With regard to his second amendment that we should not repeat the word “article” after the word “or” and that we should merely say, “article 2 or 3”, my submission is again the same. There again we have followed well known Constitutions and if my friend will examine them, he will find that similar phraseology occurs elsewhere also. For his information, I would ask him to refer to section 69, sub-clause (3), of the Government of India Act. The word used there is “paragraph”. It says, “paragraph (d) or paragraph (e)”. It does not merely say, “paragraph (d) or e)”. Therefore this can hardly be a matter of debate or a matter of difference of opinion so far as the principle is concerned. It is a mere matter of precedent and the question to be asked is: Have we done something which is not covered by precedent? And my submission is this, that whatever we have done in the matter of using phraseology is covered by precedent and therefore, there can be no objection to any clause as it stands in the draft.
Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad: Then what about clause (2) of Article 4? I think there should be a short notice amendment to use the words “of this Constitution” in clause (2) in order to make the draft clear.
Mr. Vice-President: We cannot create a bad precedent by admitting a short notice amendment.
The Honourable Dr. B.R. Ambedkar: I cannot accept it, Sir.
Mr. Vice-President: In that case, I shall put the amendments to vote one by one…
ARTICLE 28
Mr. Vice-President: … The next amendment stands in the name of Mr. Kamath, No.838. Are you moving amendment No. 838?
Shri H.V. Kamath: Mr. Vice-President, I move;
“That in the heading under Part-IV for the word “directive’, the word ‘fundamental’ to substituted.”
Sir, while moving this amendment for the consideration of my Honourable Friend Dr. Ambedkar and of the House, I would like to advance only two reasons for the same…..
The Honourable Dr. B.R. Ambedkar (Bombay: General): Sir, I am sorry I cannot accept either of the two amendments. Mr. Kamath’s amendment is really incorporated in the phraseology as it now stands; the word “Fundamental” occurs, as Mr. Kamath will find, in the very first Article of this part. Therefore his object that these principles should be treated as fundamental is already achieved by the wording of this Article.
With regard to the word “directive” I think it is necessary and Important that the word should be retained because it is to be understood that in enacting this part of the Constitution the Constituent Assembly, as I said, is giving certain directions to the future legislature and the future executive to show in what manner they are to exercise the legislative and the executive power which they will have. If the word “directive” is omitted I am afraid the intention of the Constituent Assembly in enacting this part will fail in its purpose. Surely, as some have said, it is not the intention to introduce in this part these principles as mere pious declarations. It is the intention of the Assembly that in future both the legislature and the executive should not merely pay lip service to these principles enacted in this part, but that they should be made the basis of all executive and legislative action that may be taken hereafter in the matter of the governance of the country. I therefore submit that both the words “fundamental” and “directive” are necessary and should be retained.
(The motion of Mr. Kamath was negatived).
Shri H.V. Kamath: Sir, I beg leave of the House to withdraw my amendment..
The amendment was, by leave of the Assembly, withdrawn.
Mr. Vice-President: We shall now take up amendment Nos. 841 to 846. The movers will kindly move them one after another and then there will be a discussion.
Amendment No. 841 is a negative one and therefore it is ruled out of order.
Since the Member concerned is not here, Amendment No. 842 falls through.
Amendment Nos. 843 to 846Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad.
Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad: I shall be moving No.s 843, 844 and 846. I shall not be moving No. 845.
Sir, I move:
“That in article 28, the words ‘unless the context otherwise requires’ be omitted”.
“That in article 28, for the word “requires’, the word `indicates’ be substituted.”
“That in article 28, for the words ‘the State’, the word ‘State’ be substituted.” (To be continued)
