Article 31, with which we are dealing now
in this amending Bill, is an
2451 Constitution (Fourth [ RAJYA SABHA ] Amendment) Bill, 1954 2452
[Dr. B. R. Ambedkar] article for which I, DR. B. R. AMBEDKAR: Do you want a
and the Drafting Committee, can take no reply to that? I would give it to you right
responsibility whatsoever. We do not take any here.
responsibility for that. That is not our draft.
The result was that the Congress Party, at the My friend says that the last time when I
time when article 31 Vas being framed, was spoke, I said that I wanted to burn the
so divided within itself that we did not know Constitution. Well, in a hurry I did not explain
what to do, what to put and what not to put. the reason. Now that my friend has given me
There were three sections in the Congress the opportunity, I think I shall give the reason.
Party. One section was led by Sardar The reason is this: We built a temple for a god
Vallabhbhai Patel, who stood for full to come in and reside, but before the god
compensation, full compensation in the sense could be installed, if the devil had taken
in which full compensation is enacted in our. possession of it, what else could we do except
Land Acquisition Act, namely, market price d'estroy the temple? We did not intend that it
plus 15 per cent, solatium. That was his point shtfuld be occupied by the Asuras. We
of view. Our Prime Minister was against intended it to be occupied By the Devas. That
compensation. Our friend, Mr. Pant, who is is the reason why I said I would rather like to
here now— and I am glad to see him here— burn it.
had conceived his Zamindari Abolition Bill SHRI B. K. P. SINHA (Bihar): Destroy the
before the Constitution was being actually devil rather than the temple.
framed. He wanted a very safe delivery for his
baby. So he had his own proposition. There DR. B. R. AMBEDKAR: You can
was thus this tripartite struggle, and we left not do it. We have not got the
the matter to them to decide in any way they strength. If you will read the Bra-
liked. And they merely embodied what their hmana, the Sathapatha Brahmana,
decision was in article 31. This article 31, in you will see that the gods have always
my judgment, is a very ugly thing, something been defeated by the Asuras, and that
which I do not like to look at. If I may say so, the Asuras had the Amrit with them
and I say it with a certain amount of pride the which the gods had to take away in
Constitution which has been given to this order to survive in the battle. Now,
country is a wonderful document. It has been Sir, I am being interrupted ................
said so not by myself, but by many people,
MR. CHAIRMAN; You are being
many other students of the Constitution. It is
drawn into ..........
the simplest and the easiest. Many, many
publishers have written to me asking me to DB. B. R. AMBEDKAR:...............into all
write a commentary on the Constitution, sorts of things into which I do not wish to
promising a good sum. But I have always told enter.
them that to write a commentary on this
I was saying that article 31 was an article for
Constitution is to admit that the Constitution
which we were not responsible. Even then we
is a bad one and an un-understandable one. It
have made that article as elastic as we possibly
is not so. Anyone who can follow English can
understand the Constitution. could in the matter of compensation. If
No
commentary is necessary. members of the House will refer to entry 42 a"
the Concurrent List, and' compare it with
section 299 of the Government of India Act,
DR. ANUP SINGH (Punjab): Last time 1935, they will find how elastic has been the
when you spoke, you said that you would provision made by the Drafting Committee.
burn the Constitution. Section 299 of the Government of India Act
which governed the question of compensation
described the following ingredients. One was ,
inac mere must be full compensation
2453 Constitution (Fourth [ 19 MARCH 1955 ] Amendment) Bill, 1954 2454
by winch they, no doubt, meant com- Pa-rliament may not actually fix compensation,
pensation in accordance with the terms of the it may merely lay down the rules for
Land Acquisition Act. Secondly, it said that compensation, so that, if a law was passed
compensation must be paid and paid in cash which did not contain a clause specifically
before possession could be taken. That saying what should be the compensation but
was the provision in the Government of merely laid down the rules and principles,
India Act, 1935. Look at the provision that that was enough for Government to take
we have made in entry 42 of the Concurrent possession of the property and acquire it.
List, by which I hope Members will Now, Sir, I would like to ask the Members of
understand that the authority to determine this House if they can point out any
compensation is given to both the State Constitution where the procedure for acquiring
Legislatures as well as to Parliament, and property is so easy as it is in our Constitution.
the reason why we did this was simple. It Can anyone point out to me that there is some
was this: We thought that, if compensation other Constitution which enables the
was distributed in List I and List II, so that Government with greater facility to acquire
the Centre might be free to fix property for public purposes? Now, with all
compensation for such acquisition as it this facility, is there any necessity for the
might make, and the provinces or the States Government to come out with a proposition
might fix such compensation as they might that there are cases where they shall not give
think fit, it would result in utter chaos in this compensation? They need not cast the
country and that there must be some sort of whole burden, the entire burden, on the
uniformity in this. Therefore, while giving present generation. They are not asked to
authority to the States to lay down rules of say that the bonds that they might issue must
compensation, we also gave authority to be redeemable. They may make them
Parliament so that Parliament might enact a irredeemable, AH that they need do
general law which would be applicable is to give some interest on the
to the whole of India and which might bond as every borrower agrees to do
supersede any State law which might be and as every creditor gets. Why at all
inequitous. That was the reason why we even the most hasty socialist should say, "well,
put it in the Concurrent List. What is the we shall not pay compensation", I -*o not
provision we have made? We have said that it understand. There are in my judgment three
is not necessary that Government should cases or three paths that one might follow.
actually pay compensation to acquire The first path would be full compensation,
possession of property. We have not said that. the second, no compensation and the third,
We have said "compensation to be given" and compensation as determined by law. I am
not "paid" so that it is open to the quite in agreement with those who thmk
Government at the Centre as well as in the that it is not possible to accept full
States to acquire property without actually compensation in terms of the Land Acquisition
paying compensation. Act. I am quite in agreement with that; if by
full compensation is meant compensation as
The second distinction that we have made determined by the rules now prescribed by
between section 299 of the Government of the Land Acquisition Act, I am quite
India Act, 1935 and entry 42 is that, prepared to side with the Government and say
compensation may be in any form, that either that that is an impossible proposition which we
Parliament or the State Legislature might need not accept. I might at this stage draw the
decide by law to give compensation in the attention of the House to the fact that we are
form of paper bonds, cash certificates or not the only people who are bringing about
whatever they liked to give, or that they might socialism. What socialism means, nobody is
pay it in cash if they liked it. We have also able to say.
said that, although
2455 Constitution (Fourth [ RAJYA SABHA ] Amendment) Bill, 1954 2456
[Dr. B. R. Ambedkar] sation—full. That is to say, they have paid the
There is the socialism of the Prime market value for the shares that they have
Minister, which he himself said that acquired. Payment of compensation,
he cannot define. There is the socia therefore, cannot come in the way of
lism of the Praja Socialist Party; they nationalisation but as I said, I am quite prepared
don't know what it is. And even the for that proposition because the values of
Communists ......... the shares are not due merely to the share
capital that is invested. It is due to a variety of
SHRI S. N. DWIVEDY (Orissa): You don't
social circumstances. It is social causes
know either. which have brought about the rise in the
DR. B. R. AMBEDKAR: I am not a value of the-shares and there is no reason why a
socialist. private shareholder should be entitled to
appropriate to himself the social values
SHRI S. N. DWIVEDY: You want to
which have become part of the values of his
criticise without knowing what it is.
shares. I don't also understand how the
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, order; you may theory of no-compensation can be
go on. supported. In Russia they paid no
compensation, it is true. But it must not be
DK. B. R. AMBEDKAR: Even the
forgotten that the Russian Government under-
Communists say that theirs is socia
takes to give employment to people, to feed
lism and I want to know why they
them, to clothe them, to house them, to scrub
call themselves Communists if they
them and to provide for all the human needs.
are only Socialists. It would lose all
If the State can undertake to feed the population
the terrors which the word 'Commu
whom it has deprived of compensation, then
nism' has for many people and they
of course, in those circumstances, the theory
might easily have won a victory in
that no-compensation shall be paid is a valid
Andhra if they had made a change in
one. Why do you want compensation?
name. What I wanted to tell my
Compensation is necessary simply because the
friend Mr. Pant is—I hope he is listen
State has deprived an individual of his
ing to me ............
instruments of earning a living. You cannot
MR. CHAIRMAN: Of course he is deprive a man of the instruments of his
listening with the greatest attention. earnings and at the same time say, "Go and feed
yourself". That theory, in my judgment, is a
DR. B. R. AMBEDKAR: What I wanted to very barbarous one. It is therefore not
tell him was this, that this is quite interesting. possible to accept it. But why can we not accept
Anyone* who has studied the legislative the theory that just compensation means
programme of the British Labour Party, after compensation determined by the law of
the close of the War, will see that the Labour Parliament? Why not? It does not mean that
Party, in accordance with the report of the Parliament shall make a law exactly in
Trade Union Congress, published in 1945, terms of the Land Acquisition Act. You can
carried out nationalisation of various scrap the Land Acquisition Act. You have a
industries and various services including the right to do so because it is within the
Railways and even the Bank of England. X purview of both Parliament and the State
have not understood what changes have been Legislatures. It can enact a new Land
made by the Labour Party in the working of Acquisition Act with a new set of principles.
the Bank of England by nationalisation. I am a There is no harm in doing that and no difficulty
student of currency and I know something for doing that. If you do that, well, nobody
about the Bank of England but there it is that can have a right to complain because when
they had it. But what I wanted to tell my you bring forth
friend Mr. Pant is this, that in everyone of
those cases where the Labour Party has carried
out nationalisation, they have paid full
compen-
2457 Constitution (Fourth [ 19 MARCH 1955 ] Amendment) Bill, 1954 2458
such a measure for determining compensation now not a matter of moment, for the simple
by law, all sections of the House will nave a reason that a large number of people have
right to say what they have to say. It would be acted upon our interpretation as being the
the result of common agreement If one correct law, have incurred obligations,
Parliament finds certain principles to be good have secured rights. Now to say that all
and another Parliament finds that those these obligations and rights are founded
principles are bad, Parliament may change but it upon a mistaken view of the law would be
should all be done and it can be done by Parlia- to unsettle the society altogether. Let,
ment. Therefore my suggestion to the therefore, the wrong continue."
Government is this, that rather than bring in this
kind of a Bill, a bald one and, as I am going to . That is the attitude that the courts have
show later, really a very trifling thing, its corpse taken. The same reason prevails, in my
ought to be carried unwept, and unsung and judgment, why the Constitution should not be
nobody ought to cry over it. I am not going to constantly amended. People know that the
cry over it because it is not going to do any Constitution contains certain rules, certain
good or going to do any harm, as I will show. obligations, and in accordance with them,
There- ! fore, my suggestion to the Government they make their contracts, they make their
was this that rather than keep on encroaching plans for the future. It is not right, therefore,
upon these fundamental rights from time to to come in every year and to disturb these
time, it is much better to give Parliament once values. That is the reason why I say the
for all the power to determine compensation. Constitution should not be so lightly and so
This tampering with the Constitution from time frequently amended. I do not know whether
to time is a bad thing. I ! said so last time but I the Government would listen to it, perhaps
don't suppose i the Government has cared to pay not.
any I heed. I would like to repeat the same ' SHRI TAJAMUL HUSAIN ( B i h a r ,
caution again and I should like to give some Why should they?
reasons why the Constitution should not be
amended and tampered so easily. Anyone who DR. B. R. AMBEDKAR: Well, Sir. it is a
is familiar with what is called the interpretation habit. Once a cow gets the habit of running
of law by courts—and there are well-set rules as into the fields of another, you cannot convert
to how Statutes are to be interpreted—will recall her by morality. It is a habit.
that there is a famous rule of interpretation MR. CHAIRMAN: Go on, go on.
which is called stare decisis which means this,
that when the courts have given an DR. B. R. AMBbTSKAR: In other countries
interpretation for a long number of years in a wherever a clause of the Constitution has been
very uniform sense, and if after a long number interpreted by the judiciary in a way which the
of years some lawyer gets up and convinces the Government does not like, the Government
court that the existing interpretation is wrong concurs in, it does not like to upset the
and ought to be changed, the courts say that decision of the court. Here, in our country, we
they shall not do it, although they are convinced have cultivated a different mentality. Our
that the Interpretation is wrong. The reason why mentality is that if the Judges of the Supreme
the courts adopt this rule of stare decisis is very Court do not give a judgment which is to our
important. The court says: liking, then we can throw it out. That is what
it is. I am rather glad with regard to the
"Whether the interpretation we have behaviour of our Supreme Court. In the short
given is right or is wrong is time that it has been in existence, I see some
different phases of the Supreme Court. Being
a sick person I have not oeen attending the
Supreme Court for
2459 Constitution (Fourth [ RAJYA SABHA ] Amendment) Bill, 1954 2460
[Dr. B. R. Ambedkar.] the last two or three If Government buys up ownership of any
years, but I am in contact with what is property, it will amount to acquisition and
happening. I remember that 11 the very first Government will pay full compensation in
flush of its power, the Supreme Court accordance with article 31. If Government
declared or had the courage to declare that a buys up ownership, that is the important point.
certain section of the Indian Penal Code was If Government buys up ownership, then that is
ultra vires. Our Government at once reacted tantamount to acquisition and Government
and brought in an amendment to declare that will be bound to pay compensation. Secondly,
the interpretation of the Supreme Court was it means that if Government takes possession
wrong. of the property, then the taking possession will
also amount to acquisition and the
(Interruptions.)
Government will be bound to pay
MR. CHAIRMAN: Let us avoid comments compensation in accordance with the terms of
upon the Supreme Court. article 31.
DR. B. R. AMBEDKAR: I hope that 12 NOON.
notwithstanding the constant amendments That is what the clause in the Bill says:
which the Government seems to be prone to What is it that will not amount to acquisition?
bringing forth, the Supreme Court will What is it that is left which Government can
continue to have its independent judgment, do and wants to do and yet escape compen-
notwithstanding what the Government may sation? If it acquires ownership, it is said, it
have to say. I do not find that the Supreme will pay compensation; if it takes possession,
Court has given any adgment which, any it says, it will pay compensation because that
independent mar '•an say, is not in consonance would be tantamount to acquisition.
with toe terms of the Constitution.
SHRI TAJAMUL HUSAIN: What about the
Now Sir, I will proceed to deal with the Sholapur Case? It was only temporary
different clauses in the Bill. The first clause is
possession for improving matters.
clause 2. This clause 2 of the Bill divides clause
(2) rf the original article 31 into two parts, DR. B. R. AMBEDKAR: I have got the
clause (2) and clause (2A). With regard to case here; I shall come to it.
clause (2) one has nothing to say, because it is
merely a reproduction, probably with a certain It seems that the only case which will be out
economy of words, of the terms contained in of these two, acquisition of ownership and
the original clause (2). I have, therefore nothing acquisition of possession, is the cancellation of
to say about it. But clause (2A) is a new thing a licence, because, when you canggl a licence
and it must be examined carefully. In the first you do not acquire ownership and ycu do not
place, I cannot understand the meaning of this take possession and, therefore, by reason of
clause. It has not been explained by the Prime the cancellation of the licence you do not
Minister, nor do I find any explanation from my become liable for paying compensation. That
hon. friend the Minister for Home Affairs. is what this clause means. I wish it had been
What exactly is it intended to convey? It is a stated in positive terms that in the following
sort of mysterious clause; it has been shrouded cases, Government shall not pay compensation
in mystery. Now, let me analyse this clause but having been put the other way, the real
(2A). What does it say? To put it in plain meaning of this clause is very much concealed
language, quite different from the language that from the sight of the reader. If my
is used in the clause, as embodied in the interpretation is right, then, what the clause
amending Bill, it seems to say this. , intends to do is to exempt Government from
the liability for paying
2461 Constitution (Fourth [19 MARCH 1955] Amendment) Bill, 1954 2462
compensation whenever it cancels a licence. stock-in-trade because that very stock-in-trade
Is that a justifiable ground for not paying would be useful to bus running bv the
compensation? I believe that the case which Government. If it did that and then said that it
my hon. friend Mr. Pant has very much in is not going to give them any more compen-
mind and which I also have in mind, Is the sation because the stock-in-trade has been
case of the bus owners. The bus owners, bought with which money they could go and
under the Motor Vehicles Act, have to obtain practise any other trade they liked, that would
a licence for running their buses on a certain be quite an equitable proposition from my
route. My friend Mr. Pant is a very covetous point of view. But the Government does not
person and he likes to get the monopoly of want to do that. In running the Government
running the buses in his own hand and he, buses they prefer to buy new buses. The
therefore, does not like the bus owners. How Minister has yet to give an answer as to why
can he prevent them from running the buses? he would not take the old buses from the
He nas got the power of cancelling their people whose licences he has cancelled. No
licences. He therefore, cancels their licences answer has been given for this thing.
and sets on Government buses on the route on
which they were plying and he does not want MR. CHAIRMAN: Dr. Ambedkar, you
to pay them any compensation at the same have taken nearly an hour.
time. The question that I would like to ask Is DR. B. R. AMBEDAKR: Yes, Sir, that is
this: Is ihis a just and fair proposition? I have quite true.
no objection to the Government running their
own buses. I do not know how cheap the fares MR. CHAIRMAN: PJease wind up as
in I', P. are, whether they are cheaper than in early as possible.
the case of the private buses. DR. B. R. AMBEDKAR: Yes, Sir, what I
SHKI H. P. SAKSENA (Utfar Pradesh) : was saying was this, that in such cases it
Yes. would be wrong to deprive a man of his
means of livelihood and not to compensate
SHRI TAJAMUL HUSAIN: And better. him for the loss of his stock-in-trade. I would
DR. B. R. AMBEDKAR: I am not saying like to hear some argument on this subject
anything; I do not know whether they give which would justify this kind of conduct.
good service; probably they do. Therefore, my submission is that clause (2A)
is a most inequitous piece of legislation. It
SHRI TAJAMUL HUSAIN: Ye$, they do; has no relation to justice, equity and good
the Government buses always do. conduct. Unless my friend is going to give
some satisfactory explanation I mean to
DR. B. R. AMBEDKAR: But the point to
oppose that clause.
be considered is this; here are a body of
people engaged in this particular trade, who Now I will proceed to clause 3 of the
are earning their living by this trade. They amending Bill. I would like to say at the
have invested quite a lot of money in buying outset that the provisions contained in clause
their stock-in-trade, namely, the buses, the 3 are in my judgment, most insignificant,
workshops and whatever other things are trivial and jejune and I do not know what the
necessary. You suddenly come and say, "Stop Government is going to achieve by in-
your trade. We shall not allow you to carry corporating this clause in the Constitution.
on". Even that I do not mind but the point that Now, with regard to subclauses (g), (h) and (i)
I would like to ask my friend is this; the least of proposed clause (1), in clause 3 of the
thing that my hon. friend could do is at least amending Bill, I have not the least objection
to buy their because I do not see that by taking action
under these clauses, there is going to be any
injury to anybody.
2463 Constitution (Fourth [RAJYA SABHA] Amendment) Bill, 1954 2464
[Dr. B. R. Ambedkar.] The essence of what is the nature of the modification and
acquisition is that it causes injury to the what are the rights which they propose to
interests of anybody. I do not see that these modify. I think some explanation is
subclauses will cause any injury to anybody necessary.
and, therefore, I support the proposition that
there need be no compensation in these cases. Then comes (c), the fixation of the
maximum extend of agricultural land, etc.
But there is one thing that I would like to Well, all that I can say is this that whether this
say with regard to these clauses and it is this particular clause will have positive results
that if any action is taken under these clauses depends upon what is the maximum that you
(g), (h) & (i), it must only be on the ground are going to fix. This is the pet idea of the
that public purpose justifies it. It must not be Socialist Party. They want that land should be
merely an arbitrary act on the part of the distributed after fixing the maximum holding
Government. It must not be a whim that of a tenant.
Government wants to amalgamate one
company with another or transfer the manage- MR. CHAIRMAN: Are not these matters to
ment of one to another. These clauses must be be taken up in the Joint Committee when it
subject to the rule of public purpose. If that is comes to discuss the thing?
so, then there is no objection to them.
SHRI B. R. AMBEDKAR: It may be but the
point is this that it is necessary to know
Now going back to the other clauses, to (a)
whether these things are really good to be
I have no objection; it may stand as it is.
incorporated in the Constitution. My friend
Mr. Pant knows because he was the Chairman
With regard to (b) I do not know whether of the Committee on Land Tenures in U.P.
the first part of (b) is very different from (a). which I have studied—that the maximum
It seems to me that both are alike, but I would holding in U.P. is about two acres for a ryot
like to have some explanation as to what is
and I do not know that there is any part of
meant by "modification of any rights in
India where ryotwari prevails where the
agricultural holdings". What does that mean?
holding is larger than two acres. What
There is no explanation. As far as I
maximum can you fix I do not understand.
understand, an agriculturist requires four
Therefore this seems to me quite a futile
rights. First is security of tenure; he must not
thing.
be liable to ejection by the landlord without
proper cause. Secondly he should be liable to
pay only what is called fair rent, as may be The other thing about which I wish to make
determined by a court if it is necessary. some reference is this. It says that the surplus
Thirdly he must have transferability of tenure. land shall be transferred to the State or
If he wants to sell his holding he should be otherwise. I do not know what is meant by
free to sell it and the landlord should not stand "otherwise", whether it means that it may be
in his way. And fourthly it must be given to other tenants; that might be the
hereditable, that is to say, if he dies, his meaning. If so, I would like to utter a word of
descendants should have a right to claim the caution. I am of opinion that peasant
holding. Now these are the four things which I proprietorship in this country is going to bring
think a holder of an agricultural holding is about complete ruination of the country. What
interested in. Now Government would take we want is—although I am not a
power to modify these things. I do not know Communist—the Russian system of collective
farming. That is the only way by which we
can solve our agricultural problem. To create
peasant proprietorship and to hand over land
2465 Constitution (Fourth [19 MARCH 1955] Amendment) Bill, 1954 2466
to peasants who have not got means SHRI S. MAHANTY: And about Rs. 50
of production is in my judgment ..................... lakhs.