(iv) “That in clauses (3), (4), (5) and (6) of article 13, before the word “restrictions” the word “reasonable” be inserted”.
(v) “that in clause (4) of article 13, for the words “the general public” the words “public order or morality” be substituted.” (vi) “That in clause (5) of article 13, for the word “aboriginal” the word “Scheduled” be substituted.”
(vii) “That in clause (6) of article 13, for the words “morality or health” the words “the general public” be substituted”
Article 13 was added to the Constitution.
Shri T.T. Krishnamachari (Madras: General): Mr. Vice- President, Sir, the point I must place before the House happens to be a comparatively narrow one …
I recognise that I am rather late now to move an amendment. What I would like to do is to word the clause thus: “No person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once”. If my honourable Friend Dr. Ambedkar will accept the addition of the words “prosecuted” and before the word “punished” if you, sir, and the House will give him permission to do so, it will not merely be a wise thing to do but it will save a lot of trouble for the governments of the future. That is the suggestion | venture to place before the House. It is for the House to deal with it in whatever manner it deems fit.
Mr. Vice-President: Does the House give the permission asked for by Shri T.T. Krishnamachari?
Honourable Members: Yes.
Mr. Vice-President: Now I will call upon Dr. Ambedkar to move the amendment suggested by Shri T.T. Krishnamachari.
The Honourable Dr. B.R. Ambedkar: Mr. Vice-President, Sir, about the amendments that have been moved to this article, I can say that I am prepared to accept the amendment moved by Mr. T.T. Krishnamachari. Really speaking, the amendment is not necessary but as certain doubts have been expressed that the word “punished” may be interpreted in a variety of ways, I think it may be desirable to add the words “prosecuted and punished.”
About amendments nos. 506 and 509 moved by my friend, Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad …
Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad: It is No.510.
The Honourable Dr. B.R. Ambedkar: Anyhow, I examined the position the whole day yesterday and I am satisfied that no good will be done by accepting these amendments. I am however prepared to accept amendment No.512 moved by Mr. Karimuddin. I think it is a useful provision and may find a place in our Constitution. There is nothing novel in it because the whole of the clause as suggested by him is to be found in the Criminal Procedure Code so that it might be said in a sense that this is already the law of the land. It is perfectly possible that the legislatures of the future may abrogate the provisions specified in his amendment but they are so important so far as personal liberty is concerned that it is very desirable to place these provisions beyond the reach of the legislature and I am therefore, prepared to accept his amendment.
About amendment No.513 moved by my friend, Mr. Kakkan …
An Honourable Member: It was not moved.
Mr. Vice-President: What about amendments Nos. 505 and 506?
The Honourable Dr. B.R. Ambedkar: I have already said that I am not prepared to accept amendment Nos. 506 and 510.
Mr. Vice-President: Have you anything to say about amendment No.505, the second part of it as modified by amendment No.92 in List V? Perhaps you have overlooked it. It is in the name of Pandit Thakur Dass Bhargava.
The Honourable Dr. B.R. Ambedkar: I accept the amendment moved by him.
Mr. Vice-President: I am putting the amendments one by one to the vote.
Amendment No.505 as modified by amendments No.92 of List V. I understand that Dr. Ambedkar accepts it. The question is:
“That in clause (1) of article 14, for the words “under the law at the time of the commission” the words “under the law in force at the time of the commission be substituted”.
The amendment was adopted
(To be continued)
