Sir, I beg to move:
“That at the end of article 38, the following be substituted: —
‘and shall endeavour to bring about prohibition of the consumption of intoxicating drinks and drugs which are injurious to health except for medicinal purposes”.
The Honourable Dr. B.R. Ambedkar: Mr. Vice-President, I accept the amendment of Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena subject to a further amendment, namely, that after the word “and” at the beginning of his amendment (86 of List IV) the words “in particular” be added.
Shri Mahavir Tyagi: I really cannot understand how that amendment can be accepted by the Honourable Dr. Ambedkar. The amendment under discussion is mine.
The Honourable Dr. B.R. Ambedkar: Sir, I accept the amendment of Mr. Tyagi as amended by the amendment of Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena (Laughter).
Mr. Vice-President: Mr. Tyagi is a great stickler for rights.
The honourable Dr. B.R. Ambedkar: Sir, if I may say so, the right really belongs to me, because it is I who drafted the amendment he moved. (Renewed laughter).
Mr. Vice-Presidents: That puts the matter in a new light.
The Honourable Dr. B.R. Ambedkar: I do not think the House would have found any difficulty in accepting this amendment. Two points have been raised against it. One is by Prof. Khandekar who represents Kolhapur in this Assembly. I am sure, that Mr. Khandekar has not sufficiently appreciated the fact that this clause is one of the clauses of an Article which enumerates what are called Directive Principles of Policy. There is therefore no compulsion on the State to act on this principle. Whether to act on this principle and when to do so are left to the State and public opinion. Therefore, if the State thinks that the time has not come for introducing prohibition or that it might be introduced gradually or partially, under these Directive Principles it has full liberty to act. I therefore do not think that we need have any compunction in this matter.
But, Sir, I was quite surprised at the speech delivered by my friend Mr. Jaipal Singh. He said that this matter ought not to be discussed at this stage, but should be postponed till we take up for consideration the report of the Advisory Committee on Tribal areas. If he had read the Draft Constitution, particularly the Sixth Schedule, paragraph 12, he would have found that ample provision is made for safeguarding the position of the tribal people with regard to the question of prohibition. The scheme with regard to the tribal areas is that the law made by the.State, whether by a province or by the Centre, does not automatically apply to that particular area. First of all, the law has to be made. Secondly, the District Councils or the Regional Councils which are established under this Constitution for the purposes of the administration of the affairs of these areas are given the power to say whether a particular law made by a province or by the Centre should be applied to that particular region inhabited by the tribal people or not, and particular mention is made with regard to the law relating to prohibition. I shall just read out sub-paragraph (a) of paragraph 12 which occurs on page 184 for the Draft Constitution. It says:
“Noth with standing anything contained in this Constitution —
(a) no Act of the legislature of the State in respect of any of the matters specified in paragraph 3 of this Schedule as matters with respect to which a District Council or a Regional Council may make laws, and no Act of the Legislature of the State prohibiting or restricting the consumption of any non-distilled alcoholic liquor shall apply to any autonomous district or autonomous region unless in either case the District Council for such district or having jurisdiction over such region by public notification so directs, and the District Council in giving such direction with respect to any Act may direct that the Act shall in its application to such district or region or any part thereof have effect subject to such exceptions or modifications as it thinks fit;”
Now, I do not know what more my friend, Mr. Jaipal Singh, wants than the provision in paragraph 12 of the Sixth Schedule. My fear is that he has not read the Sixth Schedule: if he had read it, he would have realised that even though the State may apply its law regarding prohibition in any part of the country, it has no right to make it applicable to the tribal areas without the consent of the District Councils or the Regional Councils.
(To be continued)
