Ambedkar On Constitution March 19, 1955

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 42

2437 Constitution (Fourth [19 MARCH 1955] Amendment) Bill, 1954 2438

RAJYA SABHA
Saturday, 19th March 1955

The Htfuse met at. eleven of the clock,


MR. CHAIRMAN in the Chair.

LEAVE OF ABSENCE TO SHRI


K. L. NARASIMHAM
MR. CHAIRMAN: i have to inform
Members that the foi;wing letter has been
received from Shri K. L. Narasimham:

"I beg to submit that I have been


continuously absent from the meetings of
the Rajya Sabha during the eighth and the
current session. I request you to excuse me
for this continued absence. As I intend to
start from this place on the 20th March
1955, I seek the permission of the House to
condone my previous absence and permit
me to rema'n abs=en* till the 18th March
1955."
Is it the pleasure of the House that
permission be granted to Shri K. L.
Narasimham for remaining absent from all
meetings of the House from the 25th
November to 24111 December 1954 and from
21st February to 18th March 1955?

(No hon. Member dissented.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Permission is granted.

THE CONSTITUTION (FOURTH


AMENDMENT) BILL, 1954—continued

MR. CHAIRMAN: Syed Mazhar Imam.


2439 mnttitution (Fourth [ RAJYA SABHA ] Amendment) Bill, 1954 2440
2441 Constitution (Fourth [ 19 MARCH 1955 ] Amendment) Bill, 1954 2442
2443 Constitution (Fourth [RAJYA SABHA] Amendment)-Bill, 1954 2444
2445 Coiwtitution (Fourth [ 19 MARCH 1955 ] Amendment) Bill, 1954 2446

DR. B. R. AMBEDKAR (Bombay): Mr.


Chairman, those who are familiar with the
British Parliamentary system will know that
there is a dogma in the working of the British
Constitution that all parties in England accept.
That dogma is that the King can do no wrong.
If any wrong is done in the working of the
Constitution, the person responsible for the
wrong is the Prime Minister and his
colleagues. But the King can never be wrong
and can never do wrong. We too in this
country have adopted practically, with slight
modifications, the British Constitution. But
unfortunately the working of our Constitution
is governed by a dogma, which is jug! the
opposite of the dogma adopted by the British
people. In our country the dogma on which we
prqceed is tha* the Prime Minister can do no
wrong and that he will do no wrong. There-
fore, anything that the Prime Minister
proposes to do must be accepteo
2447 Constitution {Fourth [RAJYA SABHA] Amendment) Bill, 1954 2448
[Dr. B. R. Ambedkar.] as correct and country that this idea of fundamental rights
without question. This devotion in politics to a emerged. It is our Constitution which for the
personality may be excusable in some cases, first time contains the embodiment of what are
but it does not seem to me excusable where called fundamental rights. It is a very strange
the fundamental rights ara being invaded. The thing that although the foreigners were ruling
fundamental rights are the very basis of the in this country, namely the British, no one
Preamble to the Constitution. The Preamble ever agitated for the enactment of the
says that this Constitution will have as its fundamental rights. The Congress was in
basis liberty, equality and fraternity. These existence from 1886. Let anyone examine the
objectives of the Constitution are carried out annual resolutions passed by the Congress.
by the fundamental rights. And it is, therefore, They never asked for any fundamental rights.
the duty, I should have thought, of every B>ABU GOPINATH SINGH (Uttar
Member of Parliament, apart from personal
Pradesh): Did you read the Karachi Congress
loyalty, to be critical when any invasion is
Resolution of 1931, V
made of the fundamental rights.
Unfortunately, one does not find this kind DR. B. R. AMBEDKAR: WelL I
critical attitude. The history of fundamental have no idea about that. They said
rights in this country is very interesting. In that they would have fundamental
olden times under the Hindu kings there were rights when they enact a Constitution.
fundamental rights only for two —the I am coming to that now. It is as I
Brahmin and the cow—and the Puranas say a very strange commentary that no
described the king as "Go Brahmana Indian—and the Indians who ran the
Pratipala." That was the duty of a king; Congress in the earliest times were
whether the other sections of his subjects intellectual giants: they were not ordi
received any consideration at his hands or not, nary people, they were most learned,
or whether animals other than the 'Go' had any they were wide awake—not one of
consideration was a matter of no moment at them to my knowledge asked for any
all. So long as the Brahmin and the cow were fundamental rights. But as soon as
protected, the king was destined to go to Swaraj came, there was a demand for
heaven. fundamental rights. Kt is a matter
worth consideration why this happen
ed? Various people would no doubt
When the Muslims came, they took away give various replies, but my reply h
these fundamental rights which the Hindu very simple. My reply is this—the
kings had granted to the Brahmin and the reason why Indians did not demand
cow. The cow unfortunately not only lost its fundamental rights when the British
right to live, but became the victim of every- were here is this. Although the
body. So was the case of the Brahmin. What British had their imperialism as one
the Muslims did was to give privileges to the
aspect of their rule, there cannot be
Mussalman and no rights to the non-Muslims.
any doubt that the administration of
After the Muslim rule ended in this country,
this country was governed by what
there came upon us the rule of the British.
was called the rule of justice, equity
Anyone who examines the various
and good conscience. Sir, I remem
Government of India Acts passed from 1772
to 1935 will find that there were no such thing ber, at least speaking for my own
as fundamental rights in any of the Govern- Province, how independent was the
ment of India Acts that were passed by judiciary which wholly consisted of
Parliament for the administration of this Europeans. How independent it was
country. It is in 1947 or so when Swaraj of the executive. I remember a
became a fact in this case .........

DEWAN CHAMAN LALL (Punjab): Is


it Tilak's case?
DR. B. R. AMBEDKAR: It is a very
famous one, the case of a Mr. Justice
2449 Constitution (Fourth [ 19 MARCH 1955 ] Amendment) BUI, 1954 2450
Knight who was the Chief Justice of the and they thought that fundamental rights were
Bombay High Court during the time of the so necessary that if th« Indian people had a
East India Company. He had issued a writ constitution which did not embody
against the Government of Bombay and the fundamental rights, they would appear nude
Government of Bombay refused to obey. to the world. That was the reason why they
They said that the Chief Justice of the clamoured for fundamental rights. In the
Bombay High Court had no right to issue a proceedings of the Constituent Assembly, I
writ against the executive. When they d'o not find a single Member who stood up
informed him that they were not going to and said "We do not want fundamental
carry out that particular writ, what did Mr. rights." Fundamental rights were regarded as
Knight do? He called the Chaprassi and said: a Aind of an ornament which the Indian
"Bring the keys of the High Court", and he people must have. Today, their attitude has
asked him to lock up every room of the High undergone a complete change. Today, they
Court, including his own, and next day look upon the fundamental rights as an iron
booked a passage for himself and went back chain which ought to be broken, whenever
to London, saying: "If you are not going to occasion arose for breaking it. This, I find, is
obey my orders as the Chief Justice of the a fundamental change. I am sorry to say that
Bombay High Court, you will have no High this attitude of treating the fundamental rights
Court, at all." Subsequently, of course, his with contempt, as though they were of no
''order was reversed by the Privy Council. But consequence, that they could be trodden upon
that is no matter at all. The point is that the at any time with the convenience of the
British administered this country in a manner majority or the wishes of a Party chief, is an
in which everybody felt that there was some attitude that may easily lead to some
sense of security. That is the reason why, in dangerous consequences in the future. And I
my judgment, nobody in this country therefore feel very sorry that even a matter of
clamoured for fundamental rights. But as soon this sort, namely, the infringement of, or the
as Swaraj presented itself, • everybody deviation from, fundamental rights, is being
thought—at least many of the minorities treated by the Party in power as though it was
thought— that there was the prospect of poli- a matter of no moment at all.
tical authority passing into the hands of a ■

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.

SHRI TAJAMUL HUSAIN: Have they DR. B. R. AMBEDKAR: What other


done it in Russia? corporations would do I do not know.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Don't bother, he takes But if you take the property of a man
it as an illustration. because it is mismanaged and because there is
social purpose in it, you must also make some
DR. B. R. AMBEDKAR: I am prepared to provision that the losses that might be
pick and choose from everyone, Socialist, incurred are made good by somebody and are
Communist or other. I do not claim not put on the head of the old man who was
infallibility and as Buddha says there is the owner of the property.
nothing infallible; there is nothing final and
everything is liable to examination.
Now, Sir, one word with regard to clause 5.
It seems to me very obnoxious. What are we
SHRI TAJAMUL HUSAIN: That is why we asked to do by clause 5? By clause 5 we are
are amending, the Constitution framed by Dr. asked to give constitutional validity to laws
Ambedkar, passed by State Legslatures. We have not
seen those laws; they have not been
SHRI S. MAHANTY (Orissa): And voted circulated; they have not been debbted here.
by you. And yet we are asked here to exercise the
constituent powers of Parliament not only to
DR. B. R. AMBEDKAR: Now with regard validate them but to give them constitutional
to vacant and waste land. That proposition is immunity from the other clauses of the Act.
of course a welcome proposition and I Sir, I think it is very derogatory to the dignity
support it. But I have yet to see if you take of the House that it should be called upon to
vacant land without compensation, whether validate laws passed by some other State
the municipality which would have to which laws it has not seen, it has not
exercise this right would do so because I fear considered. The proper thing for the
a large majority of municipal councillors are Government to do is to put these subjects in
friends of the slum-owners and therefore the concurrent field so that Parliament may at
probably they will not exercise this right least give them validity by the powers vested
unless something more is done. in it. But it is a very wrong thing. Because we
did it in the case of the first amendment
Now with regard to management, all that I where we added the Ninth Schedule to the
want to say is this. Most people do not realise Constitution, that is no reason why we should
what is involved in this. If the Government widen this anomaly and this ugliness in the
wants to take up the management of a mill be- Constitution.
cause it is badly managed, there is no harm in
doing that. But the question is this. Suppose That is all that I want to say.
the Government management turns out to be
MR. CHAIRMAN: Dr. Raghu Vira.
worse than the previous management and
losses are created, who is going to be (The hon. Member was not present)
responsible for those losses? I think some
provision must be ma<'.e. Nationalised MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Members may
industries so far as India is concerned do not have to sit through the lunch hour because we
appear to be very profitable. Our Airways have many speakers. Mr. Pant will reply at
Corporation, as I see from papers, has brought 3.30. So be as brief as possible.
to us a loss of one crore of rupees within one
year.
2467 Constitution (Fourth [ RAJYA SABHA ] Amendment) BUI, 1954 2468
[MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN in the Chair.] amendment to the Constitution. Sir, the
Industries (Development and Regulation) Act
is going to be made part of the Ninth Schedule
SHRI KISHEN CHAND (Hyderabad): Mr. by this amending Bill. When that was passed,
Deputy Chairman, after the very lucid speech I raised certain fundamental objections which
by Dr. Ambed-kar clarifying certain defects in were overruled. If an industrial concern is
this Bill, I beg to say at the very start that as running badly, the Government has every right
pointed out by the mover of the motion, the to interfere in it and take it over, beceuse
people of India are supreme and this national assets cannot be allowed to be
ParTament is supreme to enact any law that it frittered away. But as pointed out by the
wants to pass, but when we are passing any preceding speaker, if as has happened in the
law we have to consider whether the fun- case of the Sholapur Mills, the Government
damental principle of the Constitution management proves to be worse, who is going
whereby the power of the Executive and of the to pay for the loss? I will give the concrete
Judiciary is balanced is not being upset by our case of Taj Glass Works Ltd., in Hyderabad. It
laws. I am in full agreement with the desire of is a limited concern in which the public has
the people of the country to set up a socialistic invested Rs. 30 lakhs—mostly poor people. It
pattern of society whereby inequalities of was badly managed and the Government took
income may go away, but whether it is right to it over. But the management by the
give extra powers to the Executive is a Government proved to be still worse and it has
different thing. I submit, Sir, that during the created a liability of Rs. 30 lakhs. If that
last six years when the Constitution has been concern is liquidated now the poor
in force, slowly and gradually greater and shareholders will not get even one anna but if
greater power is being given to the Executive four years back it had been liquidated before it
to the detriment of the rignts of the people. was taken over by the Government, the
There is the Preventive Detention Act by shareholders would have got at least 50 per
which the individuals liberty has been taken cent of their money. The difficulty is that in a
away and handed over to the Executive. poor country like ours where everybody,
Ther*1 is another Act, the Requisitioning of except a few hundred who may be rich, is
Property Act, which is in existence even seven poor, you are depriving the people of what
years after independence, when there is no little they have. It is the common people who
emergency. Even small flats of two rooms are have put in their small savings in some of
requisitioned from tenants and they are thrown these industrial concerns and if these people
out because the Executive has got the power. are made to suffer because of bad
Now, we are giving some more powers to the management by Government, is it fair and
Executive and it is possible that the Executive right to deprive them of their means of live-
may exercise its discretion to the detriment of lihood? I feel that often people appeal to the
the individual and to the detriment of the emotions of hon. Members by conjuring up
rights of the people residing in this country. I these multi-millionaires and foreigners. As the
submit, Sir, that the hon. the Home Minister hon. the Finance Minister has several times
has based his arguments in favour of this Bill pointed out, there may be 300 or 400 of these
entirely on a wrong piece of logic. He started multi-millionaires, but it is the common
by referring to the case of Sholapur Mills that masses who are going to suffer by this type of
things were going on normally, but that the arbitrary powers in the hands of the Executive.
judgment of the Supreme Court in the An hon. Member said on the day before
Sholapur Mills case awakened the yesterday that these foreigners are squeezing
Government to the necessity of bringing out money from the people and that they are
forward this making huge profits.
2469 Constitution (Fourth [ 19 MARCH 1955 ] Amendment) Bill, 1954 2470
He wanted that their assets should be Executive is slowly and gradually making our
expropriated. I may point out to him that our country poorer and poorer. Instead of better
Sterling balances alone are Rs. 700 crores and management, it is leading to bad management.
other investments of Indians outside India are I would suggest that a minor amendment
worth about Rs. 1500 crores. The total in- should be made in the In-austries
vestment of foreigners in our country would (Development and Regulation) Act to the
barely be about Rs. 500 crores and if you ever effect if a concern is not being managed
think of expropriating them, the nation is properly the Government will have the right
going to lose. After all, we cannot live in to take it over, but after taking it over if any
isolation in this world. We have got to carry loss is incurred that loss will not to be a
on business and trade with other countries and liability on the concern. But the Government
therefore in our laws we should have some does not want to do it. The Government wants
sort of respect for fair rights of property in to take over the management and yet put the
industries and in investments. liability for the loss on the concern. It is not
fair. Suppose the Government takes over a
The question in this case is the quantum house—even temporarily—worth Rs. 20,000
of compensation. I agree— that whenever and then spends Rs. 30,000 on it in additions
possible the Government should give some and repairs. And suppose it returns the house
compensation. It is not a question as if the to the original owner with a liability of Rs.
compensation is to be determined by an out- 30,000 on the property. Now, that property
side source. Instead of this Bill the may not be worth that much at all. The owner
Government should have brought a simple will not only lose the property but will have
modification that the "tftfantum of also to met the liability on it.
compensation will be determined by
Parliament, then the quantum of Then, Sir, it has been pointed out that too
compensation will come out of the scope frequent changes in the Constitution will
of the judiciary. In that case there would bring our Constitution into a sort of
have been no need of this Bill. I find that the lowering of prestige. There is nothing
whole argument is about the quantum of sacrosanct in the Constitution; the Constitution
compensation. We cannot afford to give full can be changed, but it is the usual practice to
compensation, which is absolutely out of the change the Constitution when there is very
question. The other argument that no urgent need for it. But what do we find?
compensation should be paid is all right if Every year for petty and minor things the
the Government provided means of Constitution is being changed. If we proceed
livelihood to every citizen in this country. in this way, there will be no finality in our
An hon. Member pointed out that the Constitution. It will become an arbitrary thing
Government has not done anything to relieve for the majority party to go on changing the
unemployment or to find means of livelihood Constitution to suit their likes and dislikes, to
for the majority of the people of our country. change the Constitution whenever they think
We want to take away the means of livelihood that the judiciary has given a verdict against
and at the same time we are not providing their wishes. This is not the right thing. It
anything in its place. Is it fair and right? So- will create a precedent that when at a future
cialisation cannot be achieved by halfhearted time some other party comes into power,
measures. Either we have full they will again change the Constitution to
socialisation with provision for every their own liking and in this way we will never
have any finality about our laws. All life is
individual or until the time we can do so we
really based on certain sorts of habits, certain
have got to allow him to earn his own
sorts of
livelihood. The result is that this type of
legislation of giving extraordinary powers
to the
6 R.S.D.—2
2471 Constitution (.Fourth [RAJYA SABHA] Amendment) Bill, 1954 2472
[Shri Kishen Chand.] that we have been under foreign rule for a
-'ights, certain sorts of privileges which ^row number of years. Our last rulers were the
up with time. Men get used to certain ways of British. Our rulers did nothing to improve the
living because the laws of the country are condition of India, to improve the lot of the
directing them in that way. And, therefore, people. If you see the other countries of the
when we are changing our laws, we have got world which are independent and see our own
to be very careful, that things are not changed country, you will find a world of difference.
arbitrarily and too frequently, so that there is Although we have achieved independence, yet
no continuity of the way of living in our there are many things which remain to be
society. I submit that the hon. Home Minister done for the improvement of the country, for
is trying to achieve a good object by a wrong the improvement of the people. Now, the
method. The object, in so far as it is, the question is how are we going to improve our
attainment of a socialistic pattern of society is lot? It is our duty, it is the duty of every
good, but the me'ans that he has adopted of Indian to improve the status of India, to
just making a change here and there without improve the social condition of India, to im-
providing for counter-balancing things is not prove India in every possible way. We need
right. And therefore, though supporting this money, without money we can do nothing.
amending Bill, I would request the hon. Home From where are we going to get money?
Minister that when the Select 'Committee is Taxation is one source. We have high
considering it, they should re-consider many taxation. Surely we do not want to go on
of its clauses and try to lay proper stress on having more taxation. The only way we can
the crying needs of our country, that of have money is to acquire property, and
solving unemployment and giving a fair return especially properties which are in the hands of
to the agriculturists and not fritter away its those people who for generations are eating
energies on this type of minor changes in our the fruit of the property without any labour on
Constitution. their part. I mean especially the zamin-dars—I
am one of them. Therefore, the properties
have to be taken over by Government. In
SHRI TAJAMUL HUSAIN: Mr. Deputy regard to the question of the quantum of
Chairman, as far as I can understand. compensation, my personal view is that for
the benefit of the people of India, for the
SHRI SATYAPRIYA BANERJEE (West benefit of the State, for public purposes, no
Bengal): A little louder please. compensation should be paid at all. That is my
personal view. But the party which I represent
SHRI TAJAMUL HUSAIN: I have been ill is very generous, they want to pay something.
in bed for a long time and so I am unable to The question is: can they afford to pay full
speak louder. compensation? If they pay that amount, what
is the use of acquisition? There will not be any
MR. DEPUTE OiAIRMAN: Please come money in the hands of the Government to
before the mike. make those improvements which they are very
anxious to make and which every Indian,
SHRI TAJAMUL HUSAIN: I was saying
every patriotic Indian—in fart, an Indian who
that as far as I can understand, the only point
does not want the improvement of India is a
at issue is whether after acquisition of
traitor to India—is anxious to do. Therefore,
property by Government, the quantum of
they cannot pay that amount which is the
compensation should be fixed by Parliament
and the State Legislature, or by a court of law. market value. They know their budget. They
That is the only point before us. Now, there know
cannot be the least doubt
2473 Constitution (Fourth [ 19 MARCH 1955 ] Amendment) Bill, 1954 2474
how much money they require. Therefore, it when there were Hindu Kingdoms, they had
should be they themselves, the Government, fundamental rights for their cows and for their
who should be the persons who should fix the Brahmins. When the Muslims came, they had
compensation, that is, "we can pay so much their fundamental rights for the Muslims. And
and no further." A court of law—the Supreme when the Britishers came, of course, they had
Court for which I have got the greatest fundamental rights for their own people. So,
respect—cannot be the judges in this matter. now the Indians have come into power. I
How do they know as to how much money we think it is the first time—I am not a student of
can spare, how much money we require? It is history, but it is the first time—in the history
we who know that. Therefore, my submission of India that Indians are the rulers of the
is that the quantum of compensation should whole India. The people are themselves the
not be fixed by the courts, the courts should rulers of the whole of India, without
not be allowed to fix that. It is Parliament exception. Of course, there is one pocket here
which should do it. And what is Parliament? or there, but that does not matter. It will
Parliament are the people. In democracy the ultimately come to us. But we find that today
masters of the country are the people. They Indians are the rulers of the country. And as
have selected from among themselves to send soon as they became the rulers of their own
their representatives in Parliament and State country, they gave fundamental rights to
Legislatures. They are the representatives of themselves. That is very obvious and very
the people. They know how much money is logical.
required. It is for them to fix vhe quantum of
compensation and not for any other body. Now, Sir, there are Fundamental Rights, and
Then, Sir, I would like to make one there arc also Directive Principles. The same
suggestion to the hon. Minister. I find/ that Constitution gives certain directions. Now
after the Zamindari Abolition Act the scale of under article 45 there is a Directive Principle to
compensation differs very much. In Bihar the effect that there should be free compulsory
there is one scale of compensation and in Uttar and primary education for the whole of India.
Pradesh there is quite a different scale of com- But the difficulty is this. From where are we
pensation. In the case of Bihar, the scale of going to get the money? This direction is, of
course in the Constitution. The people of India
compensation is from 20 times the net annual
have given this direction to Parliament and the
ir.rome, to 3 times the net annual income. But
State Legislatures for free education. We
in the case of Uttar Pradesh, it is a uniform
cannot get the money if we are to pay the full
rate of 8 times the net annual income. My
amount of compensation. Then, Sir, article 38
suggestion in this connection to the hon. Home
says that the State shall promote welfare of the
Minister is that the scale of compensation people. How are we to promote the welfare of
should be uniform everywhere. It should not the people without money? And then, Sir,
vary frt«m State to State, This is my under article 44 we find that the State shall .
suggestion to him. have one uniform civil code. Very good. Sir.
Now, Sir, I would like to say a few words But the moment the Law Minister brings
about what Dr. Ambedkar has said. He has forward a Bill to this effect, there will be some
spoken about fundamental rights at great sections which will raise an objection to a uni-
length. He has •said that during the British form religious code. They will say, "why
regime not a single Indian wanted should we have this code? We have
fundamental rights. But where was Dr. fundamental rights to have our own separate
Ambedkar then. Why did he not care for code." So these things will always be there
fundamental rights, if nobody else did it? And with regard to
he said that in the olden days
2475 Constitution (Fourth [ RAJYA SABHA ] Amendment) Bill, 1954 2476
[Shri Tajamui Husain.]
our Fundamental Rights and Directive
Principles.

Then, Sir, Dr. Ambedkar has said that in


England, the dogma is that the King can do no
wrong, but in this country it is the Prime
Minister who can do no wrong. I do not think
that is the principle. But if this be the
principle, I entirely agree with it. Who is the
Prime Minister? What is he? He is the people.
He is the representative of the people, the sole
representative of the people of India, and he
can do no wrong. The people can do no
wrong; therefore, he can do no wrong. That is
my reply to Dr. Ambedkar.

Then, Sir, my hon. friend, Shri Kishen


Chand, asked: Why change the Constitution
so often? Well, Sir, the American Constitution
was framed, I think, in 1789, and within two
years after the framing of the Constitution, ten
amendments were made to it, ten times the
amendments were made to it. It is a historical
fact. And, Sir, if within two years the great
United States of America can have ten
amendments, why can't we, within five years,
have four amendments?

Lastly, Sir, a suggestion has been made for


eliciting public opinion on this Bill. The latest
public opinion that we have got is from
Andhra. People want the Congress to rule.
And I can say with confidence, Sir, that if this
Bill is sent to the people, to the real people,
for their opinion, the answer would be, "Don't
pay any compensation at all. It is being done
to safeguard the interests of the people in
general." Therefore, Sir, if there is any
suggestion for sending this Bill for eliciting
public opinion, that is merely adopting
delaying tactics and nothing else. With these
few words, Sir, I entirely support the motion
before the House.
2477 Constitution (Fourth [ 19 MARCH 1955 ] Amendment) Bill, 1954 2478
2479 Constitution (Fourth [RAJYA SABHA] Amendment) Bill, 1954 2480
2481 Constitution (Fourth [ 19 MARCH 1955 ] Amendment) Bill, 1954 2482
2483 Constitution (Fourth [RAJYA SABHA] Amendment) Bill, 1954 2484
that unpleasant past. However, Sir, let me
give the House a little history. On the
10th September 1949, when the Draft
Constitution of India was before the
Constituent Assembly, the Prime Minister
brought this article for acceptance by the
Constituent Assembly which it did. It was
then article 24 of the Draft Constitution.
On the 15th of October 1951, that is about
two years after, the Prime Minister
became sadder and I may add, also wiser,
when he told the Provisional Parliament
of that time that the planning could not
very well go on because the Constitution
stood in the way. On the 4th of September
1953 I had the honour to move for
consideration of my amendment referred
to above, but unfortunately it was thrown
out, and I am happy today that the Prime
"It must not be difficult to them Minister himself has brought an
to see that the holding of millions amendment to this very article, after the
is a crime when millions of their House had rejected mine, and I hope, the
own kith and kin are starving or House will not be so foolish or unwise as
are without clothes." to reject now, this amendment proposed
by the Prime Minister. Sir, I welcome this
MH. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: There measure and I welcome it so far as it
are only four speakers. So there is no goes. I wish it had gone further—when I
need to sit through the lunch hour. say "further", I mean if the Prime
Minister found his way to accept my
The House stands adjourned till 2-30. amendment in toto. He says that the only
We shall meet again at 2-30. matter which is to be considered is the
manner and the quantum of
The House then adjourned for compensation. There is no question of
lunch at seven minutes past one expropriation. This is what he said in the
of the clock. other House:
"The question resolves itself to the
manner and the quantum of
The House reassembled after lunch at compensation."
half past two of the clock, MR. DEPUTY
CHAIRMAN in the Chair. May I ask him now, in all humility,
whether clause 2 of the amending Bill
SHRI SATYAPRIYA BANERJEE: Mr. corresponds to what he said in the other
Deputy Chairman, I think I have some House, whether the whole clause 3 of the
claim to speak on this Constitution Bill does not admit of expropriation? Let
(Fourth Amendment) Bill, because it was me Sir, put before you the amendment
my privilege to introduce the which I moved and which was
Constitution (Third Amendment) Bill unfortunately thrown out. It runs thus: I
about two years ago which sought to wanted, in place of article 31 of the pre-
amend the very article 31 which the hon. sent Constitution, to insert the following
the Prime Minister has thought fit to article:
amend now. I do not desire to relate here
the circumstances and conditions in "Property shall be guaranteed by
which the Constitution was framed as a Constitution.
result of the transfer of power from the
British rulers to the Congress hands. I
will not rake up the memories of
2485 constitution (Fourth [ 19 MARCH 1955 ] Amendment) Bill, 1954 2486
Its nature and limits shall be pro- wise to bring this amendment, he will—I
vided by law. make that prophecy here and now—he
will come round to my point of view and
Expropriation shall take place only bring forward another amendment which
for the general good and only on the will make expropriation not implicit as it
basis 01 law. is here, but explicit as I had put it in my
It will be determined by law in which Bilh
cases, to what extent and in what
manner the owner shall be. There is laughter and smiling, I hear.
compensated.
Under the same conditions, indi- SHEI M. GOVINDA REDDY (My-
vidual branches of national economy sore): Because of your prophecy.
or single enterprises may be
nationalised by law, if the common SHRI SATYAPRIYA BANERJEE:
interest requires it." Thank you very much; the prophecy will
come to be true.
Sir I maintain that the present clause 3
of this amending Bill lays down certain SHRI H. P. SAKSENA: It is wishful
cases in which Parliament or any of the thinking.
State Legislatures can enact laws which
may not provide for any compensation. It
may be the individual wish or desire of SHRI SATYAPRIYA BANERJEE:
the Prime Minister now to say that you Wishful thinking will be a fact.
should pay compensation in all cases. But
Dr. Ambedkar has let the cat out of the Sir, there appears to be a race run
bag when he said that in the Constituent between the Supreme Court and the
Assembly, where three schools of Government of India, i.e., the executive
thought prevailed at that time, the Prime of the ruling party in Parliament. Both are
Minister was against the payment of any supreme in their own spheres. The
compensation. I wish he were the same Supreme Court is the supreme authority
Prime Minister now and accepted my in its own sphere; nobody is there to
amendment in toto. outrun it in the race. There is also a
province of the Government of India or,
There are really many defects and for that matter, the Parliament which is
deficiencies in the present amending Bill. also supreme in its own sphere. The elu-
Industry Jias been almost left untouched, cidation and the declaration of policy is in
only the landed estates have mostly become the hands of Parliament, and here the
the concern of the powers that be now. If Parliament is supreme. Parliament—I
you want to build your society under a mean the Constituent Assembly—in 1949
system of planned economy, you have to thought that they had the last word of
make provision of expropriation, for wisdom when they framed article 31 but
expropriation is more often than not somehow or other, in spite of the
necessary for establishing a society which, considered opinion of late Shri Alladi,
the Congress has accepted now, should be one of the greatest constitutional lawyers
of the socialist pattern. I do not see what of his day, the Supreme Court crept in and
stands in the way of this simple word the whole edifice of the policy of the
"expropriation" being used. Expropriation Government cf India fell to the ground
for • what? Expropriation for the building and in order to raise that structure again,
up of the country. You are amending article they have brought this amending Bill.
31, for what purpose? For the purpose of What will it do? The Prime Minister—I
building up the country. I am sure when the have always characterised him as a
Prime Minister has found it fit and juggler of words—says, "so far as the
acquisition of property is concerned, the
old law
2487 Constitution (Fourth [ RAJYA SABHA ] Amendment) Bill, 1954 2488
tShri Satyapriya Banerjee.] still there was no proper law for the
holds." That means, justiciable-ness is acquisition of property for the reha-
still there; article 31(1) remains as it is; bilitation of the refugees. There was a law
article 31(2) is substantially the same as it in West Bengal, the Development Act,
is and only an additional clause (2A) has which was contested in the High Court
been added which, if I may use that term and the High Court gave judgment
is no other than police power and that against the Government. Thereby all
police power has been incorporated in acquisitions of property for the
(2A) as a result of the lesson taught to the rehabilitation of refugees were stopped.
Government by the Supreme Court in the This amending Bill will perhaps help the
Sholapur Mill case. Therefore, the Government in acquiring properties for
Government have been very anxious this the refugees.
time to see to it that the Supreme Court
does not come in its way but thanks to the My time is up but I have so many things
ingenuity of lawyers of our country, I am to say. I would like to compare my Bill
sure they will come in by whatever means with this Bill; that is the first task that I
it may be, I do not know, but they will would like to do just now. My Bill was
come and again stand in the way of the that expropriation shall take place only
Government's policy of building up the within the limitations provided by law and
country on socialistic lines. Therefore, I the second was that expropriation
say again, let not the Prime Minister fight shall take place only for the general good
shy of the word "expropriation"; let him and only on the basis of law, of properties
accept the doctrine that expropriators who beyond the limit prescribed by law. What
have been expropriating the life and harm is there? Is that expropriation? I do
property of others need not be not think it is in the sense it is understood
compensated but should be expropriated. by my hon. friends opposite. It will be
That is the lesson which our Shastras also determined by law as to in which case,
have taught us: in what manner and to what extent the
owner shall be compensated not that
expropriation shall be in every case.
There are poor people whose property
might be acquired. They shall have the
That is not alien and that is not foreign to full compensation for their property
us. That is in our culture and that is in our acquired; expropriation would be only in
civilisation. Therefore, let not my friends those cases where people have amassed
on the other side fight shy whenever the huge properties and where it is crime to
word "expropriation" comes in. give them anything more in addition to
what they have got. Regarding
I am grateful to Dr. Ambedkar when he slums the Prime Minister has ex-
justified expropriation by the Russians just pressed it in a language which needs to be
after the Revolution. Why? Because the repeated before the House. "I think it is a
expropriation there meant the building up crime to have slums, for the person who
of^ life of every man, woman and child in owns it and the Government that
that country. Let expropriation in that tolerates it." A Government that has
spirit take place here and I am sure each tolerated so far the existence of slums, a
man, woman and child of the country will Government which now tries to retrace its
bless the Prime Minister with all their steps has our congratulations, it is
heart. never too late to mend.
Rehabilitation is a problem that has One thing I would add and I will have
baffled solution up to this time. It has done. I will again say that the
baffled up to this time because Constitution that governs the country
today was iramed under circumstances in
which liberty descended
2489 Constitution (Fourth [ 19 MARCH 1955 ] Amendment) Bill, 1954 2490
upon the people of India, in which the due recognition and consideration in the
people or India did not raise themselves Constitution.' And the Prime Minister has
up to liberty and it is because of this very just now begun to give recognition to
single factor that the Constitution has those forces. I again welcome the Bill
been framed in this way. No matter how and say that the Prime Minister ought to
the Preamble may be high-sounding, no have gone further and accepted the whole
matter there is a chapter called the Direc- of my amendment.
tive Principles of State Policy which may
contain many noble and pious wishes, I SHRI D. D. ITALIA (Hyderabad): Mr.
will say what I had said some time back, Deputy Chairman, I stand to give my
the chapter on the Directive Principles of wholehearted support to the motion so
State Policy is inconsistent with the ably moved by the hon. the Home
whole Constitution. Minister. In the beginning I had no
intention to speak on this Bill, but as
These two things do not go and cannot some of the hon. Members criticised
go well together. I am happy that the against the capitalist group and against
Prime Minister has thought fit to retrace certain interested parties, I think it is my
his steps, has heard the foot-steps of the duty to stand and say a .few words to
coming events, events which show that remove the bad impression which they
the people are struggling to raise have in their minds against the capitalist
themselves up to liberty. He has taken group and the so called interested parties.
note of this fact and therefore he has
come with this amendment. Let me, Sir, at the very outset inform
And this brings me to the fundamentals the Members that capitalists are never
of a Constitution. What is a Constitution, against any social or economic reforms.
Sir? I may just quote to you what I said Let me assure you, Sir, that the capitalists
on the 4th of September, 1953. 'What is a always welcome each and every social
Constitution? A Constitution is the funda- reforms. They always co-operate with all
mental law of the land; nothing more, such movements which improve the
nothing less, "Grundgesetz" as the status of downtrodden persons. I myself
Germans call it. The spirit of the personally think it is the bounden duty of
fundamental law should permeate all the all such persons, whom the Almighty has
ordinary laws of the land. It cannot be endowed with wealth and good fortune,
arbitrary; but it must reflect and to be useful to such unfortunate persons
correspond to the correlation of forces and wholeheartedly give such help and
and power relationship operating in a support as they deserve.
given society at a given time. The I was taught in my very childhood that
questions relating to the Constitution of a it blesses him who gives as well as him
country, therefore, are not questions of who receives. I am rotarian and the rotary
law nor of right alone but actually motto is service before self. So it is the
questions of the correlation of social duty of every citizen of this country to
forces and power relationships, serve his country in the best manner he
"Machtverhaltnisse", as the Germans call can.
it, and the written Constitution of a
country, in order to be of value and No one can deny that our Constitution
enduring, must necessarily reflect those was framed by the best brains of India.
correlation of forces and power So if it is not superior to other
relationships. Where the written Constitutions, to my mind it is as good as
Constitution does no longer do so, a many Constitutions of the advanced
conflict becomes inevitable in which the countries. It is the bounden duty of every
written Constitution of a country will give citizen to honour every article of the
way to the surging tide of the rising Constitution as long as it is in existence.
forces in the society which were not givee But
2491 Constitution (Fourth [ RAJYA SABHA ] Amendment) Bill, 1954 2492
[Shri D. D. Italia.] whenever we find I Court affect the future development j of
social or economic reforms or de-:
certain lacuna 01 difficulty to interpret it
correctly, by which majority of the velopment, Government cannot sit j quiet,
people arc affected, then it is our duty asbut according to the Directive Principles
Members of Legislature to amend such amend certain articles for the benefit of the
articles so that in future no difficulty vast number of people. In accordance with
arises in the way of implementing the this principle the amendment is suggested
social or economic reforms. Legislatures in article 31, clause (2). The Select
must always be fair. Committee to whom the Bill is referred
will, I am sure, thoroughly and carefully
think over the pros and cons and amend it
Our Constitution contains the Preamble in such a manner that there will be no
and also the Directive Principles. Our ground for any class of people for any
Constitution has also defined the hardship or injustice.
Fundamental Rights and they are entitled
to every consideration and regard. Our Whilst welcoming this Bill my
Constitution also provides for the humble suggestion to the members of the
constitution of an independent judiciary, Select Committee is to fix certain ceilings
and the Supreme Court. The Supreme up to which compensation must be paid
Court deserves every right which we can- which should be just and adequate and also
not deny. But at the same time we must to fix the minimum quantum of
not forget that the function of Parliament compensation by law and not leave it to
is the most important. the will and pleasure of the executives,
as we have bitter experience of executives,
The history of why such an amendment how they misused the power bestowed
in article 31, clause (2) is necessitated is upon them. This will ensure some sort of
well known to each and every Member of stability and confidence in the investing
this House. So I do not want to repeat the public which, at present, is shattered by
same and unnecessarily waste the the vague provision. It is our bounden
time. I think the Government is right duty to safeguard the middle class of
in bringing cortain amendments in article people and therefore I suggest that property
31, clause (2) to remove all mis- worth up to two lakhs of rupees be fixed as
understandings, after the Supreme a ceiling. As we all know, the price of
Court's decision in the Sholapur Mill case. present rupee is, comparatively speaking,
There was certain misapprehension in the less than four annas. So Rs. two lakhs
minds of certain class of people that may not be considered to be a huge amount
Government wants to take power in. its and a person possessing Rs. two lakhs
hand to take away any property from any may not be considered to be a wealthy
individual whomsoever and is going to person.
reserve discretion to itself whether to
pay compensation or not and if compen- KAZI KARIMUDDIN (Madhya Pra-
sation is to be paid whether it will be just desh) : Why?
and adequate or nominal. -There is also SHRI D. D. ITALIA: The value of Rs.
a cry that Government is going to curtail two lakhs now is not what it was before.
the power of the High Court and Supreme
Court, but, as was explained by my So, Sir, whenever Government want to
friend Gulsher Ahmed and also clarified by acquire such property from an individual
our beloved Prime Minister in the and if the price of that property IS^RS.
Other House, that is not the intention of two lakhs or below Rs. two lakhs, I think
our Government. Government always full compensation has to be given
accepts the judgments of the Supreme according to the price prevailing at that
Court. No doubt, whenever certain time. But i-
judgments of the Supreme
2493 Constitution (Fourth [19 MARCH 1955] Amendment) Bill, 1954 2494
the price of the property is, say, Rs. three this Bill are not happily worded and
lakhs, then up to two lakhs he will have to be it is therefore necessary that the
paid full compensation and over and above clauses of this Bill should be
two lakhs upto Rs. three lakhs 50 per cent of thoroughly and carefully examined
the prevailing price. and scrutinised in the Joint Commit
tee and necessary modifications made
KAZI KARIMUDDIN: How have you therein so that our intention may bs
arrived at it? clearly and tly conveyed by
• SHRI D. D. ITALIA: 50 per cent of a lakh the provisions of this Bill. I am afraid
comes to Rs. 50,000 and that is nothing. that these clauses as they stand at present. not
only do not convey what our real intentions
Beyond three lakhs Government can fix are but they almost seem to make confusion
only a nominal compensation. In this way, I worse confounded and if they are allowed to
think, we will safeguard the middle-class remain as they are, I am afraid they will create
people and also the public will be benefited. fresh difficulties and will lead to fresh litigation.
The middle-class people will in their turn Sir, as we all know, the proposed amend-
invest the small amount which they will ment has been necessitated by the various
realise from their property of two lakhs or judgments of the Supreme Court which has
whatever it may be, in the small scale industry given article 31 an interpretation different from
as well as in small business. The prosperity of the one intended by the framers of the
the country depends upon such industries and Constitution. As Dr. Ambedkar pointed out, the
businesses. After all the middle-class people question of compensation was discussed at very
are the backbone of our country. great length in the Constituent Assembly both
inside and outside, and after a very thorough
There is just one point. 'Public purpose' is discussion and debate, the Constituent
also to be well defined so that no trouble can Assembly had come to the conclu^ sion that
arise in future and it may avoid litigation. acquisition or requisition of property should be
There is one more point to which I draw the according to law and that the law must also
attention of the hon. members of the Select provide either the quantum of compensation
Committee before I take my seat and that is that may have to be paid or the principles
that some sort of a provision has to be according to which the quantum of
provided in the Bill for safeguarding the small compensation payable should be calculated.
property-holder. Everybody had thought, more particularly the
eminent jurists who were parties to the framing
3 P.M. of the article, that this intention would be
The executive must not misuse the power clearly and correctly conveyed by article
which will be vested in them and thus harm 31, as it was then framed. Dr. Ambedkar was
the small property-holders. With these few also a party to it then, though today he says that
words, I support this motion. he was not a party to it. He spoke almost in
contradictory terms because though initially
SHRI JASPAT ROY KAPOOR (Uttar he said that he was not a party to it and he
Pradesh): Mr. Deputy Chairman, I readily would not even look at article 31 as it stands,
subscribe to the motion that this Bill be yet ultimately what he suggested was that we
referred to the Joint Committee, for while I need only provide one thing in the Constitution
have very great pleasure in supporting the and that is to the effect that the
principle, the object and the policy underlying compensation payable should be specifically laid
this measure, I am sorry to find that the down by the Legislature in the law which it
operative clauses of might frame, or the
2495 Constitution (Fourth [RAJYA SABHA] Amendment) Bill, 19542496
[Shri Jaspat Roy Kapoor.] principle that no disability attaches to any citizen
according to which compensation should by reason of religion etc. and then we
be calculated be laid down therein. So that have lastly, as item No. 14, that every
even today ultimately he has suggested citizen is free to move throughout India
what was really the intention of the framers and to stay and settle in any part thereof,
of article 31 when it was framed in the to acquire property and to follow any
Constituent Assembly. The very thing trade or calling and to be treated equally
which he does not want to look at and the with regard to legal prosecution and
very thing to which he says he was not a protection in all parts of India. There are
party, he now specifically recommends to 14 items in this resolution on
be done. What is unfortunate is that Dr. Fundamental Rights. Dr. Ambedkar
Ambedkar is now in a frustrated mood and forgot all about it.
he does not let any opportunity slip without
having a fling at the Congress, the Prime
Minister or the Congressmen, so much so Dr. Ambedkar further accused us of
that he even forgets hard facts. He went not treating the Supreme Court with due
even to the length of saying things contrary courtesy. It was very unfair on his part to
to facts that the Congress and Congressmen do it. A lawyer of his eminence was not
during the British regime never insisted on expected to say a thing like that.
having any Fundamental Rights. He
conveniently forgot—I do not know At the same time he has made a
whether it was deliberate on his part but I suggestion asking us to so amend the
would not say deliberate—many things. Constitution as to ignore the court
When he is in an extremely frustrated absolutely. Because he has suggested that
mood, he forgets many things which are we should amend the Constitution in
hard facts. He forgot that this question of such a way that the quantum of
Fundamental Rights was mooted by compensation to be paid must be
Congressmen even so far back as the provided in the law which Parliament or
Amritsar Congress. I shall, Sir, with your the State Legislatures may enact. That
permission, quote a passage from the means that the question of compensation
History of the Congress by Dr. Pattabi should not remain justiciable and
Seetharamayya. We have it mentioned whatever is provided by Parliament or
therein that the question of Fundamental the State Legislatures should be the final
Rights was originally - raised by Mr. C. word on the subject. I myself agree with
Vijayaraghavachari at the Amritsar that view of his. But his accusation that
Congress at dead of night in the bleak cold Parliament and the Congress do not treat
of the Punjab. Then it gained importance the Supreme Court with due courtesy and
when he himself presided over the Nagpur respect is absolutely incorrect. Because
session. The Amritsar session was held as according to the proposed amendment
far- back as 1919, I suppose. And then a what is suggested is not that the court's
resolution on Fundamental Rights was jurisdiction should be ousted altogether,
specifically framed at the_Karachi buflhat only certain specific matters
Congress and this resolution was further which are mentioned in clause 3 of the
amended and given a final shape later on amending Bill should be taken out of the
by the All India Congress Committee. purview of the court and all other mat-;
Among the various Fundamental Rights we ters should still remain justiciable. The
find it mentioned that the culture, language question before us now is whether our
and script of the minorities and of the intention of amending the present
different linguistic areas shall be Constitution is clearly and correctly
protected. Then it is said covered by the proposed amendment. Let
us see whether it is so. So far as clause 2
is concerned, we find it suggested that
"In
2497 Constitution (Fourth [ 19 MARCH 1955) (Amendment) Bill 1954 2498
article 31 of the Constitution, for clause Tilak was convicted from its inter-
(2), the following clauses shall be pretation today. What was sedition in
substituted, namely: — (2) 1906 is certainly not sedition today. That
........ " I need not repeat it again as would now be considered to be a very
the time is short. But this clause (2) of ordinary criticism of the Government.
the proposed article 31(2) is very much in And what was sedition then leading to
the same terms as the existing law. The conviction for six years in 1906 would
word 'compensation' is there and,now be readily accepted as something
therefore, according to the ruling of the tolerable and permissible. Therefore, I
Supreme Court compensation will have submit that the word 'equitable' must
to be paid according to the market value. necessarily be incorporated before the
Therefore, this portion word 'compensation'.
of the
proposed amendment does not help us at MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: It is
all. My submission is that we must make time, Mr. Kapoor. There are two more
it clear, the Select Committee must speakers.
make it very clear that the compensation
which is to be paid when property is to be SHRI JASPAT ROY KAPOOR: Sir,
acquired will be only that much may I have a few minutes more? I will
compensation which is provided in the finish in five minutes and I shall hurry
law itself. But if it be the definite up.
view of the hon. Prime Minister and
the Select Committee that the Now, let us take the next proposed
amendment, clause (2A). That, I submit,
jurisdiction of the court should not be is also very unhappily worded, because it
ousted altogether, then I would not only makes the meaning almost
suggest for serious consideration that unintelligible, but it could also be
the word 'equitable' should be added to interpreted to mean that if a property is
the word 'compensation,' so that the court acquired and handed over to a third party,
while considering as to whether if the possession is not retained by the
compensation is proper or not would State itself, then none of the protecting
only consider whether that is equitable or articles would be applicable. I am sure it
not. Because according to my view— I is not the intention of the framers of this
do not know, I am not a jurist, but the amending clause, but then it is likely to
eminent lawyers have to consider it as to be interpreted differently. The Select
whether the phrase "equitable Committee should, therefore, suitably
compensation" would not mean amend it.
something different from 'full com-
pensation' and 'market value'. Equitable Coming to clause 3, of the amending
compensation according to me would Bill, I find that it overshoots the mark. It
mean different from time to time, is a little too drastic. It means that for the
because what is equitable today may acquisition of the property and rights
not be equitable tomorrow. The mentioned in this clause, compensation
implication of this phrase 'equitable need not be paid at all. I am sure that it is
compensation' would differ from time to not the intention of the Government not
time according to the accepted economic, to pay compensation at all in all the six
political and social theories at the or seven cases mentioned therein. But,
relevant time. To illustrate my point, then, according to the phraseology of this
I might submit that the court will take clause, law may be enacted for
into consideration the equity of the acquisition without providing for
situation at the time of acquisition. Take compensation and the courts cannot
the case of the law of sedition. The law intervene. Obviously it would look
of sedition though it has been the same absurd, it would be almost absurd to
from time immemorial in the Indian Penal imagine that if a property is acquired for
Code, yet its interpretation was different the purpose mentioned in subclause (rf),
in 1906 when Lokmanya that is "the acquisition or
2499 Constitution (Fourth [ RAJYA SABHA ] (Amendment) Bill, 1954 2500
[Shri Jaspat Roy Kapoor.] requisitioning declared valid and intra vires of the
of any immovable property for the relief or constitution. The displaced persons, Sir, are
rehabilitation of persons displaced from their highly grateful for the incorporation of clause
original place of residence by reason of the 5 in this Bill. Having offered these
setting up of the Dominions of India and suggestions, Sir, I extend to this Bill my
Pakistan," it is surely not intended that such wholehearted co-operation, and I hope that the
property should be acquired without payment Select Committee would make suitable
of compensation at all. All that is intended, I modifications in this Bill, so that our intention
believe, is that the court's jurisdiction should may be clearly and correctly conveyed by the
be ousted. That being so, this sub-clause amended provisions, and there may be no fur-
should be suitably amended. Similarly, in the ther litigation on the subject.
case of vacant waste lands and even in the
case of huts of poor persons, I am sure the [MR. CHAIRMAN in the Chair.]
Legislature will never m&ke a law to the
effect that no compensation should be paid in
such cases. It is no use then providing in this
clause 3 that it is open to the Legislature to
make such law. It is very much like the

SHRI J. S. BISHT (Uttar Pradesh):


Government can act only under a law.
SHRI JASPAT ROY KAPOOR: So I say
enactment of such law should not be
permissible.
Sir, I must record here my appreciation in
particular of clause 5 of this Bill wherein it
has been specifically laid down that the Bihar
Displaced Persons Rehabilitation Act; the
United Provinces Land Acquisition
(Rehabilitation of Refugees) Act; and the
Resettlement of Displaced Persons (Land
Acquisition) Act, which have been declared to
be ultra vires of the Constitution by the High
Courts concerned are being made valid
retrospectively. Now there is nothing wrong
about it, Sir, thougn Dr. Ambedkar has
offered particular criticism against it.
Although he has accepted sub-clause (d) of
new clause (1) of article 31A proposed in
clause 3 of the amending Bill, which provides
that hereafter law can be enacted under which
property can be acquired without payment of
compensation for the benefit of displaced
persons, and although that law would be out
of the purview of a court of law, yet he
objects to such laws already enacted
being
2501 Constitution (Fourth [ 1 9 MARCH 1955] Amendment) Bill, 1954 2502
2503 Constitution (Fourth [ RAJYA SABHA ] Amendment) Bill, 1954 2504
THE MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS
(SHRI GOVIND BALLABH PANT): Mr.
Chairman, I am grateful to the hon.
Members of this House for the reception
that they have accorded to this Bill. It has
received almost unanimous support of the
Members of this House. I might perhaps
even drop 'almost'. All the organised
parties, through their accredited
representatives, have welcomed it. So, it
is not to be regarded as a party measure,
but a national measure, over which all
parties are agreed. I wonder if any
Legislature had the good fortune of
making an amendment in the Constitution
with the full consensus of opinion and the
unanimous support of the Members of
Parliament. Both Houses have given it
their blessings, and I trust that, when it
emerges from the Select Committee,
whatever doubts have been left will be
dispelled too. It seems to have been
forgotten that we are only at this stage
referring the Bill to a Joint Select
Committee, not a Committee of one
Chamber only .but a Committee in which
we expect to find the joint collective
wisdom of both Houses. We can trust to
the ability and capability of that
Committee to improve the Bill and to
make any further changes that may be
necessary in order to ensure the progress
of the country on which the hearts of all
are set.

A number of speakers have expressed


their opinions. I have not been able to
grapple with anything important. On the
whole the core of the Bill remains
unscathed and untouched. If there have
been observations, they are all of a
subsidiary character indicating that some
of the hon. Members would have been
more pleased if the Bill had gone further
than it has. Some stand for confiscation
of property at least in India, even though
their counterparts may not be equally
enthusiastic about such confiscation in
other countries. Some think that we could
perhaps have been a little more cautious
and not gone as far as we had. I think that
that lj>y itself indicates that the Bill
2505 Constitution (Fourth i 19 MARCH 1955 ] Amendment) Bill, 1954 .2506
is going to travel on the royal road, and I had was not surprised. Dr. Ambedkar is not a
expected that the votaries of the middle path student of Congress literature, and if he is, it
would welcome it all the more, but those is more as a critic than as a student who
hopes have not been fulfilled. would like to learn and to find the truth from
such literature. He could well have missed
what the Congress did, but I was somewhat
Dr. Ambedkar, whom I was glcd to see amazed that he had forgotten what had
here today, had delivered a very long happened at the Round Table Conference in
speech. The vigour which he brought to London when the Government of India Act of
bear on the proposition that was before the 1935 was evolved. He was one of its
House, whether it was well-deserved or not, members. I find from the report that there was
had given me some gratification. I feel considerable discussion on the subject of
assured about his physical recovery and I Fundamental Rights, but lest the provision
hope that in other respects too, he will be with regard to Fundamental Rights should
healed in no time. I look forward to his restrict the powers of the legislatures, the
all-round recovery and I trust that he will in Joint Select Committee of the Parliament did
future handle matters with some regard for not consider it advisable to introduce such a
the utterances made by him previously and provision in their Bill.
for the acts done by him when he occupied
a position perhaps of still greater
responsibilty. So far as the operative part Well, assuming that nothing had been
of Dr. Ambedkar's speech is concerned, I heard about these Fundamental Rights, he
do not feel in any way dissatisfied. But I welcomes the incorporation of such rights in
was perplexed when I heard his views about the Constitution, for which he has great
the actual provisions of the Bill which admiration, and I have still greater, and for
he reserved to the end. The vehemence which we all have reason to be grateful to him
with which he had spoken in the earlier part for the labours and pains he bestowed on it.
did not seem to fit in with what he said at the But if Fundamental Rights have been
end, for the chaff had passed by that time and embodied in the Constitution, whom should
only the grain had remained; it was sound w« thank for them? The Constitution was
enough. Dr. Ambedkar is a learned man framed by the Constituent Assembly
and he can speak on any subject for a pretty which was virtually dominated by
long time. He need not necessarily be Congressmen. Most of its Members owed
concerned with what is strictly relevant. allegiance to the Congress. So if the
His observations, even if they be some- Fundamental Rights are there, it is because
what wide of the mark, are worth listening Congressmen wanted them to be there and it is
to, and so I listened to his speech carefully, because they introduced those rights in the
but while giving my undivided attention to Constitution. Dr. Ambedkar made a very
the remarks that he was making, I had bewildering sort of remark. He said there
occasionally to refer to his previous were differences over this article 31 among the
speeches and found that they were leaders of the Congress and in the circums-
hardly consistent and compatible with the tances he was not in any way responsible for
present one. Dr. Ambedkar said that he had the clauses that had been incorporated in the
not heard of Fundamental Rights till we Constitution. Of course he claims that he is
came to frame this Constitution. Well, I entitled to all grateful admiration—and I
think I am not mistaken when I say that the think he is—for the shape which the Consti-
Congress at Karachi had laid down certain tution took but he cannot eat the cake and yet
basic principles which amounted to leave' a part of it. He must take it as a whole
Fundamental Rights. From time to time it and if he were to
stated its views. But I
2507 Constitution (Fourth [RAJYA SABHA] Amendment) Bill, 1954 2508
[Shri Govind Ballabh Pant.] disown his I unto himself. Whatever he says must ! be
responsibilities for every clause or whatever is accepted. I have his speech be-I fore me
there on which there was difference of delivered when the First Constitution
opinion before the final stage was reached, Amendment Bill was on the anvil. At that time
perhaps there would be nothing left for which Dr. Ambed-kar ; was the Law Minister.
he could take any credit. He also referred to Naturally that) Bill must have been framed and
section 299 of the Government of India Act. I approved by the Law Ministry and that
can say from the little that I know that section amendment was made not after 5 years but
299 contemplated payment of compensation within sixteen months of the promulgation of
on a reasonable basis and not at all in the Constitution. The scope of that amendm ; ;
accordance with the yardsticK of the market was much wider than that of the present
rate. There will be no sense in having a clause amending Bill. The clauses that were attacked
to the effect that compensation will be paid in by that amending Bill v/ere many more and
accordance with the principles and in the they touched not only the question of private
manner laid down by the Legislature. The property but also that of civil liberties and like
simple thing then is to say, as is prescribed in matters of vital character. Dr. Ambedkar then
the Land Acquisition Act, that compensation said that there was no alternative and they had
will be paid according to the market rates. to have recourse to such amendments when the
The principles have to be defined and the purpose of the Constitution was not carried
manner has to be laid down because it was out. The exact words that he said were these:
understood that in cases where large pieces "The point that I was trying to make to
and extensive tracts of land or other properties the House is that on account of the
are acquired for social purposes, for the declaration by the Supreme Court that this
benefit of millions, no one can possibly pay Parliament has no capacity to make a law
compensation at the market rate. So section in certain Heads; the question before the
299 even of the Government of India Act House is this: Can we allow the situation
which was more or less like our own article to remain as it is as created by the
did not expect full payment for the transfer of judgments or we must endow Parliament
rights which come within the bundle of with the authority to make a law."
property where such rights were acquired for
Certain judgments had been pronounced by
public purposes. I have a faint impression that
the Supreme Court. These did not seem to
there are also rulings on the subject and that
fulfil the purpose which the authors of the
the Privy Council at least in one case which
Constitution or those connected with its
went up to it from Oudh so far as I remember,
administration had and they considered it
held that no compensation was payable where
necessary, in the circumstances, to amend
rights were taken away from the zamindars
the Constitution so that whatever fetters had
and were conferred on the tenants. So even
come in the way because of the defects in the
then the principle was accepted. Well, Dr.
language of the Constitution—I don't blame
Ambedkar said that the Sovereign could do no
the Supreme Court at all—those defects
wrong in England but here, he thought, the
should be set right. That is my attitude. But
Prime Minister could do no wrong. I think the
Dr. Ambedkar had then to be pulled up by
Prime Minister is really anxious that he
the Chair for certain remarks that he made
should never do anything that in the remotest
about the Supreme Court. He today told us
degree can be supposed to be wrong. He has
that the Supreme Court was lacking in
that intention and that is his determination.
courage at a certain time but it had regained
But I think that Dr. Ambedkar is a law
the lost courage. Well. I have been
somewhat perplexed
2509 tonstitution (Fourth [19 MARCH 1955] Amendment) Bill, 1954 2510
whether the Supreme Court was unable to suit against tne uovernment ior the purpose
exercise its will and had lost its courage so of what we call specific performance. I
long as Dr. Ambedkar #as presiding over the admit that is so. But I respectfully submit
Law Ministry and has it regained its courage that that is not the way of disposing of the
since Dr. Ambedkar joined the Bar there and Directive Principles. What are the Directive
began to work before the Judges, though only Principles? The Directive Principles are
occasionally as an Advocate? I do not exactly nothing but obligations imposed by the
know how this transformation came about but Constitution upon the various Governments
what he said was it has come about. I in this country—that they shall do certain
personally feel that the Supreme Court has, in things, although it says that if they fail to
all stages, tried to do the right thing according do them, no one will have the right to call
to its lights. We have not been able to frame for specific performance. But the fact that
our laws in such a way as to leave no room there are obligations of the Government, I
for an interpretation different from our own think, stands un-impeached. My
intentions. After all, if the instrument through submission is this: that if these are the
which we intended to function was not as obligations of the State, how can the State
strong and as well designed as we wanted it to discharge these obligations unless it
be, the blame should be ours. But Dr. undertakes legislation to give effect to
Ambedkar in this speech said that in the them? And if the statement of obligations
United States, the Fundamental Rights were necessitates the imposition and enactment
of an absolute character. They were defined of laws, it is obvious that all these funda-
in absolute terms, still the Supreme Court mental principles of Directive Policy imply
there had tried to interpret them in such a way that the State with regard to the matters
as to enlarge the authority of the Parliament mentioned in these Directive Principles has
or the Legislature. Here he said it had not the implied power to make a law.
been so. Then he made a pointed reference to Therefore, my contention is this, that so far
the Directive Principles and I should like as the doctrine of implied powers is
again to read out what he said about them: concerned, there is ample authority in the
Constitution itself to permit Parliament to
make legislation, although it will not be
"I take the view that there is ample specifically covered by the provisions
scope for recognising the doctrine of contained in the Part on Fundamental
implied powers, and I think our Directive Rights."
Principles are nothing else than a series of
provisions which contain implicitly in
them, the doctrine of implied powers. I find
that these Directive Principles are made a So, he gave sufficient importance to che
matter of fun both by judges and by Directive Principles and even conceded the
lawyers appearing before them." propriety and the possibility of their over-
riding the Fundamental Rights. But we are
to which category, I think Dr. Ambedkar now trying, as I said in the course of my opening
belongs; that is my comment: speech, to bring about complete harmony
between the Directive Principles,
"Article 37 of the Directive Principles Fundamental Rights, Preamble and the laws
has been made a butt of ridicule. Article 37 that are designed to carry the country forward
says that these Directives are not on the road chalked cut for it, towards the
justiciable, that no one would be entitled to central objective which has been solemnly
file a prescribed for it. In these circumstances I do
not see how there
2511 Constitution (Fourth. [RAJYA SABHA] Amend?nent) Bill, 1954 2512
[Shri Govind Ballabh Pant.] can be any police powers can be exercised by the State.
objection to this amending Bill. So what has been said in clause (2A) leads to
this that where property is acquired for a
Sir, Dr. Ambedkar referred to one or two public purpose or is requisitioned for such a
Bills with which I happened to be associated, purpose, then generally, compensation will be
not in my personal capacity, but as a member payable in the manner and in accordance with
of the Legislature in another place. Well, the principles laid down by the Legislature,
whatever was done then, was just with the but when property is not acquired for a public
determination to relieve the teeming masses purpose, if it is confiscated, say under a law,
of the country and the tremendous misery and or is taken under management for a public
oppression which was their lot at that time, purpose, and for similar other purposes, some
and I have no compunction for what I did in of which were indicated by me when I spoke
that connection, and I am glad that Parliament first and are also mentioned in the subclauses,
approved of the measures that were adopted then no compensation will be paid. That is the
to ensure this end. plain meaning of clause (2A). Whatever
misunderstanding and confusion would other-
wise arise in consequence of the recent
Then there were other remarks made by Dr. decisions would be allayed and removed by
Ambedkar to which I think I need not refer at this clarification of the purpose of clauses
very great length. What I was really in a way (1) and (2).
glad to see was the very little measure of
difference that actually exists between him 4 P.M.
and the provisions of this amending Bill. He In fact, it was never thought in the past that
has nothing to say against clause (2A) in this clause (1) of article 31 was connected with
amending Bill. He has no quarrel with clause clause (2); the two were entirely different and
(2). About clause (2A) he has some difficulty that position has been clarified.
as he does not fully understand what it means.
Well, I should have thought that Dr.
Ambedkar would not stand in need of any Dr. Ambedkar questioned about validity
explanation from me. But the position is clear. being given to Acts passed by State
It is this. The Supreme Court had inter- Legislatures and he asked why, in any case,
connected clauses (1) and (2) of article 31, retrospective effect •ling given to the validity.
with the result that whenever any private The Acts that we have here are very few l>i I
property was taken possession of by the State, by the amending Bill of 1951, I find that such
according to them, compensation would be validity was given to many more Acts and
due. Well, this is an impossible position. In that. Bill was supported by Dr. Ambedkar—
the United States, they divide the powers of of course, that Bill was framed by him. I
the State into two categories—the police would just read out the list of the Acts which
powers on the one hand and those of eminent were given retrospective validity then:
domain on the other. The State is always
competent to exercise t;i - police powers. 1. The Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950.
Then on the eminent domain, it is not neces-
sary that full compensation should be paid. 2. The Bombay Tenancy and
Now, if the interpretation that has been placed Agricultural Lands Act, 1948.
on clauses (1) and (2) of article 31 holds the 3. The Bombay Maleki Tenure
field and is allowed to remain as it is, then it x^bolition Act, 1949.
becomes doubtful whether even the
4. The Bombay Taluqdari Tenure
Abolition Act, 1949.
2513 Constitution (Fourth [ 19 MARCH 1955 j Amendment) Bill, 1954 2514
5. The Panch Mahals Mehwassi Tenure pect that with the help of Dr. Ambedkar and
Abolition Act, 1949. other hon. Members who will be represented
in the Joint Committee, we will be able to
6. The Bombay Khoti Abolition Act, further improve this Bill.
1950.
7. The Bombay Paragana and Kulkarni I do not think, Sir, it will be necessary for
Watan Abolition Act, 1950. me to go into any further details. The
speeches made here sometimes seem to ignore
8. The Madhya Pradesh Abolition of
one important point. We are not framing or
Proprietary Rights (Estates, Mahals.
passing a Bill that will come into operation
Alienated Lands) Act, 1950. tomorrow. We here are making an amendment
in the Constitution so that we may be able to
9. The Madras Estates (Abolition and
introduce and pass Bills hereafter. All that is
Conversion into Ryotwari) Amendment
being done is this, that we are giving authority
Act, 1950.
to Parliament, which we were under the
10. The Madras Estates (Abolitic i and impression that the Parliament possessed, to
Conversion into Ryotwari) Act. 1950. promulgate enactments for the progress of
society and for the amelioration of suffering
11. The Uttar Pradesh Zamindari and the upliftment of the suppressed and the
Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. submerged classes. That is the only thing that
If we err, I would like to err with Dr. is being done by virtue of this Bill. Even
Ambedkar the Law Minister then than with when it is enacted, only Parlia-men. will have
Dr. Ambedkar who is no longer in charge of formally regained what we always thought the
Law as a responsible Minister. So, we have Parliament already possessed; powers with
followed him now and at least he should not which Parliament was, from the beginning,
have blamed us for accepting his lead in this deemed to be invested will again be formally
matter. recognised as being invested in Parliament.
So, I do not see why there should be any ob-
jection.
I find that so far as the other clauses go, Dr.
Ambedkar has almost agreed with us except
with regard to one or two. He has hailed some As I said before, in England, there is no
of them with a certain degree of warmth but I check on the legislative powers of the
do not see why he should have been so very Parliament. It can take away everything; it can
impatient because he is a member of the Joint confiscate all property without paying a penny
Committee; the Bill is going to the Joint by way of compensation and nobody can raise
Committee and he will have a full opportunity his little finger. Here, we have deliberately
there of expressing his views and converting and decidedly circumscribed our scope by
others to those views. If, on matters of detail, laying down certain Fundamental Rights and
there are some differences, they can well be also by having a written Constitution which
hammered out there. I feel that in view of circumscribes our scope of activity. That we
what he said at the end it would have been have done deliberately and I trust that it will
much better if the tail alone had been seen by be essential, whatever be the occasional
us and the diseased body had not been impediments, for the real good and benefit of
demonstrated and exhibited unnecessarily. our country. We want to abide by our
The tail had no sting; at least it was free from Constitution; we want to maintain the
it and by the time he reached the tail, it seems independence and the dignity of the courts but
that he was able to take a very reasonable and whenever decisions are
fair view of things. I will ex-
2515 Constitution (Fourth [RAJYA SABHA] Amendment) Bill, 1954 2516
[Shri Govind Ballabh Pant. J given The House divided:
that do not carry out the intentions of the AYES—139
authors or the central purpose for which
the Constitution was framed and which is
enshrined in the Preamble and elucidated
in the Directive Principles, it will be the Abid Ali, Shri.
duty of Parliament to remove that Adityendra, Shri.
conflict and to restore harmony. It is in
that spirit, Sir, that this Bill has been Agarwala, Shri R. G.
introduced and I hope it will be Agnibhoj, Shri R. U.
unanimously accepted by all the hon. Agrawal, Shri Amar Nath.
Members of this House.
Agrawal, Shri J. P.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The question is: Ahmad Hussain, Kazi.
"That this House concurs in the Ahmed, Shri Gulsher.
recommendation of the Lok Sabha that Akhtar Husain, Shri.
the Rajya Sabha do join in the Joint
Committee of the Houses on the Bill Amolakh Chand, Shri.
further to amend the Constitution of Banerjee, Shri Satyapriya.
India, and resolves that the following Bedavati Buragohain, Shrimati.
members of the Rajya Sabha be
nominated to serve on the said Joint Beed, Shri I. B.
Committee: — Bharathi, Shrimati K.
Bhatt, Shri Nanabhai.
Diwan Chaman Lall.
Bisht, Shri J. S.
Shri Sri Narayan Mahtha Biswas, Shri C. C.
Shri Jasaud Singh Bisht Chaman Lall, Diwan.
Kazi Karimuddin Chandravati Lakhanpal, ShrimatL
Shrimati Violet Alva Chaturvedi, Shri B. D.
Chauhan, Shri Nawab Singh.
Shri K. Madhava Menon
Daga, Shri Narayandas.
Shri N. R. Malkani Dangre, Shri R. V.
Shri M. Govinda Reddy Dasappa, Shri H. C.
Shri S. Chattanatha Karayalar Das, Shri Jagannath.
Deogirikar, Shri T. R.
Shri G. Ranga
Deshmukh, Shri R. M.
Dr. B. R. Ambedkar Dharam Das, Shri A.
Shri Surendranath Dwivedy Doogar, Shri R. S.
Shri Surendra Mahanty Dube, Dr. R. P.
Shri S. N. Mazumdar and Dutta, Shri Trilochan.
Dwivedy, Shri S. N.
Shri Govind Ballabh Pant (the
mover)." Faruqi, Moulana M.
Gilder, Dr. M. D. D.
Under article 368 of the Constitution, Gopal, Shri V. G.
the motion has to be adopted by a
majority of the total membership of the Gupta, Shri Maithilisharan.
House and by a majority of not less than Gupte, Shri B. M.
two-thirds of the Members present and Gurumurthy, Shri B. V.
voting. A division may, therefore, be
called. Hardiker, Dr. N. S.
Hathi, Shri J. S. I*.
2517 Constitution (Fourth f 19 MARCH 1955] Amendment) BUI, 1954 2518.
Hemrom, Shri S. M. Pant, Shri Govind Baljabh.
Indra Vidyavachaspati, Shri. Pande, Shri T.
Italia, Shri D. D. Panigrahi, Shri S.
Jafar Imam, Shri. Panjhazari, Sardar Raghbir Singh.
Jalali, Aga S. M. Parvathi Krishnan, Shrjiaati.
Kalelkar, Kakasaheb. Pattablraman, Shri T. S.
Kapoor, Shri Jaspat Roy. Pawar, Shri D. Y.
Karayalar, Shri S. C. Pheruman, Sardar D.. S,
Karimuddin, Kazi. Prasad, Shri Bheron.
Karumbaya, Shri K. C. Pushpalata Das, Shrimati.
Kaushal, Shri J. N. Pustake, Shri T. D.
Keshvanand, Swami. Raghu Vira, Dr.
Khan, Shri Abdur Rezzak. Raghubir Sinn, Dr.
Khan, Shri Akbar Ali. Raju, Shri A. S.
Khan, Shri Barkatullah. Rao, Shri Krishnamoorthy.
Rao, Shri Raghavendra.
Khan, Shri Pir Mohammed.
Reddy, Shri Channa.
Kishen Chand, Shri. Reddy, Shri M. Govinda.
Kishori Ram, Shri. Reddy, Shri K. C.
Krishna Kumari, Shrimati. Saksena, Shri H. P.
Lakhamshi, Shri Lavji. Sarwate, Shri V. S.
Lakshmi Menon, Shrimati. Satyanarayana, Shri M.
Lai Bahadur, Shri. Savitry Nigam, Shrimati.
Lall, Shri Kailash Bihari. Seeta Parmanand, Dr. Shrimati.
Leuva, Shri P. T. Shah, Shri M. C.
Mahesh Saran, Shri. Sharda Bhargava, Shrimati.
Mahtha, Shri S. N. Sharma, Shri B. B.
Malkani, Prof. N. R. Shetty, Shri Basappa.
Malviya, Shri Ratanlal Kishorilal. Shrimali, Dr. K. L.
Maya Devi Chettry, Shrimati. Singh, Dr. Anup.
Mazhar Imam, Syed. Singh, Babu Gopinath.
Menon, Shri K. Madhava. Singh, Capt. Awadhesn Hratap.
Misra, Shri S. D. Singh, Sardar Budh.
Mitra, Dr. P. C. Singh, Shri Ngangom Tompok.
Mohta, Shri G. B. Singh, Shri Nihal.
Mona Hensman, Shrimati. Singh, Shri Ram kripal.
Mookerji, Dr. Radha Kumud. Singh, Shri Vijay.
Mujumdar, Shri M. R. Sinha, Shri B. K. P.
Mukerjee, Shri B. K. Sinha, Shri R. B.
Murari Lai, Dr. Sinha, Shri R. P. N. j
Nagoke, Jathedar U. S. Sokhey, Maj.-General S. S.
Narasimham, Shri K. L. Subbarayan, Dr. P.
Narayan, Shri D. Sumat Prasad, Shri.
Nausher Ali, Syed. Surendra Ram, Shri V. M.
Onkar Nath. Shri. Tajamul Husain, Shrir
6 R.S.D.— 4
2519 Constitution {Fow tft [ RAJYA SABHA ] Amendment) Bill, 1954 2520
Tamta, Shri R. P. Tankha, Pandit The motion is adopted by a majority ot
S. S. N. Tayyebulla, Maulana M. the total membership of the House and
by a majority of not less than two-thirds
Thanhlira, Shri R. Vaidya, Shri of the Members present and voting.
Kanliaiyalal D Valiulla, Shri M.
Vallabharao, Shri J. V. K "7arma, The House stands adjourned till
Shri C. L. Vijaivargiya, Shri I! 1)0 A.M. on Monday, the 21st March
Gopikrisnna Violet Alva, 1955-
Shrimati.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Ayee 139; Noes The House then adjourned at
nil. twenty minutes past four till
eleven of the clock on Monday,
the 21st March 1955.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy