The House is aware that when this Resolution
was passed, we were required to submit an interim report on Fundamental Rights
within six weeks, an interim report on Minorities Rights within ten weeks and
our final report within three months from the date of our appointment. We
have tried our best to adhere to this time table, but regret that it has
not been possible for us to carry it out. At our first meeting held
last month, we decided unanimously to request you to extend the time limit for
the submission of the reports in anticipation of the sanction of the Assembly.
We are fully conscious of the necessity of completing our work with the utmost
dispatch, but we120 fear it is not possible to work to a
rigid time table. We request, therefore, that the Assembly may be140 moved to extend the time limit to such date or dates as you may choose
in your discretion. Sir, this160 is a preliminary report or an interim report,
because when the Committee sat down to consider the question of fixing the
fundamental rights and its incorporation in the Constitution, it came to the
conclusion, firstly, that the fundamental rights should be divided into
parts--the first part justiciable and the other part non-justiciable. Even
while considering the first part, it came to the conclusion that we could
not come to a final decision as to what fundamental rights are to240 be incorporated in the Constitution. Considering all the circumstances
that exist today, points may arise for suggesting additional fundamental rights
and also for making minor alterations or suggestions that may be considered
advisable. This report is a draft report. I280 may also suggest for
the consideration of the House that in considering the various clauses that
have been recommended by the Advisory Committee, the House may not strictly
consider the wording of each clause of the rights suggested. Certain
changes320 may be required while legally drafting the
clauses, and it would be better to leave the drafting to the
Drafting Committee which will make such changes as may be necessary to
put them in proper phraseology. What I would submit360 to the House to do today is generally to accept the principles
of each of the clauses that have been suggested for consideration, so
that we may not have to devote more time in considering the technical legal
details of the phraseology to be adopted.
We have now suggested for the consideration of
the House those rights that are justiciable.420 We have not been able to consider the second chapter. The
Fundamental Rights Sub-Committee met and considered this matter for a fortnight
and devoted considerable labour and time. After that, the Report was
passed on to the Minorities Rights Sub-Committee. That Committee also sat over
this Report and anxiously considered various clauses and made certain
changes and those changes were480 adopted. They sat for three days, and
then this report was again placed before the Advisory Committee for its
consideration. The Advisory Committee sat for two days and at their
two sittings they considered the whole thing over again. The House will see that this is not a haphazard
Report, it has been considered in all its various aspects.
It is quite possible to make suggestions, alterations and
additions and move amendments, but the House may not have that time560 which the Committees had. I would humbly submit to the House to scrutinize
the various clauses that have been suggested, and when amendments are put
forward before the House, they will also be carefully scrutinized. There
are about 150 amendments600 and scrutiny of the amendments will take
some time. The Office has been able to scrutinize about 25 or 30 amendments
and that will perhaps take the whole of today's meeting. I move that the
Report be taken into consideration,640 and if that motion is adopted, then we
can go and consider the rights clause by clause.
This
is the stage at which general observations can be made according to
the rules followed by the Legislatures, and I hope I am strictly
in order in dealing with the Report generally. It is not
necessary for me to say whether I700 agree
to the main provisions of the Report, or whether I want it to be rejected as a
whole. All720 that I can be fairly called upon to do at
this stage is to state my point of view and to ask the House to be careful
in dealing with some important matters which are included in this Report.
Sir, to illustrate my first point, I refer to clause 10 of the Report
which deals with what may roughly be called freedom of inter-State commerce. It
may be a very desirable thing in itself and probably everyone here
will want800 that trade between the different Units of the Indian
Union should be absolutely free, but I doubt whether a clause like this can
be included among fundamental rights. Clause 10 deals with a matter which
impinges directly on the rights840 of the Provinces. You may deal with it
when you come to settle the powers of the Union and the Provinces; but I
submit that you cannot take so important a matter outside the purview of
the Committee that will consider the Union and the Provincial
Constitutions by calling the freedom of inter-State commerce a fundamental
right. Again, it is stated in one of the provisos to this clause that nothing in
this section shall prevent any Unit from imposing on goods imported from
other Units the same duties and taxes to which the goods produced
in the Unit are subjected by them. Sir, there are other examples of this
kind that I could give, but I do not think960 that I need to do so in order to illustrate what I have in mind. Now, I
will give an980 illustration or two to show where matters
which can hardly be called justiciable have been included in the Report. Clause
8 deals with certain familiar fundamental rights; the freedom of speech, the
right to assemble peacefully and without arms and the right to form
associations. But they have all been made subject to certain safeguards, which
have been considered necessary in every country. But it is well known that
these safeguards practically make the rights that I have just mentioned
non-justiciable. You may confer general rights on the citizens of India, but if
they are to be surrounded with the1080 restrictions mentioned here, then the right
will in practice cease to be justiciable. They will be no more than
directive principles of a policy, and there seems to be no
advantage in considering such matters at this stage when we1120 should be considering only those rights that are, strictly speaking,
enforceable by the courts. I shall give another instance in order to make my point
of view still clear. I refer to clause 8, sub-clause (e), which deals with
the right of every citizen to reside and settle in any part of the
Union, to acquire property and to follow any occupation, trade, business or
profession. This is subject to the condition that provision may be made by law
to1200 impose such reasonable restrictions as may be
necessary in the public interest including the protection of minority groups
and tribes. Now, it is very desirable that there should be freedom of
movement. But I do not think that we can accept without
qualification the right of the people of one province to settle in another
province. The Government of the1260 province concerned must be given the power. My
submission is that while freedom of movement in the Union is desirable1280 and essential, the right to reside and settle in any part of the Union
cannot be called non-controversial. The province must have the right to decide
as to what the size of its population at any time should be. No Provincial
Government can fairly be asked to allow an unlimited influx of immigrants
from another province in pursuance of the principle enunciated here. Let
us take the case of Assam, to understand this fully. Will anybody force the
Government of Assam at the present time to allow an unlimited number of
people from any of the neighbouring provinces to enter Assam and settle down
there? That Government is faced with a difficult problem and clause 8(e) shows
a strange disregard1400 of the existing state of things there.
I think that this right can be conferred only under certain conditions which
will have to be clearly defined. I have given only two illustrations so far
and this is only the third1440 illustration that I am giving in order to
explain clearly to the House what I have in mind. I am not discussing each
and every clause. Probably Dr. Ambedkar's contention
is that this phraseology is such as to enable a province to decide whether it
would allow people coming from outside to reside and settle down within its
jurisdiction. If so, a special interpretation will have to be placed on
these words. Again, if the proviso is so wide as Dr.
Ambedkar contends it is, then the right conferred by clause 8(e) virtually
ceases to be a justiciable right. I think I have said enough in order to
indicate my point of view. I need not, therefore, labour the point
further, but before I sit down, I may say again that there seems to be
no particular advantage in considering many provisions of this Report at
the present time. They can be considered along with the other
fundamental rights which1600 have yet to be dealt with by the
Fundamental Rights Sub-committee.
