It is also stated there that whenever a state decides to provide aid to schools or other educational institutions maintained by the minority, they shall not discriminate in the matter of giving grant on the basis of religion, community or language. Sir, I cannot understand how there can be any objection to these rights which have been indicated in clause 18. At any rate, nobody who has supported the motion that this may be referred back to the Committee has advanced any argument that either these rights are in excess of what a minority ought to have or are such that a minority ought not to have them. Therefore, it seems to me a great pity that the labours of three Committees which have evolved these provisions should be so brusquely set aside simply because for some reasons people want that this matter should be referred back to the Committee. I do not know what objection my friend Mr. Munshi has to sub-clause (2) as it stands, but if it is necessary that this sub-clause may be referred back to the Committee, I certainly would raise no objection. That sub-clause may be referred back because I understand that we have limited this matter to State educational Institutions and we have said nothing about those which are only State-aided. If that point needs to be further clarified the matter may be referred back, but, because there may be some-thing to be said in favour of the reference back of sub-clause (2) I do not see that the same logic could be extended to the whole of the clause. I submit therefore that the clause as it stands, should be passed, barring sub-clause (2) which may, if necessary, be referred back to the Committee for consideration.
Mr. President: Now, there are two clauses that had been referred to a committee of five. We may now take them up one by one. The new clause 3 may now be moved.
Report of the Union Constitution Committee Clause 3
Mr. K.M. Munshi: I move that the following clause be substituted for the original clause:- “Every person both in the Union and subject to its jurisdiction, every person either of whose parents was at the time of such person’s birth, a citizen of the Union, and every person naturalised in the union shall be a citizen of the Union.
Further provision regarding the acquisition and termination of Union citizenship may be made by the law of the Union.
The reasons have already been given fully in the Report of the Ad Hoc Committee. I have nothing to add to it.
Sri K. Santhanam: Sir, I move that the following be added at the end of the first paragraph of this clause:
“Every person born or naturalised in India before the commencement of the Union and subject to its jurisdiction shall be a citizen of the Union”.
Dr. B.R. Ambedkar (Bombay: General): Mr. President, Sir, I think there can be no doubt that the point raised by Mr. Santhanam is a point of great importance and we have to take this matter seriously. The difficulty that has arisen will be seen easily if one reads the very first sentence of the clause as drafted by the Committee. The draft says, “every person born in the Union”. Obviously that has reference to future, those who will be born in the Union after the Union is formed. The question is this. What is going to be the position of the people who are born in India, but who are born before the Union has come into being? In my judgment, in order to cover that case, we shall have to introduce another clause. I am not suggesting an amendment, I am putting forth an idea. The new clause shall have to be something like this”
“All persons born in India, as defined in the General Clauses Act and who are residing in the Union and subject to the juris- diction of the Union shall be citizens of the Union.”
I think that a clause somewhat on these lines is necessary and it will cover the case of people who are born in India, who will be the subjects of the Union, when the Union comes into being. Without this clause, large numbers of people will be denationalized. They will have no nationality at all. I, therefore, suggest that it may be as well to send the whole clause back for further consideration.
Mr. President: A suggestion has been made that the whole clause be held over for further consideration.
Mr. R.K. Sidhwa: This is not a matter for lawyers only. This question has a bearing on every ordinary person.
Mr. President: The Advisory Committee will be free to consider it, and if it so feels, it can put forward any suggestions at the next sitting.
(Clause 3 was held over) (Continued … )
Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Writings & Speeches, Vol. 13, (pages 21 – 22) 1994, Rs. 190. Govt. of Maharashtra, Bombay. The book may be had from Director, Government Printing, Stationery and Publications, Netaji Subhash Road, Bombay – 400 004.
