Durgabai: A Visionary Leader and Freedom Fighter
Durgabai Deshmukh, born on July 15, 1909, in Rajahmundry, was not just a political figure but a beacon of inspiration in India’s tumultuous journey towards independence. As a key member of the Indian National Congress, her legacy transcends political boundaries, leaving an indelible mark on the nation.
| Aspect | Details |
|---|---|
| Full Name | G. Durgabai |
| Date of Birth and Death | 15th July 1909 – 9th May 1981 |
| Party Affiliation | Indian National Congress |
| Constituency Represented | Madras |
| Mother Tongue | Telugu |
| Education | Graduate |
| Committee Memberships | – Committee on the Rules of Procedure |
| Key Contributions in Constitution | – Advocated for Hindustani as the national language |
| – Raised concerns about the forceful campaign for Hindi in Southern India | |
| – Worked towards judicial independence and against human trafficking | |
| Early Life | – Born on 15th July 1909, in Rajahmundry, Kakinada |
| – Quit school at the age of 12 to protest the imposition of English as the medium of education | |
| Role in Independence Movement | – Participated in the Salt Satyagraha movement in Madras at the age of 21 |
| – Volunteered at an Indian National Congress conference in Kakinada at the age of 14 | |
| Establishment of Andhra Mahila Sabha | – Founded in 1936 to coach young Telugu girls in Madras for their Matriculation examination |
| – Became a significant institution of education and social welfare | |
| Contribution to Constitution Making | – Elected to the Constituent Assembly from Madras Province |
| – Member of the Committee on Rules of Procedure and Steering Committee | |
| – Proposed Hindustani as the national language, later expressed concerns about forceful Hindi campaign in South India | |
| – Advocated for judicial independence and highlighted issues related to human trafficking | |
| Later Contributions | – Member of the Planning Commission by nomination and became its first woman Chairman |
| – Advocated for the need of a separate Family Court for speedy justice in familial matters | |
| – Headed the National Committee on Girls’ and Women’s Education in 1958 | |
| Awards and Recognitions | – Nehru Literary Award in 1971 for her contribution to the promotion of literacy in India |
| – Awarded the Padma Vibhushan in 1975 | |
| Passing Away | – Passed away on 9th May 1981, leaving behind a legacy of contributions to social welfare, education, and women’s empowerment |
Early Life and Independence Movement:
From the tender age of twelve, Durgabai ardently joined the Indian freedom movement, a journey marked by sacrifice and commitment. Her early activism included quitting school to protest the imposition of English as an educational medium during the Non-Cooperation Movement. At fourteen, she volunteered at a significant Indian National Congress conference in Kakinada, showcasing her early dedication to the cause.
In May 1930, Durgabai actively participated in the Salt Satyagraha in Madras, a testament to her unwavering commitment. Her imprisonment during 1930 and 1932 became a period of academic pursuit, as she studied English and earned her master’s degree from Andhra University. Subsequently, she pursued law at Madras University and practiced at the Madras Bar.
Contribution to Constitution Making:
Durgabai’s impact extended to the Constituent Assembly, where she represented Madras and played a pivotal role in shaping the constitutional framework. Her notable contributions included advocating for Hindustani as the national language, reflecting her foresight. Despite initially proposing Hindustani, she later voiced concerns against imposing Hindi due to the anti-Hindi agitation in Southern India.
In the Assembly, she addressed crucial issues such as judicial independence and human trafficking. Her insights during discussions on the appointment of judges highlighted her commitment to maintaining the judiciary’s autonomy.
Post-Independence Contributions:
Beyond the struggle for independence, Durgabai continued her dedicated service to the nation. In 1936, she founded the Andhra Mahila Sabha, an institution that rapidly evolved into a center for education and social welfare in Madras. Her influence extended to national organizations like the Central Social Welfare Board and the National Council for Women’s Education. Notably, she chaired the National Committee on Girls’ and Women’s Education in 1958.
Recognizing her outstanding contributions, Durgabai received accolades such as the Nehru Literary Award in 1971 and the Padma Vibhushan in 1975. The Central Social Welfare Board instituted an award in her name to honor organizations promoting women’s welfare.
Durgabai Deshmukh’s remarkable journey came to an end on May 9, 1981, leaving behind a legacy that continues to inspire generations. Her tireless efforts, from the Non-Cooperation Movement to the Constituent Assembly, symbolize a commitment to freedom, justice, and the betterment of society.
Selected Speeches from Constitutional Assembly Debates
Welcoming the Representatives of Indian States[1]
Shrimati G. Durgabai (Madras: General): Sir, I consider it my proud privilege to be able to stand here today and move the motion which stands in my name. Before I do so, I may be permitted to express my great joy at the presence of the representatives of some of the Indian States who are here today in our midst on this occasion. My heart-felt and sincere thanks are due to those States which have extended their co-operation and joined us in our work.
With your leave, Sir, I move:
“Resolved that this Assembly do proceed to elect, under sub-rule (2) of Rule 40 of the Constituent Assembly Rules, two additional members to the Steering Committee from among the representatives of the Indian States, in accordance with the principle of proportional representation by means of the single transferable vote.”
Sir, sub-rule (2) of Rule 40 of the Constituent Assembly Rules lays down the procedure for election of members to the Steering Committee. It says:
“The Assembly may from time to time elect, in such manner as it may deem appropriate, 8 additional members of whom four shall be reserved for election from among the representatives of the Indian States.”
Sub-rule (1) of Rule 40 lays down:
“A steering committee shall be set up for the duration of the Assembly and shall consist of eleven Members (other than the President) to be elected by the Assembly in accordance with the principle of proportional representation by means of the single transferable vote.”
Sir, I may be permitted to state in this connection that in accordance with these Rules, eleven members were initially elected to this Committee on 20th January and the Committee has been functioning with these members. According to sub-rule (2), eight additional members are to be elected from time to time out of whom four are reserved for election from among the representatives of Indian States. It is considered desirable at present that only two out of four will be elected now and that the election of the two other members shall be postponed to a future date. We would have been happy had all the four members been elected on this occasion. But we thought it desirable to elect only two members at present and postpone the election of two other members to a subsequent date, when we will be fortunate enough to have a much larger representation of Indian States on this Assembly and all present here. We fondly hoped that some of the leading States like Hyderabad, Travancore, Mysore and some other States would have made up their minds to join us here in our work and co-operate with us. But I am sadly disappointed to find that they are not able to come and see eye to eye with us and that they are still pursuing a policy of “wait and see”. I hope that it will not be before long, that they will follow the noble example set up by States like Baroda, Bikaner, Rewa, Gwalior, Cochin, Udaipur, Jodhpur and some other States, whose representatives we have here in our midst and send their representatives also to help us in this great task of forging a constitution for this great country. I extend a hearty welcome to those representatives who will be elected to this Committee, to function on this Committee to help us with their advice and guidance in our work. With these words, I commend this motion for the acceptance of this House.
Appointment of Judges of Provincial High Courts[2]
Shrimati G. Durgabai (Madras: General): Mr. President, Sir, I wish to make it clear at the very outset that I stand here to support Clause 1 in Part II relating to the Provincial Judiciary. Sir, I wish to confine myself to that portion of the clause which lays down the procedure for the appointment of judges to the Provincial Courts. The clause runs on the following lines:
“…the judges should be appointed by the President of the Federation in consultation with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, the Governor of the Province and the Chief Justice of the High Court of the Province (except when the Chief Justice of the High Court himself is to be appointed).”
Sir, we see thus by the manner provided in this clause we introduce some kind of intervention on the part of an external authority in matters relating to the Provinces and the Provincial Governments. I think this kind of intervention and this kind of procedure laid down providing for the necessity of an external authority is bound to provoke in the minds of some people at least the fear that this is a sort of encroachment over the jurisdiction of the Provincial Government as opposed to the principles of
provincial autonomy. But, Sir I confess myself was holding this view for some time, whether it would not be desirable to leave this matter to the discretion of the Provincial Governments, namely the Governor acting on the advice of his Ministers. But on a careful consideration of the matter I find that the manner as suggested by the authors of this clause has greater advantages over the other. Hereafter in the new set-up conditions are bound to be different and the High Courts have got to take upon themselves greater and heavier tasks and onerous responsibilities. They are the repositories of the Constitution; they have got to interpret the Constitution. They are the guardians of the fundamental rights in the Constitution. Every common man must look to these courts for fair treatment and justice. They have got to see that their rights are safeguarded and they are in safe custody. Therefore, if we have got to achieve this, we have got to see to the successful working of these High Courts and this depends mostly upon the quality of the judiciary and the manner in which it is composed. The independence of the judiciary is a thing which has to be decided and this independence to a large extent depends on the way in which these judges are to be appointed. They should not be made to feel that they owe their appointment either to this person or that person or to this party or to that party. They have to feel that they are independent. It is only in that case that we get efficiency of administration of justice. It is with a view to secure this kind of independence that some sort of check is necessary and the authors of the clause have provided for this check by bringing in some external authority to have something to do with the appointments relating to the Provincial courts. We may feel why the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court also is brought into this picture but in the interests of the purity of administration of justice the Supreme Court has a great part to play hereafter. It is the highest of the High Courts of India and it will have a general advisory jurisdiction and a general appellate jurisdiction which is similar to that now exercised by the Privy Council relating to Indian units. Therefore, it is to review the work of all High Courts and also exercise the powers of general superintendence, direction and control in all matters relating to the provincial judiciary. Several matters of the High Courts have got to come before this Court by way of revision, reference and appeal. Therefore, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court has got a great deal to do with these High Courts and not only that, the Supreme Court in itself has got to be composed from among the judges of the High Courts as we see. Therefore, considering all these matters I feel that it is highly necessary that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is consulted by the President of the Federation in making these appointments to the provincial courts. Of course, this need not really leave a fear in our minds that the freedom of the provinces is curtailed to a large extent but this sort of check will be used only on rare occasions and generally the recommendations made by the Governor on the advice of his Ministers and in consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Courts will be accepted so long as they are right and also their choice is bound to be good generally, except in very rare instances when the intervention of the Federal Authority is to be brought.
There is another point to be taken into consideration, namely this, that we need not feel that we are doing something very unusual. There is no one uniform principle in all federal constitutions of the world that this power of appointment to the judges of the High Courts of the units should always rest with only the Provincial Governments. It is not necessary. We have got an instance provided to us in the Canadian constitution where the power of appointment rests with the Governor General who will make the appointment. Therefore, we can accept this principle without any fear or favour and adopt it in our system.
With these few observations, Sir, I support this clause and I commend it for the acceptance of the House.
Establishing High Courts in Newly Created Provinces[3]
Shrimati G. Durgabai (Madras: General): Mr. President, Sir, I beg to move the following amendment:
“That after Clause 18, the following new clause be inserted:
18-A. New High Courts may be established in any newly created province on an address being presented by the Legislature of that province to the Governor and on the same being approved by the President.”
Sir, I will ask your permission for a debate on this, later.
* * * * * *
Shrimati G. Durgabai: Mr. Vice-President, yesterday I moved an amendment that Clause 18A be added to Clause 18. It appears in the Supplementary List as Amendment No. 15. It reads:
“18A. New High Courts may be established in any newly created province on an address being presented by the legislature of that Province to the Governor and on the same being approved by the President.”
Mr. Vice-President: Does any member wish to speak on this proposed Clause 18A?
Shrimati G. Durgabai: I wish to say a few words in support of my amendment. Sir, in the draft I found no such provision made, as is contained in my amendment. So I thought it would be necessary, because by virtue of the power we have given to the Federal Legislature we find that some new Units will be springing up hereafter, and not only that, it will become more necessary, because already there are two newly carved out units, West Bengal and East Punjab. Therefore, some kind of procedure must be laid down for the establishment of High Courts in these newly created units. That is why I have suggested the addition of this Clause 18A.
After some debate Smt. G. Durgabai, further spoke-
Shrimati G. Durgabai: Mr. Vice-President, Sir, with your permission I would like to add a few more words to this amendment:
“That new High Courts may be established in the already, existing provinces of Orissa and Assam and also in the newly created provinces.”
The rest remain as they are.
I commend this amendment for the acceptance of the House.
After some debate the Vice Chairman said-
Mr. Vice-President: I understand Sir N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar’s assurance to mean that provision will be made for this in whatever parts of the Constitution such provision may be found necessary, by the draftsmen. Does the Mover press the amendment in view of that assurance?
Shrimati G. Durgabai: On that assurance, I withdraw my amendment. The amendment was, by leave of the Assembly, withdrawn.
Judges should be Citizens of India[4]
Shrimati G. Durgabai (Madras : General): Sir, I beg to move amendment No. 19 in Supplementary List II:
“That in para 14 of Appendix, the following be added: Every judge shall be a citizen of the Union of India.”
Paragraph 14 lays down the tenure of office and conditions of service of judges. Mr. President, I want that every judge shall be citizen of the Union of India. I have moved Clause (a) only, I am not pressing Clause (b).
Shrimati G. Durgabai: I moved this amendment, Sir, that every judge shall be a citizen of the Union of India. Of course, I realize, Mr. President that I need hardly say anything on this matter, because I expect that this House will fully realize the importance of this matter and agree with me.
My amendment, if accepted, will have this effect that it will remove the alien or the foreigner from the field of selection for the appointment of judges. Of course, I would like to add only one or two words, that only a citizen and a citizen alone who will pledge his loyalty to this Dominion of India will be competent to hold this office and however eminent a man maybe and however perfect his legal knowledge maybe, a foreigner or an alien can never be competent to hold this post. That will be the effect of my amendment. Mr. President, Sir, we have already provided for this qualification in the case of the Federation and also in the case of the Governor of the Province. If we have provided in these two cases, it is all the more necessary that we should do it in the case of the Supreme Court judges or the judges of the High Court, because the Supreme Court is considered to be the watchdog in a democracy which will guarantee the fundamental rights and other privileges of the citizens of India. That is all I want to say to the House before I commend my amendment for the acceptance of the House.
Commending the Efforts of Smt. Muthulakshmi Reddy in Prohibiting the Devdasi System[5]
Shrimati G. Durgabai (Madras: General): Mr. Vice-President, let me assure you that I will take up only one or two minutes of the valuable time of the Assembly. I want to say a few words on this article. There is the amendment of Professor Shah intended to substitute in clause (1) ‘Traffic in human beings or their dedication in the name of religion to be Devdasis or be subject to other forms of enslavement and degradation as well as begar’, for the words ‘Traffic in human beings and begar.’
Sir, if any province has suffered from this bad practice of dedication of devdasis in the name of religion, it is the province of Madras. The worst form of this custom existed in Madras for a long time. I do not know whether this custom of dedication exists in any other province in any form. But we all know that in several ways this was practised. But, I do not think, while appreciating the object of Professor Shah in bringing forward this amendment and while being thankful to him for having realised the necessity for removing this evil, that this amendment is necessary. Madras has already prohibited this practice under a law passed a few years ago. It is no more in vogue there. Though some relics of that system still exist, these, I am sure, will disappear in course of time. I should mention in this connection my appreciation of the efforts put in by reformers like Mrs. Muthulakshmi Reddy. It is mainly on account of her efforts that this evil is no more there. Our deep debt of gratitude is due to her for her efforts. As I said, Madras has passed a law prohibiting this custom. I do not, therefore, think it necessary to include this provision in Article 13, although I very much appreciate the spirit which has actuated Professor Shah to move this amendment.
Opening up Hindu Religious and Educational Institutions for all Sections[6]
Shrimati G. Durgabai (Madras: General): Mr. President, Sir, I beg to move the following amendment:
“That in sub-clause (b) of Clause (2) of Article 19 for the words “any class or section” the words “all classes and sections” be substituted.”
Sir, if my amendment is accepted, the clause would read thus:
“That nothing in this article shall affect the operation of any existing law or preclude the State from making any law for social welfare and reform or for throwing open Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all classes and sections of Hindus.”
Sir, the object of my amendment is to enlarge the scope of the clause as it stands. The clause as it stands, reads thus:
“……….for social welfare and reform or for throwing open Hindu religious institutions of a public character to any class or section of Hindus.”
Sir, in my view the clause as it stands is restricted in its scope, and the object of my amendment is to secure the benefit in a wider way and to make it applicable to all classes and sections.
Sir, though we are not able to make a sweeping reform or a more comprehensive reform in this direction, I feel that no distinction of any kind should be made between one class of Hindus and another.
Now, with regard to the Hindu religious institutions of a public character, we are all aware that there are various classes of these institutions, such as temples, religious maths, and educational institutions or Pathsalas conducted by these institutions, or attached to these institutions. So far as temples are concerned, I am sure that all of us are aware that almost all of the Provinces, including some States, have already passed law throwing open temples to all classes or sections of Hindus. But I am equally sure that some distinction does still exist in regard to the other forms of religious institutions, such as Pathsalas, educational institutions and others managed or conducted by these religious institutions. As I have already explained
my object is to enlarge the scope of this clause, and to include within it all classes and sections of Hindus. If my amendment is accepted, then that object will be fulfilled. As I have already explained, there should not be any distinction between one class and another class of Hindus.
I think these few words will suffice to explain the object of my amendment. I commend my amendment to the House for its acceptance. Sir, I move.
The Constitutional Remedies for Fundamental Rights[7]
Shrimati G. Durgabai (Madras : General): Mr. Vice-President, Sir, I have great pleasure in supporting this article. While doing so, I wish to place a few points before the House for its consideration.
Sir, the right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of a person’s rights is a very valuable right that is guaranteed under this Constitution. In my view this is a right which is fundamental to all the fundamental rights guaranteed under this Constitution. The main principle of this article is to secure an effective remedy to the fundamental rights guaranteed under this Constitution. As we are all aware, a right without an expeditious and effective remedy serves no purpose at all, nor is it worth the paper on which it is written. Therefore, as I have already stated, this article secures that kind of advantage that it will ensure the effective enforcement of the fundamental rights guaranteed to a person.
Sir, then, all of us are aware, and the Drafting Committee is quite alive to the fact, that in recent times in England the procedure under ancient writs has been considerably modified and a simple remedy by a petition has been substituted for writs in a recent enactment in England. Perhaps that is the reason why the Drafting Committee has put in this article directions or orders in the nature of writs of habeas corpus etc.
Another point is that the right that is vested in the Supreme Court in no way affects the right of the High Courts in any part of India to issue similar writs or to enable Parliament to make laws empowering any other Courts to exercise the same power within the local limits of its jurisdiction. The question might arise in this connection as to what happens if the High Court refuses to issue a writ, and whether in the absence of a specific provision to that effect, an application for the issue of a writ is barred to the Supreme Court. To that my answer is, “No”, because I consider that in these matters there is no question of res judicata. A person can move any number of courts and before any judge an application for the issue of this writ, though the Supreme Court naturally takes into consideration the order passed either by the High Court or any other Court in granting or refusing to issue this writ. Therefore, the application is not barred.
There are some other points also to be mentioned in this connection, but I feel these are the two main questions that might arise in this connection. One is whether the right that is vested in the Supreme Court bars the right of the other High Courts to issue similar writs; that question, I think, I have answered. The other question is whether in the case of concurrent jurisdiction, that is if the High Court refuses to issue this writ, whether an application is barred to the Supreme Court. That also I have answered by stating that any number of times a person can go to any number of Courts and move this application. Sir, with these few words I have great pleasure in supporting this article. I commend it to acceptance of the House.
Reposing Faith on Youth[8]
Shrimati G. Durgabai (Madras : General): Sir, I beg to move:
“That in the new Article 68-A proposed for insertion after Article 68, in Clause (b) for the word ‘thirty-five’ the word ‘thirty’ be substituted.”
The object of this is to lower the age to 30 from 35 for a seat in the Council of States. It was held for some time that greater age confers greater wisdom on men and women, but in the new conditions we find our boys and girls more precocious and more alive to their sense of responsibilities. Wisdom does not depend on age. It was also held that the Upper House consisted of elders who should be of a higher age as it was a revising chamber which would act as a check on hasty legislation. But that is an old story and the old order has been replaced by the new. As I said our boys and girls are now more precocious and the educational curriculum is now so broad-based that it will educate them very well in respect of their civic rights and duties. I, therefore, think we should give a chance to these younger people to be trained in the affairs of State. I said wisdom does not depend on age. Our present Prime Minister became President of the Congress before he was 40 and Pitt was 24 when he became Prime Minister of England. Therefore, we have no reason to fear that because a man is only 30 he will not be able to perform his functions in relation to the State. I hope the House will accept this amendment. Sir, I move. Ensuring the Neutrality of Governor[9]
Shrimati G. Durgabai (Madras : General): Mr. President, Sir, I stand here to support the amendment moved by friend Shri Brajeshwar Prasadji and supported by my friend Mr. Kamath. Sir, I must frankly confess that I also for some time held the view that the system of election by direct vote would be a better one compared to every other system. But I should say that I have changed my views in the matter because I am one of those who have given some thought to this question and come to the conclusion that the proposal of nomination or appointment as suggested in the amendment is a better one in the circumstances that we have today. Sir, I find that those friends who opposed this proposal of appointment by the President did it mainly on two grounds, that it would be inconsistent with the principle of democracy and also it would be giving too much power to the President. With regard to their fear that the ideal of democracy would suffer a good deal if people were deprived of their right of franchise in favour of Governor and that the ideology behind that the freedom to exercise their vote would be defeated if this power is given to the President, I may say that the usefulness or otherwise of any institution should be judged by the results that ultimately the institution would yield. Certain functions are expected to be discharged by the Governor. We wanted to introduce the Governor in our Constitution because we thought that an element of harmony would be there and that institution would bring about some sort of understanding and harmony between the conflicting groups of people, if really the Governor is conscious of his duties and he functions well. It is only for this purpose this is proposed, the governing idea is to place the Governor above party politics, above factions and not to subject him to the party affairs. Now, we find a section in the draft Article 135 wherein it is said that he is not to be a member of either of the Legislatures or, even if he was a member at the time when the choice may fall on him, he is expected to resign before he is appointed or elected as Governor. The idea behind it is that he should be above party politics and party factions. May I ask those friends whether this idea would be realised if we make him dependent upon the mercy of the people and make him subject to party affairs? If he is to depend on the mercy of the people for votes, I am afraid the idea that he would be a harmonious element in the constitution of our country would not be realised. Therefore, I feel that the election system as proposed by some, as against the amendment, is very dangerous. The other point, which my friends who opposed nomination is that it would be giving too much power to the President. May I ask whether the President does not mean his Prime Minister, and the Prime Minister in his turn would not consult his colleagues before making the choice? Those in favour of this system of appointment said yesterday that a happy and healthy convention would grow of consulting the Provincial Prime Ministers. I think already the system has grown and is growing that whenever a Governor is appointed to a province, the Chief Minister of that Province is invariably consulted. Therefore, I think the fear of my friend that the President would not discharge his responsibilities well and in the interest of the country is absolutely groundless. Therefore, it would be quite safe to leave the entire responsibility to the President and I do not see any danger why we should not leave it if that could be discharged with great caution and I may tell my friends that the person who is to take the responsibility of such a magnitude would not easily take it and would take it after a great hesitation because he knows that he has got to face the criticism of my friends like Shri Rohini Kumar Chaudhuri or Shri Biswanath Das or friends who oppose this idea and who are afraid of giving this power to the President. Therefore, I suggest that there is absolutely no danger and it is always open to those people to go and tell the President that whenever a man is not wanted why he is not wanted and, therefore, he is to be removed on certain grounds.
Therefore, I feel that there is absolutely no danger in that system of appointment and I urge on my friends to be convinced by this argument that this would be a safer method in the present circumstances. The Drafting Committee itself has changed its view and has put forward an alternative proposal, viz., to appoint one of the four candidates out of a panel of four candidates to be elected by the Houses. Sir, this is a proposal which has no counterpart or similarity in the whole world and also it is impossible to defend this panel business on its merits. I would say that this will not carry any responsibility but on the other hand carries all the disadvantages of a divided responsibility. It carries no responsibility of either the President or the Cabinet or the Provincial Cabinet because the responsibility here is very much divided. In this panel system there is this danger that if the votes recorded vary, as they are bound to vary, and if the President happens to pick up a man who has secured less number of votes, the person chosen will come into clash with the Provincial Legislature. Therefore, he would be naturally unwilling to take up that responsibility. Ultimately, therefore, it would resolve itself into an election by the House itself. An election or appointment which rests on the House, I do not think, carries much importance.
I should also say that the system of proportional representation would not improve matters in any way. That will only produce the effect that it would divide the whole House into warring groups and it will also produce all the disadvantages and defects of the French system. This experiment of panels and appointment from the panel is already tried in some of our universities today and it cannot be said that this has worked well. Every appointment has resulted in a disappointment. Ultimately, the defeated candidate transforming himself into the opposition, has brought about a lot of trouble to the Vice-Chancellor. Therefore, I do not see any reason why we should not have recourse to the simple and straight procedure of appointment by the President. Sir, with these words, I heartily support the amendment of Shri Brajeshwar Prasad.
Appellate Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court[10]
Shrimati G. Durgabai (Madras : General): Mr. President, Sir, while accepting and supporting the amendment moved by Dr. Ambedkar, I wish to offer a few remarks on this subject under consideration. I will say that I am in the main in agreement with the principle of the amendment moved by Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena. Though there was an amendment similar to that given notice of by me, I did not move it; but as I have already stated, I am very much in sympathy with the principle underlying that amendment. Sir, the article under consideration lays down, I am sure the House is aware, the conditions in detail for the appeals to the Supreme Court. These conditions are treated in sub-clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Article 111. The effect of this article is to make the conditions of appeal as part of the Constitution, and I am sure that it would be agreed that there should be an element of elasticity to the conditions of appeal, and if we have made these conditions as a part of the Constitution as we find sub-clauses (a),
(b) and (c), that would introduce an element of rigidity and also the conditions will be stereotyped. So the object of my amendment, which I did not move, or the object
of the amendment moved by Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena is to introduce that kind of elasticity and leave these conditions to the future Parliament to lay down if it finds absolutely necessary and essential. Now if there is to be a change and if we have made these conditions as part of the Constitution, the change could be brought about only by a constitutional revision. Therefore, I am sure that the House has realised the difficulty and the amendment, given that there should be elasticity by leaving this matter absolutely to the future Parliament, is to remove that rigidity and see that the conditions are not stereotyped.
Sir, in the law as it stood prior to the passing of the Federal Court Enlargement of Jurisdiction Act, the conditions of appeal were regulated by the Civil Procedure Code or by Order in Council made by His Majesty. This Civil Procedure Code was liable to be amended by Parliament. So, in answer to my friends who have just said that there should be no intervention of the Parliament, now I would say that this is not a new condition and the intervention of Parliament was not newly introduced because the Parliament could always intervene in the law as it existed today, that it could amend the Civil Procedure Code which would in the main regulate the conditions of appeal by bringing about a legislative change. So, Sir, it would have been very much better if a similar course could have been adopted and also I am sure that the House has noted this fact that the conditions obtaining today are not the conditions as existed some time back. They are radically different today, because we find that a large number of States are being brought under the Indian Administration and also the question is whether the Supreme Court should not be constituted as a Court of appeal from all over India and the idea also is to expand the jurisdiction and extend the jurisdiction to States also. This position has been made clear by an amendment moved by my honourable friend, Shri Raj Bahadur, which I am sure will be accepted. The effect of that amendment is to remove those restrictions with regard to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in relation to the States. Therefore, the idea is to expand the jurisdiction and leave the conditions to the Parliament to lay down. Anyhow, I am very glad to support the amendment moved by Dr. Ambedkar, because it has accepted the major part of my amendment namely conditions (a) and (b) accepted, but condition (c) alone is now made rigid by having found a place in this Constitution. Even this matter could have been left to the future Parliament; it would have been open to the Parliament to say under what conditions an appeal should be considered as a fit one to come to the Supreme Court. Anyhow, Dr. Ambedkar has not considered it desirable, but while accepting the two, he has left this matter absolutely beyond the purview of Parliament. As Mr. Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar stated, half a loaf is better than no loaf at all, and I also would agree with that view and support the amendment moved by Dr. Ambedkar.
Ensuring High Standards in Films[11]
Shrimati G. Durgabai: (Madras : General): Mr. President, Sir, while supporting the new entry 70A moved by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar I wish to make a few observations.
This new entry 70A seeks to give power to the Centre to administer on the exhibition of films and the object of the Centre taking over this power to itself is to lay down certain uniform standards in the films that are exhibited all over this country and also outside this country. Of course, we think whether such a power is necessarily to be given to the Centre to take over this administration. We feel that many films that are dumped on the public today have either very little or no educational value. Nauseating
songs and very cheap themes are highly detrimental to our culture. Therefore, it is highly necessary to raise the standards of these films and thus help the producers to exhibit better films which reflect the civilization of this country. That is the primary object, and also they should promote international understanding between the citizens of this country and also of the outside world.
Sir, the position today as it stands is that the Provincial Governments have got their censorship boards, and to my knowledge and information the censorship starts only after the film is completed and some lakhs of rupees have been wasted on them and the Centre acts only in an advisory capacity and whatever the Centre does in that capacity will have only a post- mortem effect. Therefore, Sir, keeping this object in view, we have got to introduce uniformity in the standards of the films that are to be exhibited in this country and also outside this country which would help promoting good harmony and reflect our culture and the civilization of this country.
Sir, while supporting this amendment, I should like to say that the provincial interests or the provincial censorship boards that are today functioning in this matter should be consulted and their interests should be taken into consideration and in every matter their advice and co-operation ought to be sought in censoring these films. Sir, a point may be raised against this power being given to the Centre whether the Centre would be able to deal with this matter, because there are different languages and different types of dialects in which these films are exhibited, whether the Centre could cope up with this power and deal with this matter effectively. There is some justification in this argument but anyhow I would like to say that the Centre should act so carefully in administering on this subject that while the provinces could produce and contribute to the international or national unity they could also preserve the type of culture peculiar to themselves.
Sir, in this matter we have got to know that the first step has already been taken. We have amended the Government of India Act to give power to the Centre; also we have passed a Bill in the Legislative session by classifying the films by introducing the system of A and U class service. Therefore, this entry in this list is only a corollary to what we have done. Some objections have been raised. I think my honourable friend, Mr. Raj Bahadur raised a point, that the powers ought to be widened and he suggested the deletion of the words “The sanctioning of” and “for exhibition” and thereby enlarging the power. I should like to say we have got already the licensing authority today under which this could be done. I understand that his object is to see that the Centre could insist on the provinces to produce such films and also exhibit such films which have got an educative value along with the films that are exhibited today. This we could do under the power that we have got already and even the provinces are exercising it under their licensing power. The Centre has already passed a Bill to classify the films. Therefore, it is not quite necessary. So I feel that this entry might find favour with the House.
Protection of Children and Youth from Exploitation and Abandonment[12]
Shrimati G. Durgabai (Madras : General): Mr. Vice-President, Sir, I have great pleasure in supporting the amendment moved by my friend, Dr. Punjabrao Deshmukh. I wish to say and also I appeal to the Drafting Committee and this House to realise the great importance of this subject viz. the protection of children from exploitation or abandonment, and accept the principle behind it; I appeal more especially to the Drafting Committee to find a suitable entry for this subject. Unless the State takes up a direct responsibility to pass legislation on this matter, I do not think there will be adequate attention given to this subject. I know that they have not neglected this matter and the Chairman of the Drafting Committee would come forward to say that there are a large number of entries to this effect in all the three Lists and that sufficient protection is being given to the protection of children and the destitutes and the abandoned. I know that they have accepted this principle under the Directive Principles. Article 31 clause (vi), lays down the principle in the terms of the amendment now moved. It is the protection of children and youth against exploitation and against moral and material abandonment. Sir, this is exactly the language of the amendment which is moved by Dr. Punjabrao.
No doubt this principle has been recognised under the Directive Principles. I should say that there is no use in simply recognising this principle under the Chapter on Directive Principles. It will remain a really pious declaration or intention on our part to do something in the matter of protection of children, but that is not sufficient. None of the entries has mentioned this subject. If you examine all the three Lists, you do not find a definite entry to this effect in anyone of these Lists. In the absence of a definite entry on this matter, really there will not be adequate protection given to children. It will leave this matter in great confusion. You do not know who will legislate on this matter, whether it will be the Centre or the State or both.
Therefore, Sir, I would appeal to the Drafting Committee to see its way to include this matter in this Concurrent List or any other List.
Unless the State undertakes a direct responsibility there will be no good. It is open to the State to come forward and make some subsidy or give some donation or some contribution to an Association either started by private enterprise or by a philanthropist for the protection of infants. We know how these associations are struggling for their daily existence and for lack of fund they are not able to get on well and in this manner these poor homes could no longer serve the cause of poor children. I do not know what kind of help they will get if the State does not take direct responsibility. This is not a matter which could be left to private enterprise, but the State must take direct responsibility. There is no good in our stating the Directive Principles, which will remain as pious declarations unless given effect to by the State.
It may be argued that there is penal law which deals with the matter. I know that the criminal law deals with this matter of abandonment. I also know because I am conversant with it, how deep matters are going on it is true that the persons who is charged with the offence of abandoning is really punished and he or she is sentenced for that offence. But what happens to the child that is abandoned? That is the question. Where is it to go? How long is it going to wait in search of somebody to come forward and take it for protection? Therefore, Sir, it is a very dangerous thing. If only we leave the children to themselves, they will take to beggary and also to many vices such as stealing and they would cultivate very bad habits. Therefore, it is the duty of the State to come forward and help these children sufficiently in time, to see that they are developed well, because these children are our future hope and the nation depends upon these children, their good-manners, their upbringing, their good health and their strong character.
Sir, I tell you that if the Drafting Committee could find its way to make an entry for the protection of wild birds, I do not know whether the children could not come under the classification of even wild birds. Therefore, if you see your way to give a particular place in the Constitution for wild birds, I appeal to you to see your way also to give protection to the children that are abandoned, by a suitable entry in the Constitution.
Hindustani Instead of Hindi as the National Language[13]
Shrimati G. Durgabai (Madras : General): Mr. President, the question of national language for India which was an almost agreed proposition until recently has suddenly become a highly controversial issue. Whether rightly or wrongly, the people of non-Hindi speaking areas have been made to feel that this fight or this attitude on behalf of the Hindi speaking areas is a fight for effectively preventing the natural influence of other powerful languages of India on the composite culture of this nation. I have heard some honourable Members who are supporters of Hindi with Hindi numerals say, “You have accepted nearly 90 per cent of our thesis; therefore, why hesitate to accept the other 10 per cent?” May I ask them with what sacrifice, we have accepted this? Some friends said: “Absolutely there is no sacrifice on your part. You have to accept. You must”. This is the attitude in approaching the people of the non-Hindi speaking areas for asking them to accept their proposition in its entirety.
Sir, the national language of India should not be and cannot be any other than Hindustani which is Hindi plus Urdu. For the sake of satisfying the sentiments of our friends we have accepted Hindi in Devanagari script. It is no less sacrifice for us to have had to depart from a principle, which we have all along fought for and lived for. This departure means a very serious inconvenience to us and it is not without a pang that we have agreed to this departure from the tolerant Gandhian ideology, the Gandhian philosophy and the Gandhian proposition, namely, that the official language of India should be only that which is commonly understood and easily spoken and learnt. Sir, this is the sacrifice that we have made.
Perhaps Tandonji, Seth Govind Dasji and others do not know this and are not aware of the powerful opposition in the South against the Hindi language. The opponents feel perhaps justly that this propaganda for Hindi cuts at the very root of the provincial languages and is a serious obstacle to the growth of the provincial languages and provincial culture. Sir, the anti-Hindi agitation in the south is very powerful. My friend Dr. Subbaroyan dealt at some length on this point yesterday. But, Sir, what did we do with the supporters of Hindi ? We braved that fierce agitation and propagated Hindi in the South. Long before the Pandits of Hindi Sahitya Sammelan realised the importance of having a national language for India, we all in the South obeyed the call of Mahatma Gandhi and carried on Hindi propaganda in the South. We started schools and conducted classes in Hindi. Thus with great inconvenience we dedicated ourselves very long ago to the propagation and learning of Hindi.
Sir, leaving alone the efforts of the Dakshina Bharat Hindi Pracharak Sabha, I must in this connection pay a glowing tribute to the women and children of the South who have taken with great zeal and earnestness to the learning of Hindi. Sir, Gandhiji’s efforts and influence, worked tremendously on the students of colleges who, after putting in hard work in their colleges, used to come in the evenings to the Hindi classes to learn this language. Not only the students, even the lawyers after their court hours, officers after finishing their office work, instead of going in the evenings to the recreation clubs, attended Hindi classes and learnt Hindi. I am impressing this fact upon you just to show how genuinely and honestly we took to this propagation of Hindi as a result of Mahatmaji’s call and appeal to us.
My friends will do well to note that all this was a voluntary effort on our part to fall in line with the national sentiment. In this connection I may refer to a visit which was paid to by the late Seth Jamnalal Bajaj in 1923. In that year, when Sethji visited Cocanada for the Congress Session he visited some ladies’ institutions where he found some hundreds of women learning Hindi. Remember, Sir, that this was in the year 1923, some two and a half decades ago. Sethji was so happy to see the ladies learning Hindi that he offered a very handsome donation to the Hindi institution then working. But, the organisers declined the donation saying: “We also feel that we should have a national language. We are therefore conducting the school in Hindi with our own efforts.” That is the spirit with which we worked.
Now what is the result of it all? I am shocked to see this agitation against that enthusiasm of ours with which we took to Hindi in the early years of this century. Sir, this attitude on your part to give a national character to what is purely a provincial language is responsible for embittering the feelings of the non-Hindi speaking people. I am afraid this would certainly adversely affect the sentiments and the feelings of those who have already accepted Hindi with Devanagari script. In short, Sir, this overdone and misused propaganda on their part is responsible and would be responsible for losing the support of people who know and who are supporters of Hindi like me.
I have already said that in the interests of national unity, Hindustani alone could be the national language of India. We urge caution and an accommodating spirit on their part, in the interests of the minorities here who, like the Muslims, need time and sympathy to adjust themselves. Sir, they have all displayed large-hearted readiness to fall in line with the predominant sentiment. Purely from the point of view of excellence of literature and international reputation, Bengali is worthy of adoption as the national language. From the point of view of sweetness and also from the fact that it is the second largest of the languages spoken in India, Telugu could be worthy of adoption as the national language. Sir, we have, given up our claims for Telugu. We have not spoken one word in favour of it. We have not advocated it. We have not suggested that one of these provincial languages should be accepted as the national language of our country.
Now, Sir, when we have made this sacrifice, you come out and say, sacrifice another point and swallow the other five per cent remaining out of the hundred percent and adopt the Hindi numerals. I should say that is the height — I hesitate to put it that way but I must say it — of language tyranny and intolerance. We have agreed to adopt Hindi in the Devanagari script, but I must remind the House that we have agreed to the adoption of Hindi in the Devanagari script, subject to certain conditions. Condition No. 1 is, whatever be the name of the language — I do not propose to speak about the controversy about Hindi versus Hindustani—whatever name you may give it, it must be all inclusive and therefore the clause concerned in Shri Gopalaswami Ayyangar’s draft should commend itself to the House and the House should unhesitatingly and unanimously agree to that clause. That language should be capable of absorbing the words which are already in use whether of Urdu or any other regional language. It is only then you will convince us that you are asking us to accept it as a national language and not the special brand of C.P. or U.P. Hindi.
Another condition which is equally important is that the status quo should be maintained at least for a period of fifteen years, which would enable us to learn and to speak and also to adjust ourselves to the new environment. People from the Hindi areas are not even willing to concede this point. They say, “Some of you can speak Hindi and so bring it into effect from tomorrow or at least in the shortest possible time.” I have heard some people say—
Tumari jindagi me hindi kabhi nahi rashtra bhasha banegi
I ask you, Sir are we going to have this Constitution only for ourselves and our lives? What about our children and the generations to come? Are they not to follow this? I am speaking from my own personal experience. I learnt Hindi, I taught Hindi to some hundreds of women at least, in the South. My experience is this: Those who have passed the highest examinations in Hindi can read and write, but it is impossible for them to speak, because for speaking there must be some kind of environment, some kind of atmosphere. In the South, where do we find this atmosphere? Nowhere in the South have we opportunities of speaking what we have learnt. You will only realise this difficulty when you come to the South and you have to speak one of the provincial languages there. Therefore, be patient and cultivate the spirit of accommodation and tolerance. This is the thing that we ask of you to show to us.
The third condition which is not clear from Shri Gopalaswami Ayyangar’s draft is that there is some obligation placed on the non-Hindi speaking people to speak Hindi. There should be equally an obligation on your part to learn one of the provincial languages. It does not matter whether it is Bengali, Tamil, Telugu or Kannada or any other language for that matter. Dr. Syama Prasad Mookerjee, while speaking on this subject yesterday, dwelt on this point sufficiently and on the resolution which the Sahitya Sammelan passed recently in their conference in Delhi. We will carefully wait and watch and see how that resolution would be implemented by the Premiers of Provinces who were parties to that resolution.
On the question of numerals, I do not want to say anything because sufficient has already been said. You have already understood the gravity of the situation. Suffice it to say, let there be no sentiment or let there be no question of its being a religion with anybody. If that is religion with you, it would be a powerful religious force with us, not to have adopted a language which is not our own, which is only a provincial language, which is not sufficiently developed. Therefore let not anybody say that it is religious with him or her.
Sir, the other question which I wanted to speak about is that in the non-Hindi speaking areas we have got to learn Hindi which we have raised to the position of an official language. Our purse is very meagre and we are already spending so much for the removal of illiteracy in our provinces. Therefore, it becomes the duty and responsibility of the Centre to give sufficient grants to the provinces which are non-Hindi speaking areas to develop and also to propagate this Hindi.
Sir, you have given me an opportunity to speak and I should not take much time of the House. Please remember that we are accepting Hindi only with these conditions which I have stated. For your part, you should have no hesitation to accept Shri Gopalaswami Ayyangar’s draft. Even we do not agree with some of the provisions there, but we have accepted it, and therefore you should have no hesitation in accepting it and supporting it. Thank you, Sir.
Limitations on Individual Freedoms[14]
Shrimati G. Durgabai (Madras: General): Mr. President, Sir, while I support the new Article 15A moved by Dr. Ambedkar, I shall make a few observations on the subject under consideration. I know that I will be exhausting the patience of the House only if I have also taken some time to speak on this matter. But I feel strongly that I should make a few points and remarks on the speeches made during the debate in this House.
I have heard the honourable Members who were the enthusiastic champions of individual freedom and individual liberty, even to the extent of placing the exigencies of individual liberty above the exigencies of the State, describing this article as the Crown of all our failures. Sir, the question before us is this, whether the exigencies of the freedom of individuals or the exigencies of the State is more important. When it comes to a question of shaking the very foundations of the State, which State stands not for the freedom of one individual but of several individuals, I yield the first place to the State. I say this because I know that in my love and enthusiasm for individual freedom, I only stand for myself, and my interests; and the State is far superior, because it stands for the freedom and liberty of several individuals like myself. I do not think there can be a greater champion and advocate of individual freedom than De Valera the product of this century with the best democratic traditions. What is it that he has done? The very first thing that he did after becoming President was to pass a number of Public Security Acts. He had no other go. He had to do it, because a situation arose when he himself was to be murdered, what was he to do?
My friends who spoke here have criticised the power that is being exercised in the matter of arrests and detentions. But they have not examined the position when this power is to be exercised, and under what circumstances. The power is to be exercised only in cases when the individual tampers with the public order, as is mentioned in Concurrent List or with the Defence Services of the country. I need only ask you, to go to my part of the country, Madras, Malabar, Vijayawada. I may tell you, and I may draw your attention that no wife, no mother is feeling secure; they are not sure when their husbands would come back, whether they would return home or not. Such is the position. Also the menfolk, when they go out, are not quite sure by the time they return home, whether the wife or the daughters are safe there in the house. That is the position. In that case, what is the State to do? What is the Government to do, to assure some kind of safety and security to these people? Only in those conditions, when there is ample justification will the State resort to arrests and detentions.
This new Article 15A introduced by Dr. Ambedkar is a very happy compromise. Think of the 1818 Regulation which had no time limit at all. Thereafter, came the Public Security Acts of the various Provinces. Now the Board has been introduced in this new article. The Board has got to go through these cases. Also in no case is the detention to go beyond three months, and if it has to exceed, then the Board has got to report. The Court has got to examine the papers and representations made by the Executive, very carefully. Dr. Ambedkar has very ably explained the limitations and the restrictions over this power and I do not want to repeat them because I may be taking up too much time of the House. One point is that in no case is the detention to exceed three months. If it has to exceed, then the Board has to get a report and on that report only can the detention exceed; and also there is Parliament which would make the law, describing all such cases in which such detention thus got to exceed this period. These are the restrictions which are there to limit this power.
Sir, I do not want to go into the various amendments introduced by my honourable friend Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava. He said: Give the right of appeal, at least once, and also the provisions for periodical reviews and conditional releases and so on. Dr. Ambedkar will deal with these points. I will only mention one or two points raised by my friend Shrimati Purnima Banerji in her amendments. I must say that I am very much in sympathy with two of her amendments. One of them provided for the personal appearance of the person detained, before the Board, to give reasons and explanations. I think the Drafting Committee should have no difficulty in agreeing to that. After all, the Board will not lose much by at least having a look at the person detained and receiving his explanations and reasons. I do not know whether it raises any administrative difficulty, but that will be dealt with by the Drafting Committee. I have confidence in the Government. Can there be a greater advocate and champion of personal freedom than our Government, our Prime Minister, and our Deputy Prime Minister who always are here to give relief to the poor and the needy and those who suffer?
Another amendment of Shrimati Purnima Banerji asks for the maintenance of the dependents of the person detained. Yes, here also I am very much in sympathy with her point, for if the person detained is a bread-winner, then his dependents, his immediate dependents have got to be provided. It would be better to give some sort of guarantee about this, instead of leaving it to Executive Power and to their sweet will. But how is it practicable? That is the question. There are many people who are poor in our country. Her point is that about fifty per cent of the cases would result in releases or discharges. And she also says that the benefit of doubt might be given to the accused in these cases. Are the dependents of the man detained to suffer indefinitely? That is her question. But I say, this is a question which has always been considered by the Government of the province and in deserving cases, the necessary relief is being provided. But in another way it might be argued that this is putting a premium on delinquency; if he is assured of provision for his family he might go on committing crimes and challenging the foundations of the State. I think it is better to leave this matter to the provincial Governments or which ever Governments might deal with these cases.
Then, Sir, I think the words “legal practitioner” in Article 15A (1) require some explanation. We know that Mr. Kasim Razvi engaged counsel from England whose appearance was refused. Now should it be open to this man to engage any one from any place? If there are rules to cover this point I have no objection: otherwise I suggest that after the words “legal practitioner” the words “qualified or authorised to appear in these cases” may be added.
Sir, I commend this article for the acceptance of the House.
The Supreme Court : Guardian of the Constitution[15]
Shrimati G. Durgabai (Madras: General) : Mr. President, I could not resist the temptation to speak a few words on this occasion which I consider is very important. To avoid taking up much of the time of the House I would straightaway say what I have to say.
I welcome this Bill which is going to be passed in a few seconds and which is a great land-mark in the judicial history of India. When this Bill is passed it will serve the long standing connection existing between the Indian system and the British system in the judicial sphere. I dare say, as a student of law and also a practitioner who is acquainted with the matter, this connection has benefited our Indian law and Indian system of jurisprudence greatly. I have had occasion to read the judgments of the Privy Council and other important decisions which were mentioned by Shri Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar just now. I felt proud of that connection which had done substantial benefit to us. Therefore we should pay a tribute to this connection from which we are now parting.
This Bill when it becomes an Act will usher in the era of judicial autonomy in India. The important changes made therein are all corollary to the political and constitutional independence of this country. When the Constitution is passed, our Federal Court will be designated as the Supreme Court. It will be the highest court of appeal for all high courts and also the judicial authority for the interpretation of the Constitution. We wish and we hope that the Supreme Court which is going to be the guardian of the Constitution and of the fundamental rights guaranteed therein, will do its function very well and every citizen in India will have the occasion to say that it has protected his rights as a true guardian of this Constitution.
Sir, there was criticism heard this morning here that we are continuing the jurisdiction of the Privy Council in certain matters. May I say in reply that this will be so only in the class of cases, as Dr. Ambedkar explained, where the judgment has already been delivered or where the report has been made to His Majesty or where the cases have been entered in the list of the business of the Judicial Committee. All the other cases will be disposed of here. We have also made provision in Clause 5 that if only leave has been granted after 10th October, the further steps will have to be taken only in the Federal Court. There are some 20 or 25 such cases and these, if they are not decided before 26th January 1950, will have to be taken over to India. It is only just and fair and polite on our part not to take away such classes of appeals which I have already mentioned. With these few words I commend this Bill and say that it will be a very interesting period in our history to watch the progress and functions of the Supreme Court.
On the Democratic Credentials of the Draft Constitution[16]
Shrimati G. Durgabai (Madras: General): Mr. President, Sir, the speakers who have preceded me have placed before you in a highly learned way an exhaustive analysis of the Constitutional set up which this country is going to have. Sir, I have no intention to repeat them, firstly because I do not claim to have that legal or constitutional wisdom to say anything by way of throwing further light on the points already placed before this House. I also think that at this stage it is better to look forward than look backward and dissect this Constitution in a theoretical way to find out either the merits or the defects of it. Sir, there is only one standard by which we have got to judge this Constitution. The purpose of a democratic constitution is to find a device and to establish a machinery to find out the general will of the people and also to give scope for the general will to prevail. Does this Constitution fulfil this object? That is the point to be considered. Sir, with the franchise extended to all the adults, and with the ample checks provided to control the executive and the Fundamental Rights solemnly guaranteed by this Constitution, I do not think any fair-minded person would say that this Constitution does not fulfil that democratic purpose, that it does not establish the scope and opportunity for the will of the people to dominate in the administration of their affairs. May I say, Sir, that it is not or should not be the purpose of the makers of the Constitution to give the colour of a particular political ideology to the Constitution, and it is well that it is left to the people and the people should be left alone, and they should be the masters to shape the destiny of this country and also to mould their machinery as they like, as long as they hold the field. It would have been wrong on the part of the makers of the Constitution to have given that kind of colour or to put a kind of interpretation of a particular brand of political philosophy to the provisions that are embodied in this Constitution. What the Constitution should do is to give the people sufficient and free scope to canvass their own particular brand of ideology and give them the means to make their own opinions prevail as long as they have got a voice in the administration of the country.
Sir, it is possible for a socialist to complain that the principles of his own party do not find a place in this Constitution. But ours is a Constitution which is neither a socialist Constitution, or a communist Constitution, or even for the matter of that, a Panchayat Raj Constitution. It is a people’s Constitution and a Constitution which gives free and ample scope to the people of India to make experiments in socialism or any other ism in which they believe would make this country prosperous and happy. It would have been wrong on the part of the makers of the Constitution to have introduced their own political philosophy, and they have done well in making this Constitution, as I say, a cent percent people’s Constitution, and leaving it at that.
In their own wild disappointment, some unkind critics have described this Constitution as no better than “the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act”. That, Sir, is very cheap criticism, I should say. Does this Constitution which for the first time gives adult franchise, for the first time guarantees the Fundamental Rights, and which has amazingly succeeded in blotting out the hundreds of patches of this country and made it a strong and united country, does this Constitution stand on par with the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act? Certainly, as I have said that is a way of criticising this Constitution which is a very cheap way.
Sir, I will not deal with the various constitutional safeguards provided in this Constitution for a democratic government. It is a subject on which many learned disquisition have been made. As I said we should now look forward and see to shape the future of things, by means of this Constitution. Many have dealt with the pros and cons of adult franchise. It is a very good thing, provided it is exercised in the interest of this country. What should we do to bring about this happy consummation? It is said that adult franchise unleashes vast forces which may not work in the interest of national good, but which may work in sectional interests. Sir, it depends upon the leaders who are going to take charge of the destinies of our country and of the new set up to create sufficient safeguards against such an abuse. I do not imagine the problem is so difficult as we think it to be, if we only make, in the first instance, membership of this House the membership of Parliament, not a position of unusual prestige or of position and power, but a post of duty and of heavy responsibility, a post of duty and very hard and efficient work. It is only then that many of the defects of parliamentary democracy will be automatically solved. Can we not devise a method by which the elected representatives would be looked upon, not as belonging to a privileged class, but as persons discharging a heavy responsibility and duties over and above, and in addition to talking which is what we are doing now? As long as we maintain the status quo with regard to the position of the representatives of the people there will be that scramble for seats in Parliament and the consequent scramble for power. Only when we are convinced and make others also realise that the position of an elected representative is not merely a position of luck or prestige, but a place of duty and hard and efficient work, only then will there be the necessary restraint in the matter of the choice of the representatives.
Sir, I will not take up much of the time of the House but will only mention one feature which appears to me to distinguish the Constitution from the American type of constitution, and that is with regard to the judiciary. Although this Constitution is of the federal type there is not a double chain of courts created in this country, that is, one set to administer the federal laws and another set to administer the laws made by the State. All the courts form a single hierarchy, at the head of which is the Supreme Court. Immediate below the Supreme Court there are the various State High Courts and below them the subordinate Courts of the States. But every court of the chain, subject to the usual pecuniary and other local limits, will administer the laws of the country, whether made by Parliament or the Legislature of the State.
Sir, there are several other kinds of criticisms made against this Constitution, but I have not got time because I have to accommodate other colleagues of mine, as the President has already said.
Sir, I would just mention one or two points. It is said that there is nothing Gandhian in this Constitution. Look at the Chapter on Fundamental Rights. It has always been criticised in the House and some of the attacks have been bitter, that the Fundamental Rights are not worth the paper on which they are written. Is it supposed that because the Fundamental Rights are hedged in by certain restrictions they are absolute trash? These restrictions on the Fundamental Rights are completely in consonance and in accord with well recognised restrictions in the whole jurisprudence not only of this country but of the whole world and the constitutions of various countries. The rights should not be absolute.
I have also heard the criticism that this Constitution has not laid down the duties of the citizen. It has laid down only the rights. I do not want to say much on the restrictions which have been placed on the Fundamental Rights. While claiming his rights under the Constitution the citizen should as well remember that he has got an obligation and a duty to the State, from which he expects his rights or his protection.
Look at the Chapter on Directive Principles of State Policy. It is said that they are just merely principles which are not enforceable through the courts of law. Constitutional declarations of social and economic policies of the State are becoming a common practice and it is not even unknown to India. Artha Shastra mentions an injunction to the King in these terms:
“The King shall provide the orphan, the dying, the infirm, the afflicted, the helpless with maintenance. He shall also provide subsistence to the helpless and the expectant mothers and to the children they give birth to.”
This is a basic injunction of the Artha Shastra, which the King has no option but to obey and it could form the guiding principle of our Government both at the Centre and in the States.
I do not want to deal with the criticism that this Constitution which is a republican Constitution cannot work well within the Commonwealth, which we have chosen to be part of. From many sources we have heard this criticism. I do not want to deal with it at length but would only say a word. I do not think it is an insurmountable difficulty. I would mention again that it is not unknown in ancient India, because the republic of Licchavis is mentioned as having a form of membership or partnership with the empire of Chandragupta. These two names are inscribed on the imperial coins. Berriedale Keith said that in the Commonwealth if there was no room for the republics to work then the enduring character of the Commonwealth itself was of a doubtful nature. Therefore it would be well that we recognised certain authorities for this purpose of working together. Therefore, it need not be thought that this would constitute any difficulty.
Last but not least, I want to say that I have just read the decision of the Government of India this morning in the papers that they have created facilities to bring about the Andhra Province at an early date. They have done well in leaving the details to be worked out by a Partition Council and that the Centre would not interfere with them. I am very glad about it and I hope that the Partition Council which might be created will not do anything that is injurious to the peaceful and quiet life which the people are enjoying hitherto.
[1] Election of additional members to Steering Committee, C.A.D., Vol. III, L.S.S., 28 April 1947,378-379.
[2] Consideration on the Principles of a Model Provincial Constitution, C.A.D., Vol. IV, L.S.S., 21 July 1947, pp. 695-697.
[3] Consideration on Clause 18 of Report of the Union Constitution Committee pertaining Federal Judiciary, C.A.D., Vol. IV, L.S.S., 28 July 1947, p. 887 and 29 July 1947, pp. 905-908.
[4] Consideration of Report of the Union Constitution Committee pertaining Federal Judiciary, C.A.D., Vol. IV, L.S.S., 29 July 1947, pp. 894, 900-901
[5] Discussion on Article 17 of the Draft Constitution, regarding involuntary servitude, C.A.D., Vol. VII, L.S.S., 3 December 1948, p. 808.
[6] Consideration over Article 19 of the Draft Constitution in respect of State and religion, C.A.D., Vol. VII, L.S.S., 6 December 1948, pp. 828-829.
[7] Discussion on the Article 25 of the Draft Constitution regarding guarantees for fundamental rights, C.A.D., Vol. VII, L.S.S., 9 December 1948, pp. 937-938.
[8] Discussion on new Article 68A of the Draft Constitution, regarding minimum age for election to Council of States, C.A.D., Vol. VIII, L.S.S., 18 May 1949, p. 90.
[9]Discussion on Article 131 of the Draft Constitution, regarding election of Governor, C.A.D., Vol. VIII, L.S.S., 31 May 1949, pp. 448-450
[10] Discussion on Article 111 of the Draft Constitution, regarding appellate jurisdiction of Federal Court, C.A.D., Vol. VIII, L.S.S., 6 June 1949, pp. 626-627.
[11] Discussion over new Entry 70A in the Union List in the Draft Constitution, C.A.D., Vol. IX, L.S.S., 31 August 1949, pp. 822-823
[12] Discussion on Entry 6 of the Concurrent List of the Draft Constitution, C.A.D., Vol. IX, L.S.S., 3 September 1949, pp. 933-937.
[13] Discussion on New Part XIV-A regarding Language of the Draft Constitution, C.A.D., Vol. IX, L.S.S., 14 September 1949, pp. 1426-1429.
[14] Discussion on Article 15A of the Draft Constitution regarding protection against certain arrests, C.A.D., Vol. IX, L.S.S., 16 September 1949, pp. 1554-1556.
[15] Discussion on Abolition of Privy Council Jurisdiction Bill, C.A.D., Vol. IX, L.S.S., 17 September 1949, pp. 1615-1616.
[16] In support of the motion to pass the Constitution by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, C.A.D., Vol. XI, L.S.S., 24 November 1949, pp. 886-889
