Purnima Banerjee’s involvement in the freedom struggle paralleled the contributions of prominent figures such as Sucheta Kripalani, Vijaylakshmi Pandit, and Uma Nehru. Beyond the streets and protests, Banerjee’s role as Secretary of the Allahabad City Congress Committee showcased her dedication to grassroots engagement.
In the Constituent Assembly, her interventions left a lasting impact on the constitutional discourse. Advocating for individual rights and democratic principles, Banerjee’s influence extended to crucial areas such as the Preamble, preventive detention, and the qualifications of parliamentarians.
Her legacy lives on as a testament to the spirit of independence and constitutional values. Purnima Banerjee’s vision for a democratic and inclusive India continues to inspire generations, reinforcing the importance of active civic participation in shaping the nation’s destiny.
| Attribute | Details |
|---|---|
| Party | Indian National Congress |
| Constituency | United Provinces |
| Mother Tongue | Bangla |
| Education | Not specified |
| Committee Memberships | None |
Role in India’s Independence Movement
Purnima Banerjee emerged as a stalwart in India’s fight for independence, actively participating in pivotal movements such as the individual Satyagraha and the Quit India movement. Her commitment to the cause was evident through her dual membership in the Congress Socialist Party and the Indian National Congress.
As the Secretary of the Allahabad City Congress Committee, Banerjee played a crucial role in fostering rural engagement. Conducting meetings with kisans (farmers) and trade unions, she bridged the gap between urban and rural India, promoting a unified front in the struggle for freedom.
Contribution to Constitution Making
Banerjee’s contributions extended to the shaping of independent India’s constitutional framework. Appointed to the Constituent Assembly from the United Provinces, she actively participated in discussions surrounding crucial aspects of the constitution.
During deliberations on the Preamble, Banerjee made a significant declaration, asserting that ‘sovereignty’ is derived from the people of India. In discussions related to the preventative detention clause (Draft Article 15A, now Article 22 of the Constitution), she passionately argued for the inclusion of time limits, ensuring the protection of individuals’ rights.
Her advocacy extended to the qualifications of Rajya Sabha members, where Banerjee proposed a reduction in the age limit from 35 to 30 years. This reflected her foresight and commitment to fostering young leadership in India’s parliamentary system.
Key Speeches:
Advocated for specific time limits in the preventative detention clause, emphasizing maintenance allowance for detained earning members.
Asserted that ‘sovereignty’ in the Preamble should explicitly derive from the people of India.
Proposed a reduction in the age limit for Rajya Sabha members from 35 to 30 years, highlighting the need for increased youth participation.
Purnima Banerjee’s legacy stands as a testament to her unwavering dedication to India’s freedom and her pivotal role in crafting the constitutional framework that guides the nation to this day. Her speeches echo a vision of an inclusive, sovereign, and youthful democracy.
Selected Speeches from Constitutional Assembly Debates
State’s Control over Religious Instruction in Schools[1]
Shrimati Purnima Banerji (United Provinces : General): Sir, I move:
That in Clause 16 the following new paragraph be added as an explanation—
“All religious education given in educational institutions receiving Statewide will be in the nature of the elementary philosophy of comparative religions calculated to broaden the pupils’ mind rather than such as will foster sectarian exclusiveness.”
The object of the clause, Sir, is as the Mover of the Report has suggested, to prevent the students attending these schools being forced to attend the religious classes, if they do not wish to do so. With that I am in perfect agreement. But I know there are a large number of institutions which are run on religious lines and which came into the field of education much before the State came in. There are in my Province ‘Maktabs’ and ‘Pathasalas’ which perform the function of imparting education to children of school going age. But we have seen that the religious instructions given there are of such a nature that, instead of broadening the mind of the child, they mis-educate the mind and sometimes breed a certain type of fanaticism and religious bigotry as a result of receiving education in these ‘Maktabs’ and ‘Pathasalas.’ It is a controversial point as to whether we should give any aid to denominational schools at all. I do not wish to open that subject at all because there are experts appointed for this purpose and their report is awaited and I am sure after that the legislature will enter into that subject in fuller detail. My object in moving the amendment is that the education imparted in these institutions should be restricted or controlled by the Government without any fear of interfering with anybody’s religion. The curriculum should be in the control of the Government and should be of such a nature that it broadens the mind rather than create an exclusiveness. When we were discussing the Minority Rights Report, we said that our aim should be to form a united nation and we have done away with separate electorate and agreed on fundamental rights and given each the right to follow his own religion. But I do believe that however secular a State you may wish to build up, unless one member of it appreciates the religion of another member of the State, it would be impossible for us to build up a united India. Therefore, without interfering with the religion of anybody, the State should be perfectly entitled to see that in the formative age of the child, when he is of the school-going age, the religious instruction is controlled and that the syllabus is of such a nature that the child will develop into a healthy citizen of India capable of appreciating each other’s point of view. We may be united by political parties, but if we do not appreciate each other’s religion, we shall find that instead of having really men of religion in our midst, we shall be breeding a type of exclusiveness which will be most harmful and on that type of mind, I am afraid, the future of the nation cannot be built up. With these few words, Sir, I move my amendment and I hope the House will agree with me and accept it.
Protection to Minorities Against Discrimination in Public Funded Educational Institutions[2]
Shrimati Purnima Banerji (United Provinces : General): Sir, my amendment, is to clause 18 (2). It reads as follows:
“That after the word ‘State’, the words ‘and State-aided’ be inserted.”
The purpose of the amendment is that no minority, whether based on community or religion shall be discriminated against in regard to the admission into State-aided and State educational institutions. Many of the provinces, e.g., U.P., have passed resolutions laying down that no educational institution will forbid the entry of any members of any community merely on the ground that they happened to belong to a particular community— even if that institution is maintained by a donor who has specified that that institution should only cater for members of his particular community. If that institution seeks State aid, it must allow members of other communities to enter into it. In the olden days, in the Anglo-Indian schools it was laid down that, though those schools were specifically intended for Anglo-Indians,
10 percent of the seats should be given to Indians. In the latest report adopted by this House, it is laid down at 40 percent I suggest Sir, that if this clause is included without the amendment in the Fundamental Rights, it will be a step backward and many Provinces who have taken a step forward will have to retrace their steps. We have many institutions conducted by very philanthropic people, who have left large sums of money at their disposal. While we welcome such donations, when a principle has been laid down that, if any institution receives State aid, it cannot discriminate or refuse admission to members of other communities, then it should be followed. We know, Sir, that many a Provinces have got provincial feelings. If this provision is included as a fundamental right, I suggest it will be highly detrimental. The honourable Mover has not told us what was the reason, why he specifically excluded State-aided institutions from this Clause. If he had explained it, probably the House would have been convinced. I hope that all the educationists and other members of this House will support my amendment.
Qualifying Age for the Membership of State Legislature[3]
Shrimati Purnima Banerji (United Provinces: General): Sir, I beg to move amendment No. 38 of List I, Third Week, which is:
“That in amendment No. 2311 of the List of Amendments in Clause (b) of the proposed Article 152, for the word “thirty-five” the word “thirty” be substituted.”
This is in conformity with what we have already passed in regard to age qualification for the members of the Upper House in the Parliament, and therefore, there is not much to be said as to why this amendment is being moved here. But before I close I would like to clear a doubt regarding Clause (c) of this article which has been proposed by Dr. Ambedkar. It says, the person shall “possess such other qualifications as may be prescribed in that behalf by or under any law made by the Legislature of the State.”
Sir, my doubt-the doubt that I have in mind-is this. While we are wedded to the principle of adult franchise and hope that Members of both these Assemblies will be popularly elected persons, who will be entitled not only to send their representatives to sit in this House and also in the Upper House- whether of the Centre or the Provincial bodies-my fear is that according to this sub-clause as it stands it is quite possible that a property qualification or any other qualification may be introduced whereby Members may be debarred from offering themselves as candidates for either House of the Legislature.
Sir, in moving the constitution for the Upper House of the Provincial Legislature, that is of the State, reference has been made of the Constitutions of Canada and South Africa, where there is a property qualification prescribed for those who can be members of the Upper House. If that idea remains in our minds that this sub-clause can at any stage be introduced—and I am not even sure that this sub-clause is retained, members of the Lower House or the Upper House may not have their qualifications restricted, and what you have granted by adult franchise namely that every adult can vote and every adult aged 25 or 30 can be a member of the Lower or Upper House
– and if any other qualifications are prescribed, his right may be thereby taken away. My point is that either we draw our rights from the Constitution laid down in this House or they are drawn from the Parliament which may change those rights from time to time. We have no objection should a Parliament, which would be also a sovereign body, wish to change the constitution. There is a certain prescribed method and only by a certain number of votes can that constitution be changed. But suppose at any given time in a provincial Legislature or in a Parliament a motion is put and the qualification of the members is raised, then I am afraid that the safeguard or the provision we have placed that every adult, or every adult aged 25 or 30 shall be able to be a member of either House may be nullified. So I hope that Dr. Ambedkar will assure the House that that possibility is not in his mind because as far as disqualifications are concerned, there is a separate article disqualifying a member from appearing as or becoming a member of either of the two Houses. Here it is specifically mentioned that the qualifications of the members may be prescribed from time to time.
Sir, I move.
Relevance of the Upper House[4]
Shrimati Purnima Banerji (United Provinces : General): Mr. President, Sir, I do confess that dealing with these Articles regarding the Upper House, not knowing as to what is going to be the composition of the Upper House does put us in some difficulty. We passed Article 148 as many of the provinces did agree to the creation of an Upper House mainly depending on the kind and nature of the House and we did it on the assumption that it would be something of the kind based upon the Irish model, a model which was supplied to us by the Secretariat of the Constituent Assembly. We were always of the opinion that an Upper House could perform the very good and useful function of being a revising body, and that, while its views may count but not its votes, it should not be a House of vested interests. It was felt that those who could not enter into the rough and tumble of active politics could by their good offices advise the Lower House. Such people could get an opportunity to revise or amend legislations of the Lower House and would thus be performing a useful function. But, now by
these Articles, when we leave the entire composition to the future Parliament and yet vote for an Upper House we are actually groping in the dark. I do not agree with my friend Mr. Brajeshwar Prasad that it is because we are afraid of adult franchise which we consider a leap in the dark that we want to provide for Upper Houses. It was our experience in the Legislative Assemblies that it was useful to have associated in our governmental activities and in our legislative activities such useful people as were doing useful work for the country, people doing social service, service among Harijans or backward classes, some representatives of labour who were not organised or were not to be found in such large numbers as to form a constituency by themselves or members of a co-operative association, men of letters or some such people whose advice would count, who would not be actuated by any motive to withhold any legislation which is good for the nation but whose voice may have a good effect upon us—it was for such an Upper House we voted and not for an Upper House whose nature and composition we do not know. For the moment we know that the present Upper Houses in the various Legislatures are Houses of vested interest as it is people having a certain amount of property qualification and people with large bank balances who are elected to the Upper Houses. Now, when we have left the entire qualifications to the future Parliament, we do find some difficulty when this Constitution-making body is yet required to vote these Articles. I do not know if Dr. Ambedkar can give an assurance, for what his assurance will count, that it will not be a House of vested interests or of people with large properties who would stay any legislation which is necessary in the interests of the country. With these words, I hope that our views expressed in this House will be taken into account in the future Parliament and that an Upper House which will be only of a revising nature, which would be neither pernicious nor useless would be brought into being and that the possession of large properties by persons will not be considered a qualification entitling them to membership of the Upper Houses.
Finances for Local Bodies[5]
Shrimati Purnima Banerji (United Provinces : General): Mr. President, Sir, I am sure all of us agree with the amendment moved by Dr. Ambedkar to empower local bodies to levy taxes on professions. We also agree with the other amendment moved by Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena saying that the upper limit of the tax collected should not be fixed at Rs. 250 but should relate to the income of the person concerned. As you know, in our province of the U.P., we have by a recent Act established about twenty-two thousand Panchayats all over the Province. To these Panchayats such rights and functions have been given which, if properly exercised, would really bring Swaraj to the people. As you know, our country is big and wide and medical amenities and educational facilities are all very sadly lacking. If these Panchayats or local bodies are to function properly, they must have adequate finances at their command. We have given them enough powers and we hope that, as time passes on, they will lay down roads and will foster such industries as will add to the prosperity of the villages and the localities. We fear that all these nation-building activities which are now allotted to them will not be able to reach their fruition unless we have enough finances. Therefore we agree with the amendment now placed before the House that the finances of the local bodies should draw some profit from the trades and professions in the area concerned and this income should bear some proportion to the income of the persons paying the tax. As I said, we hope that these Panchayats and local bodies will lay down roads and will pay their fullest attention to the development of such industries as will add to the general prosperity of the villages. With these words, I support the amendment moved by Dr. Ambedkar and also the amendment moved by my Friend, Mr. Shibban Lal Saksena, saying that the limit of Rs. 250 should not be fixed but rather it should be stated in this way that it should be at least one per cent of the income of the person taxed.
Electoral College for the Upper House of Provincial Legislature[6]
Shrimati Purnima Banerji (United Provinces : General): Mr. President, Sir, Article 150 had come up for discussion before this House on a previous occasion and the question of who should form the Upper House was discussed at that stage. As the amendment now proposed as to who should elect these Members—Municipal Boards or the Provincial Assemblies—the electorate was mentioned but not the qualifications of those who are eligible for membership of the Upper House.
If we look into the reason why an Upper House is constituted, we all feel that the necessity of such an Upper House was that it should be a revising body, it should give the Assemblies an opportunity to include any small amendments or useful amendments and also that the Lower House should have the benefit of such Members of the society who could not stand for election in the adult franchise electorate. Such useful members of society should be associated in the work of legislation and government, at some stage or the other. Therefore, Sir, I feel that keeping this object in view, a certain kind of qualification for Members should have been laid down even for those two categories, that is those who are to be elected by Municipalities and District Boards and those who are to be elected by Provincial Assemblies.
There is another point. I am glad that the teaching profession has also been associated. I would only emphasise that not only teachers of schools but also voluntary teachers, should be included in the new set up, if education is to make any great advancement, I am sure we shall need the help of able and qualified persons who will act as voluntary teachers. I would therefore, suggest that in the teaching profession one should include voluntary teachers also. From time to time our Ministers have been appealing to the public to come and help in this great work. I, therefore, feel that their association should be sought.
Thirdly, where you have asked for nomination of Members by Governors, the words used are “social services”. In this connection, I had given notice of an amendment to the effect that “social service” should include “voluntary social service”. The object with which I tabled that amendment was that by social services as we all know, or as the House is now passing the Article, I am sure they have in mind voluntary social service or social service done by such useful bodies as the Harijan Sevak Sangh, the Kasturba Memorial or any other similar organisations where the workers are paid undoubtedly but it is hardly a payment but more or less a stipend, and they give most of their time to this work. I emphasise the words ‘voluntary social service’, because lately provincial and other Governments have opened branches of studies in the subject and are giving diplomas for attending the social service camps which are organised. For women workers who wish to do such social service the provinces have not provided opportunities for opening such camps. Facilities are lacking for opening such social service institutions. Therefore, when I say that voluntary social service should be included I mean that women’s organisations which are in the field and whose members are eligible for such nominations should not be left out by a narrow interpretation of the words ‘social services’.
Another suggestion that I want to make is that a certain form of labour which is unorganised and which is not formed into a constituency may, as labour is allowed representation in the Lower House, be allowed representation also in the Upper House and the co-operation of those useful members of society secured.
A Case for Separate Educational Planning[7]
Shrimati Purnima Banerji (United Provinces: General): Sir, I move: “That for entry 34 of List III, the following be substituted:- ‘34—Economic, educational and social planning.’ ”
The reason why I have added the word “educational” is that, I think, most Members of this House would agree with me that social planning is something quite separate from educational planning and does not include the connotation of educational planning. Social planning means planning for society which may change the structure of society upon a completely different basis. It really relates to economic planning. I therefore hope that the Drafting Committee, particularly Dr. Ambedkar, will see the difficulty which I find. Under the Union List, the Centre has taken powers to lay down standards of education. By Entry 40 it has taken upon itself the task of running important educational institutions. By Entry 40A they are going to take over scientific and technical institutions. Under 57A they are taking over co-ordination and maintenance of educational standards in institutions for higher education. If all these the Union seeks to do, I am certain that the Union should also have powers for educational planning all over the provinces.
While discussing the Union List, some friends went to the extent of saying that university education should be entirely a Union subject. I do not agree with them to that extent, but I do think that the Centre should plan education for all the provinces, and because I feel that economic and social planning does not include educational planning specifically, I seek to move my amendment. I, therefore, suggest that either the word “educational” should be included in this Entry, or educational planning should be provided for in a separate Entry, whichever may be found convenient by Dr. Ambedkar. I hope Dr. Ambedkar will see our difficulty and tell us whether he does not agree that social and economic planning have got a particular meaning and actually educational planning does not form a major part of it even though it may be a minor part of it, or whether he considers that under this Entry the Union has got power to plan education throughout the country.
Ideal of Common Good must Prevail[8]
Shrimati Purnima Banerji (United Provinces: General): Sir, I beg to move:
“That in Amendment No. 369 of List VII (Seventh Week), in sub-Clause
(b) of Clause (5) of the proposed Article 24, after the word ‘property’ the words ‘or for ensuring full employment to all and securing a just and equitable economic and social order’ be added.”
Sir, the object with which I move this amendment is to give effect to some of the principles and clauses which we have already passed when laying down the Directive Principles of State Policy. There we have stated that the State shall endeavour to secure a society in which justice, economic, political and social, shall inform all the institutions of the State. We have already said that an adequate means of livelihood to men and women shall be provided and the economic resources of the country shall be so handled as to avoid concentration in the hands of a few and to avoid its working to the detriment of the common people. At that time when these Clauses were under consideration we also felt and some of us felt very strongly that in the Fundamental Rights the right of livelihood, the right of earning honourable bread, should be guaranteed to all people. But at that moment we realised that in order to do that a new order of society will have to come into being which possibly will take some time and therefore the right of livelihood was included in these Directive Principles of State Policy. We consider these Principles to be absolutely essential and in fact our guiding star in the future. For that reason, if provisions are not made in this Article dealing with property rights and the economic policy of the future State is in any way fettered and made rigid, we feel that we shall not be able to succeed in these Articles which we have already passed.
Mention has been made of the U.P. legislation, the Abolition of the Zamindari Bill. Perhaps some of us recall that at that moment we had also passed a resolution saying that the U.P. Assembly stands committed to the principle of abolition of capitalism. If that resolution has to have an effective meaning and if we are to see that the country does develop upon such lines as will harness the resources of the State for the common benefit, it is most essential that when public good should so demand we should be able to do so. Provision should be made that compensation should be paid, as it has been proved that we are all anxious to pay compensation, but if we are not able to do so, the Clause should provide the taking of property without it. We are all anxious to see that a peaceful transference of society takes place and therefore there is no fear of our expropriating anyone. As you see, the U.P. Abolition of Zamindari Bill not only gives the zamindar compensation but also gives rehabilitation grant. So it proves that it is not in a vindictive spirit that the House in the future may or will function or the new order that is to be created will be pursued in any arbitrary way. If in keeping with this spirit an occasion should arise, as it may arise, when the capitalist system prevalent in the country should be taken in hand for the common good, a provision should be here so that this Constitution may provide for all future development and thus command proper respect from the people and may have in it the seeds of that future development upon which the welfare of our country depends.
With these words I move.
Rights of Detainee[9]
Shrimati Purnima Banerji (United Provinces : General): Sir, I move:
“That in amendment No. 1 of List I (Eighth Week), in Clause (1) of the proposed new Article 15A, after the words ‘as soon as may be’ the words ‘being not later than fifteen days’ be inserted.”
I further move:
“That in amendment No. 1 of List I (Eighth Week), in sub-Clause (a) of the proviso to Clause (3) of the proposed new Article 15A, after the words ‘a High Court has’ the words ‘after hearing the person detained’ be inserted.”
I further move:
“That in amendment No. 1 of List I (Eighth Week), in sub-Clause (a) of the proviso to Clause (3) of the proposed new Article 15A, after the words ‘such detention’ the words ‘but so that the person shall in no event be detained for more than six months’ be added.”
I also move:
“That in amendment No. 1 of List I (Eighth Week), the following proviso be added to Clause (4) of the proposed new Article 15A:-
‘Provided that if the earning member of a family is so detained, his direct dependents shall be paid maintenance allowance.’ ”
Sir, the Article with which we are dealing at the present moment is a very serious one as it takes away some of the liberties granted by Article
15 as fundamental rights and provides for arrests of persons and even detention of persons without trial. I am sure I am voicing the views of most of my colleagues here that any form of detention of persons without trial is obnoxious to the whole idea of democracy and to our whole way of thinking. Granting that we visualize a situation in which it may become necessary and occasions may arise, when powers of detention may have to be used and exercised by a particular Government, Clause (1) says that if a person has been arrested he shall soon after that be told the reason of his arrest and Clause (2) says that after twenty-four hours he shall be placed before a Magistrate. We are not quite sure as to what is the length of time which will be considered suitable for a person to be told why he is arrested. And if he is placed before a Magistrate, does it presume and presuppose that before he is placed before a Magistrate his charges will be given to him? Having our own experiences in our own short political lives and careers of what it is to be detained and on what laws one is detained, we feel that in this Clause a period should be specified; that is, if a person is arrested and is placed before a Magistrate he should be given the charges for which he has been arrested, within fifteen days at the most if his presentation in twenty-four hours before a Magistrate does not involve such charge being framed within twenty-four hours.
Further it has been said that any detenu who has been put into jail shall be detained for three months till an Advisory Board decides whether he should be detained for a longer period. We feel that the detenu should be permitted to appear before this Advisory Board in person and state his case in full. We know the process how the person is detained. If a person is considered undesirable, the local Magistrates or the local authorities leave it to their subordinates to handle the situation and even to decide upon the situation. Then it happens that people in these situations have no manner or measure of relief because they are simply detained and not allowed to appear before any court and not told for the time being why they are being detained. Therefore we do feel that after being detained a detenu should have the right to appear before the Advisory Board in person before he is condemned or his detention is upheld. No facts regarding the detenu should ordinarily be withheld from the Advisory Board.
Thirdly, I have moved another amendment by which I say that if the Advisory Board should consider that such a person should be detained, in no case should that period exceed six months. I am sure that within that period if sufficient evidence is found against the accused the proper course would be that he should be placed before a proper court or he should be released. Continuous detention from month to month without a person getting a chance of appearing, or considering himself, sufficiently defended, before a properly constituted Board, is highly arbitrary.
Fourthly, whereas in our Constitution many provisions have been made as to how much salary one should draw, what allowance Members of the House shall get, what shall be each one’s position and status, if a person is detained in prison and if he is an earning member of the family I do earnestly plead that he should be given a maintenance allowance. It should not be left to the arbitrary will of anyone to deprive anybody of his liberty and then later on to decide, by leaving it to their sweet will, as to how his dependents shall live and maintain themselves.
With these words I commend my amendments to the House.
Protecting Rights of Individuals under Detention[10]
Shrimati Purnima Banerji (United Provinces: General): Mr. President, Sir, I move:
“That in amendment No. 546 of List IV, the proposed Clause (7) of Article 22 be deleted.”
And the Draft as it stands in Draft Constitution may stand. I mean the original one as circulated by the Drafting Committee and given in the new draft under italics — that should remain. Sir, most of us will agree with the new change made in Article 22 by amendment No. 545 providing the proviso that the Advisory Board would not be able to detain a person in spite of a revision of his case for more than the period prescribed by law, but however a change is now sought to be made in Clause (7). It raises a certain doubt in our minds. None of us at any stage believed that the Advisory Board would at any stage take the place of Parliament; it was only suggested that in the absence of any law if a person were to be detained for more than three months, then the matter would go before a judicial body which would look into the case and allow further detention if need be in the absence of any law prescribing detention for more than three months. The doubt we have in our minds today is that under this new amendment proposed by the Drafting Committee where it says in Clause (7) that Parliament may prescribe the circumstances of detention “without obtaining the opinion of an Advisory Board in accordance with the provisions of sub-Clause (a) of Clause (4)” makes us feel that suppose if Parliament has got the power — and we do not content that it has not — of laying down a law by which a man can be detained for more than three months, even so, if any person came under the jurisdiction of that law, would it mean that the case of that person would not go for a judicial review before an Advisory Board? Could the Parliament dispense with the constitution of the Advisory Board itself? Sir, I suggest that that should not be and the process of review before an Advisory Board should be kept intact even if it may be perfectly legal for Parliament to enact a general law providing for detention beyond a period of three months. If in the Constitution you have statutorily provided for the detention of a man without trial for a period of three months you have taken away a part of the sting of that measure by providing an Advisory Board which would look into the matter and give a judicial review of the case and decide whether further detention was justifiable or not. If this is not done the man would be dealt with in accordance with the law of the land which Parliament may enact. In the new draft you have specifically said that the Advisory Board need not be consulted. If it means that in the making of the legislation that Board need not be consulted, we are in full agreement and possibly there can be no objection to it. But if it is meant that if a general law provides for the detention of persons for more than three months, and if after the general law has come into force a man innocently has got under the clutches of that law, it seems as the clause now reads in the Constitution that a detenu’s case need not go to an Advisory Board at all. Parliament may be empowered not to constitute an Advisory Board at all for even the judicial review of individual cases and that you are going to leave the formation of such a Board to any future law that Parliament may make. I therefore, suggest that the wording of Clause (7) of Article 22 should remain as it was stated by the Drafting Committee and this particular reference of not consulting the Advisory Board which raises that legitimate doubt in our minds be removed. At no stage we thought that the Advisory Board was to take the place of Parliament or was to be a law giving authoritative body. It was meant to be a judicial committee on which people of the stature of judges of the High Court would be sitting and would be a substitute for the ordinary channels of law denied to a detenu and therefore I would suggest in the drafting of this clause, the provision that such a Committee would be constituted in any case wherever a man is detained. That should be explicitly stated here and should not be left to an ambiguous interpretation. With these words, I move my amendment.
Return Women to the Seats Vacated by Women in Constituent Assembly[11]
Shrimati Purnima Banerji (United Provinces: General): Mr. President, I move:
“That in amendment No. 164 of List III (Second Week), in the first proviso to Clause (1) of the proposed new Article 312F, for the words ‘Muslim or the Sikh Community’ the words ‘Muslim, Christian, Sikh community or by a woman’ be substituted, and at the end of the said proviso the words ‘or sex as the case may be’ be added.”
Sir, I am conscious of a spirit of diffidence in moving this amendment and sometimes feel that in doing so I may be opening myself to a certain amount of ridicule. But, even at that cost, I feel, I should state my case. The proviso which we are now discussing provides that in respect of the casual vacancies which are to be filled hereafter for the provisional Parliament, those belonging to the Sikh or the Muslim community will be represented by persons of that community. My amendment seeks just to stretch that same provision for women. I wish to make it quite clear that women do not want any reserved seats for themselves, but nevertheless, I suggest to the House that in respect of the number of women who are now occupying seats in the Assembly, if any of them should vacate their seats they should be filled up by women themselves. We have had casual vacancies in this House before this. Three women have retired so far. One was our late lamented Shrimati Sarojini Naidu, the second was Mrs. Vijayalakshmi Pandit and the third was Shrimati Malati Chaudhuri.
Three women Members for various reasons have had to leave this House. Mrs. Naidu who could never be replaced both from among men and women, Mrs. Vijayalakshmi Pandit who is so very highly talented and our friend Shrimati Malati Chaudhuri – all these three women have been replaced by men Members. I do not speak in disparagement of the honourable Members who may have been returned in their places and I am sure they are worthy and fit Members of this House. But I do hold that women could have also filled those places with equal merit and they should have been invited to do so. Since the entire basis of the State has changed and it is no longer a police state, certain social functions such as education and health now feature among the major items of the State’s development. I feel, that not only is the association of women in the field of politics essential but it is indispensable, and therefore I feel that this indispensable section of the people should be amply represented in this House and therefore my amendment proposes that in the casual vacancies which will occur, women should at least be returned to the seats which they hold today, if not more. With these words, I move.
Ultimate Sovereignty Lies with People[12]
Shrimati Purnima Banerji (United Provinces: General): Sir, I move:
That in amendment No. 2 of the List of amendments (Volume 1), for the first paragraph in the proposed Preamble, the following be substituted:-
“We on behalf of the people of India from whom is derived all power and authority of the Independent India,…”
With your permission, Sir, I would like to drop the word “sovereign” here:-
“its constituent parts and organs of Government, having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a Sovereign Democratic Republic and to secure to all its citizens.”
Sir, my honourable friend Mr. Tyagi has given point to my amendment and further strengthened my hands. I feel that the Preamble that we are now dealing with, forms one of the most important parts of the Constitution and to persons like us who are not of a legalistic bent of mind, it stands as a charter of our freedom and as a measure of our success or our failure. It lays down the goal to which we are going and therefore, at this moment if Members of this House will allow us to express what we feel on this subject with a little more patience, then, I personally will be very grateful.
Sir, I feel that the Constitution which we have drawn up has invested the President and Parliament with wide powers. At this moment, I do not think we should be content with considering the masses of our people as the sovereign authority from whom all power is derived and in whom all sovereign authority rests by merely believing that because they go to the polls once in five years their sovereignty is secured. Therefore, I feel that, in the Preamble, mention of that sovereignty should be made. I have not gone beyond what the House has already passed. The wording which I have quoted here is taken almost verbatim from the Objectives Resolution which was first passed in this House in January 1947. As I said before, the three parts of the Constitution or rather three incidents in the Constitution, one, the Objectives Resolution, second the statement of Objectives of State Policy and the Preamble are supposed not to have any legal binding upon the Constitution. But they, in fact, constitute the very life-breath of the Constitution which we have here framed. I do not wish to take more of your time. I would strengthen my argument with the speech quoted by my honourable friend Mr. Tyagi from the speech made by Dr. Ambedkar when he moved the Preamble. At that moment, I was not present in the House. But that has borne my contention out that the sovereignty of the people should be mentioned somewhere in the Constitution. With these words, I move my amendment.
In Support of the Motion by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar to Pass the Draft Constitution[13]
Shrimati Purnima Banerji (United Provinces: General): Sir, at the cost of a little repetition, I would at the outset like to associate myself with my colleagues in their expression of thanks to the Members of the Drafting Committee, to you and to all others who played such an important and necessary role in the various stages of this Constitution. Without being open to the charge of making any invidious distinction, I would like to add a special word of thanks to you on behalf of the back-benchers of this House. For, at various stages of the Constitution, when we were rightly or wrongly exercised by certain doubts in regard to certain Clauses of the Constitution, you used your good influence on our behalf with the Drafting Committee to clear these doubts.
Sir, the Constitution of a country always is a very important and precious document, because it gives us an idea of how the great people of a country fashion their institutions, how they want to live, what are the political arrangements under which they exercise their judgment and what are the hopes and aspirations which they entertain for the future. Sir, when we are considering the present Constitution, our minds involuntarily go back to the olden times and contemplates the stages through which India has passed and recalls those periods, the recent periods in the history of our political subjection, when we were told that we were hardly a nation, that we were divided among ourselves in mutually hostile groups, that democratic institutions were congenitally not suited to Indian conditions, etc. We were told in patronising and high sounding phrases that the goal of this country will be the increasing association of Indians in the governance of the country with a view to the gradual realisation of responsible self- government. There was a time when in any concessions in the form of liberty which were granted to us, words such as ‘Our subjects of whatever race, creed or colour will be impartially admitted to office and service’, or ‘No native of India will in future be debarred from employment by reason of birth, descent or colour’, or ‘We shall respect the right and the dignity and honour of the native princes as our own’ were used. These phrases, in short, summed up the conception that was before those who were in charge of our destiny, meant for the future of the country. From such a conception of things we know with what gesture of impatience of country turned away and took, in historical words, the Independence Pledge which other countries have also taken whenever freedom was denied to them. We pledged that: “We believe that it is the inalienable right of the people of India to get liberty and freedom.” With these words we entered upon a new career and worked for the independence of this country. And today we find that in this Constitution are embodied those historical words which were again raised in some other corner of the world and have since then been making a circle round the world and will continue to circulate till it becomes a reality. These words are the call of Equality, Liberty and Fraternity which today find a place in our Constitution.
Judging from those days to this day it seems, that although we may not have arrived at a stage of our fulfilment and completion, we have progressed and surely at least the immediate requirements of a normal society have been today provided. We can no longer be told that we are a race apart and that we are unable to govern ourselves.
I feel, Sir, that in the debate that has been taking place in this House during the last few days, it is amply proven that this Constitution has received a very mixed reception. Perhaps the Constitution fully deserves a varied interpretation. The main foundation of the Constitution however rests on our common nationality and on democracy. In our Constitution we say that no matter in which part of the country we may reside, we are integral parts of a common Motherland, that we shall, wherever we may be, unite in working for the greatness of this country, that there shall be no distinction of caste, creed or colour or province and that no separatist tendencies will divide us and that whoever is an adult and fulfills the minimum qualifications laid down for candidature, can aspire to the highest office in this land. Therefore, at least one milestone we have reached and we have reached the stage when we no longer feel that the tallest amongst us must bow before any foreign ruler.
But, Sir, I still think that great as the change is, all these things provide only the minimum requirements of a society. We ourselves during our freedom movement said that it was not for the loaves and fishes of office that we were fighting but rather that we might have the political power in our hands with which we could fashion and remould and change the whole structure of society in such a manner that the grinding poverty of the masses may be removed, the living conditions of the people may improve and we could establish a society of equals in this great country of ours. To apply that test to this Constitution, Sir, I feel that it does provide those minimum necessities with which we can change things, and for this I take my clue from the Directive Principles of State Policy. We could not merely rest content with negative democracy, i.e., the right to cast votes, the right to form a government and the right to change it. In passing I would pause and say that important as these rights are in themselves, I consider that Fundamental Rights that we have provided are absolutely necessary for the working of democracy. If we want to establish a democracy which should answer the needs of the growing pattern of society, we should place the means at the disposal of the people by which Governments can be established, which in its turn can be done by the right of free association and free expression of opinion, with the exercise of which institutions can be changed. I feel, Sir, that the Clauses restricting these Fundamental Rights should not have been in the Constitution and the impression should have been well founded so that one may change the Government of this country to the best interests of the people by peaceful means.
Sir, in the Directive Principles of State Policy we have said that although they may not be enforceable in a court of law, they are nevertheless fundamental for the governance of this country and we have in Articles 38 and 39 stated that the economic policy of the country will be worked in such a manner as would subserve the common good. To quote the exact words, we have said ‘that the ownership and control of the material resources of the community are so distributed as best to subserve the common good; that the operation of the economic system does not result in the concentration of wealth and means of production to the common detriment.’ These vital principles shall not be enforceable in a court of law but nevertheless they are fundamental in the governance of the country and all the future laws of this country shall have to take note of this. By the inclusion of these Clauses I personally feel that this Constitution has provided us with the means for changing the structure of society. It will all depend on us whether we are able to establish that sovereign democratic republic, not for the hollow benefit of registering one’s vote and passing legislation, not a democracy which will simply maintain the status quo or which will take upon itself the policy of laissez faire, but a democracy which will combine with it the healthy principle that the government governs the best which governs the least, with the principle that it should encourage the active citizenship of the country. The two Articles that I have read out are the cornerstone of this Constitution. If you want the people to meet peacefully and without resorting to violence, then we must give them the free exercise of their right to meet.
At least in one aspect of this Constitution, I most categorically hold that the Fundamental Rights of meeting and forming associations should under no circumstances have been circumscribed or limited by any provisos. I would rather take my inspiration from the American Constitution in this respect where they prescribe the Fundamental Rights boldly, and merely state that they will be subject to laws made by Parliament. I do not hold the fantastic theory that all rights are always absolute. They are relative, but when it comes to stating the rights, I should think, Sir, that they should not be burdened by giving the circumstances in which those rights cannot be exercised. If these circumscribing Clauses had not been stated in this Constitution the difference would have been psychologically great — the difference would be that the laws which circumscribe the right of free speech and impose other restrictions would have been repealed when the necessity for them was no longer there; they would not have been statutorily fixed by the Constitution. The complaint already is that this is a written Constitution and a bulky Constitution, and the more a Constitution is written, the more rigid it becomes. Considering this, Sir, I feel more so that in the Fundamental Rights these restrictive provisos to freedom should not have been there.
Sir, Article 21 guarantees personal liberty and Article 22 provides for preventive detention. In Article 21, I would have liked to include the safety of the person, his dwelling and his personal property from being searched or confiscated, because the powers of search and detention by Governments have played a disastrous part in our own political history, and we would not like these powers to hamper the growth of healthy political movements in future.
Then, Sir, in the Directive Principles of State Policy, under Article 39, we have provided that while we may change the whole structure of society in such a way as will subserve the general good of the country, there is no categorical statement that any industry might be taken over by the State should that be necessary for the general good. In the Karachi Resolution of the Congress where most of these Fundamental Rights were incorporated for the first time in a political document, there was a provision that key industries and all the mineral resources of the country shall be State- controlled. That, I think, should have found a specific place in the Directive Principles of State Policy.
If the powers of government for protecting the State against foreign aggression are considered necessary, then I hold that key industries and mineral resources of the country should have been taken over from the hands of private enterprise, and these should also be exempt from justiciability or property compensation which we have dealt with elsewhere.
Another thing which I would like to mention and I think I will be voicing the views of most of my colleagues in this, is on the subject of salt. Salt has a big history in this country like the Boston tea of the Americans. Even though, I understand that the intention of the Government is not to levy any duty on salt, I feel that it should have been a gift of free India to the people of this country and Constitution should have specifically provided that salt manufactured in India would be free of duty. That also finds a place in our Karachi Resolution on Fundamental Rights.
In the Preamble, Sir, I find the absence of the word which was dear to us and therefore should have found a place there, and that word is “Purna Swaraj”. I would have wished that the Drafting Committee had said that “We, the People of India, having attained Purna Swaraj, now constitute ourselves into a Democratic Republic”. That, I think, would have been a happy thing.
There is another point regarding the services. Many friends have dealt with that subject. I personally think that even from the point of maintaining a healthy spirit of permanency in services, I do not think they should have been statutorily safeguarded thereby bringing in another difference between themselves and the people. The services are usually guided in respect of the manner in which a man should be engaged and the manner in which a man should be dismissed by Service Manuals providing these rules and if that is good enough for the rest of the services of the country, it should be good enough for the higher services of this land.
With your permission I would add another point. We have in this Constitution some references to women. I would beg my colleagues in this House particularly Rohini Babu not to deal with the subject with any levity or any lightness of spirit because we have to realize that women also as the rest of India are standing upon a new threshold of life. As between the purdah-system and the new life which awaits the development of her personality, she is finding a new place in her home and her country and it is difficult enough. The part she has played in the building up of her home where she has been described as Sahahdharmini has to be extended and she has to receive that recognition in the national sphere also. She is also man’s equal partner and help-mate and in the nation-building activities of the country she has much to do. That position still is to come into being, and therefore I would request my honourable friend Mr. Rohini Kumar Chaudhuri and others who are present here to look upon this problem with the gravest possible thoughts and to give it their best help and assistance. I hope that as in the freedom of the country the women of India did not fail this land so in the preservation of this freedom she shall not fail.
Sir, with these words I would conclude with the words employed on the 14th of August by Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru when moving here a resolution, he said that it may not be given to all of us to fulfil the ambition of the greatest man of our age which was to wipe every tear from every eye but till the poverty of the masses has not been relieved and suffering remains, we pledge ourselves to the service of this country. I hope that in the short span which is allotted to us, you and I as colleagues and comrades will work hand in hand for the greatness of our country
[1] Discussion on Clause 16 of Supplementary Report on Fundamental Rights on religious instructions in public funded schools, C.A.D., Vol. V, L.S.S., 30 August 1947, p. 350.
[2] Discussion on Clause 18(2) of Supplementary Report on Fundamental Rights of the minorities against discrimination in education, C.A.D., Vol. V, L.S.S., 30 August 1947, p. 366.
[3] Discussion on Article 152 of the Draft Constitution, C.A.D., Vol. VIII, L.S.S., 2 June 1949
[4] Discussion on insertion of the new Article 148-A in the Draft Constitution regarding Legislative Councils in States, C.A.D., Vol. IX, L.S.S., 30 July 1949, p. 33.
[5] Discussion on Article 256 of the Draft Constitution on powers of States and local bodies to levy certain taxes, C.A.D., Vol. IX, L.S.S., 9 August 1949, p. 300
[6] Discussion on Article 150 of the Draft Constitution, C.A.D., Vol. IX, 19 August 1949, pp. 483-484
[7] Discussion on Entry 34 regarding Planning in the Concurrent List in the Draft Constitution, C.A.D., Vol. IX, L.S.S., 3 September 1949, pp. 949-950
[8] Discussion on acquisition of property and compensation thereon in respect of Article 24 of the Draft Constitution, C.A.D., Vol. IX, L.S.S., 10 September 1949, pp. 1238-1239
[9] Discussion on protection against certain arrests and detentions in respect of new Article 15A of the Draft Constitution, C.A.D., Vol. IX, L.S.S., 15 September 1949, pp. 1510-1511
[10] Discussion on Article 22 of the Draft Constitution, C.A.D., Vol. XI, L.S.S., 15 November 1949, pp. 535-536.
[11] Discussion over amendment in the new Article 312F in the Draft Constitution in respect of positive discrimination in favour of certain groups, C.A.D., Vol. X, L.S.S., 11 October 1949, p. 113.
[12] Discussion on the Preamble to the Constitution, C.A.D., Vol. X, L.S.S., 17 October 1949, pp. 451
[13] Discussion on the Motion by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar on the Draft Constitution, C.A.D., Vol. XI, L.S.S., 24 November 1949, pp. 878-881.