About the amendment of my Honourable Friend Shri Damodar Swarup Seth, it seems to be unnecessary and |, therefore, do not accept it. About the amendment of Sardar Bhopinder Singh Man, he wants that wherever compulsory labour is imposed by the state under the provisions of clause (2) of Article 17 was proviso should be put in that such compulsory service shali always be paid for by the State. Now. | do not think that it is desirable to put any such limitation upon the authority of the State requiring compulsory service. It may be perfectly possible that the compulsory service demanded by the State may be rastricted to stich hours that it may not debar the citizen who is subjected to the operation of this clause to find sufficient time to earn his livelihood, and if, for instance, such compulsory labour s restricted to what might be called “hours of leisure” or the hours, when, for instance, he is not otherwise occupied in earning his living, it would be perfectly justifiable for the state to say that it shall not pay any compensation.
In this clause, it may be seen that non-payment of compensation could not be a ground of attack; because the fundamental proposition enunciated in sub-clause {2) is this; that whenever compulsory labour or compulsory service is demanded, it shall be demanded from all and if the State demands service from all and does not pay any |- do-not think the State is committing any very great inequality. | feel, Sir, it is very desirable to leave the situation as fled as it has been left in the article as it stands.’
Shri H.V. Kamath: On a point of information, Sir, is Dr. Ambedkar’s objection to my amendment merely on the ground that it consists of two words in place of one? In that case, | shall be happy if the wording is either “social” or “national” in place of “public”.
The Honourable Dr. B.R. Ambedkar: Itis better to use a wider phraseology which includes both.
Shri Rohini Kumar Chaudhuri (Assam: General): May | know, Sir, does the Honourable Member accept amendment No.548, which deals with prostitution, and which was moved by Giani Gurmukh Singh Musafir? The Honourable Dr. B.R. Ambedkar: moved.
Mr. Vice-President: It was not moved.,
I shall now put the amendments to vote one by one.
Amendment No.544 standing in the name of Kazi Syed Karimuddin was negatived.
Amendment No.545 standing in the name of Shri Damodar Swarup Seth was negatived.
Amendment No.546 standing in the name of Professor K.T. Shah was also negatived.
Amendment No.560 standing in the name of Sardar Bhopinder Singh Man was withdrawn.
(Amendment No.556 standmg in the name of Mr. Kamath was negatived).
Amendment No.59 standing in the name of Professor K.T. Shah, was accepted by Dr. Ambedkar and was adopted:
“That in clause (2) of article 17, after the words “discrimination on the ground”, the word “only” be added”.
Article 17, as amended was adopted and added to the Constitution.
ARTICLE 18
The Honourable Dr. B.R. Ambedkar: | do not accept the amendment moved by Mr. Damodar Swarup No. 564.
The amendment was negative.
Article 18 was adopted and added to the Constitution:
ARTICLE 19
Mr. Vice President: Amendment No. 596 Dr. Ambedkar the Honourable Dr. B.R. Ambedkar (Bombay: General): Sir, beg to move:
“That in clause (2) of article 19, far the word “preclude” the word “prevents” be substituted.”
This is only for the purpose of keeping symmetry in the language that we have used in the other articles.
The Honourable Shri K. Santhanam: Sir, we have adopted a directive asking the State to endeavour to evolve a uniform civil code, and this particular amendment is a direct negation of that directive. On that ground also, | think this is altogether inappropriate in this connection.
Mr. Vice-President: Would you like to say anything on this matter, Dr. Ambedkar? | should value your advice about this amendment being in order or not, on account of the reasons put forward by Mr. Santhanam.
(To be continued)
