Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena: Mr. Vice-President, Sir, I beg to move:
“That in article 39, after the words ‘from spoliation’ the word ‘disfigurement’ be inserted, and all the words after the words ‘may be’ to the end of the article be deleted.
The Honourable Dr. B.R. Ambedkar: Why do you want to make a speech when I am going to accept it?
Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena: I am glad that Dr. Ambedkar is going to accept it. Because this article is to be a directive principle, it should not mention about laws of Parliament and so we must omit the words “to preserve and maintain according to law made by Parliament all such monuments or places or objects”.
The Honourable Dr. B.R. Ambedkar: Sir, I accept the amendment.
The motion was adopted.
Mr. Vice-President: There is the amendment of Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena.
Begum Aizaz Rasul (United Provinces: Muslim): May I know it Dr. Ambedkar has accepted Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena’s amendment? If not, I wish to oppose the second part.
Mr. Vice-President: There is no second part so far as I am. aware. It only refers to deletion of certain words. The first part is the same.
Begum Aizaz Rasul: I wish to oppose the motion.
Mr. Vice-President: I am afraid it is too late now.
The motion was adopted.
Article 39, as amended, was added to the Constitution.
ARTICLE 39-A
The Honourable Dr. B.R. Ambedkar: Mr. Vice-President, Sir,
I move:
“That after article 39, the following new article be inserted:-
’39-A. That State shall take steps to secure that, within a period of three years from the commencement of this Constitution, there is separation of the judiciary from the executive in the public services of the State”.
I do not think it is necessary for me to make any very lengthy statement in support of the amendment which I have moved, It has been the desire of this country from long past that there should be separation of the judiciary from the executive and the demand has been continued right from the time when the Congress was founded. Unfortunately, the British Government did not give effect to the resolutions of the Congress demanding this particular principle being introduced into the administration of the country. We think that the time has come when this reform should be carried out. It is, of course, realised that there may be certain difficulties in the carrying out of this reform; consequently this amendment has taken into consideration two particular matters which may be found to be matters of difficulty. One is this: that we deliberately did not make it a matter of fundamental principle, because if we had made it a matter of fundamental principle it would have become absolutely obligatory instantaneously on the passing of the Constitution to bring about the separation of the judiciary and the executive. We have therefore deliberately put this matter in the chapter dealing with directive principles and there too we have provided that this reform shall be carried out within three years, so that there is no room left for what might be called procrastination in a matter of this kind. Sir I move.
Mr. Vice-President (Dr. H.C. Mookherjee): Notice of an amendment has been received from Dr. Ambedkar. Will you please move your amendment, Dr. Ambedkar?
The Honourable Dr. B.R. Ambedkar (Bombay:General): Mr. Vice-President, I move:
That in article 39-A delete the words beginning from “secure” upto “separation of” and in their place substitute the word, “separate”.
so that the article 39-A, with this amendment would read as. follows:-
“The State shall take steps to separate the judiciary from the executive in the public services of the State”.
The House will see that the object of this amendment is to eliminate the period of three years which has been stated in the original article as proposed by 39-A. The reasons why I have been obliged to make this amendment are these. There is a section of the House which feels that in these directive principles we ought not to introduce matters of details relating either to period or to produce. (To be continued)
