Mr. Vice-President: Amendment No.512 moved by Kazi Syed Karimuddin and accepted by Dr. Ambedkar. The question is: That in article 14, the following be added as clause (4) –
(4) The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause supported by oath or affirmation and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.”
| think the “Ayes have it.
Shri T.T. Krishnamachari: The Noes have it.
Mr. Vice-President: | will again put it to the vote.
| think the “Ayes” have it.
Shri T.T. Krishnamachari: No, Sir, the “noes” have it.
Mr. Vice-President: | shall first call for a show of hands.
(The Division Bell was rung).
Shri Mahavir Tyagi (United Provinces: General): May | proposed that this question might be postponed for the time being and a chance be given for the members to confer between themselves and arrive at a decision. Even the British House of Commons, sometimes converts itself into a committee to give various parties a chance to confer and arrive at an agreed solution.
Mr. Vice-President: | am prepared to postpone the voting on this amendment provided the House gives me the requisite permission. | would request the House to be calm. This is not the way to come to decisions which must be reached through co-operative effort and through goodwill. Does the House give me the necessary power to postpone voting on this?
The Honourable Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru: Mr. Vice- President, Sir, as apparently a slight confusion has arisen in many members’ minds on this point, | think; sir, that the suggestion made is eminently desirable, that we might take up this matter a little later, and we may proceed with other things. It will be the wish of the House that will prevail of course. Il || || & 1 would suggest to you, Sir, and to the House that your suggestion be accepted.
Dr. B.V. Keskar (United Provinces: General): Can it be done after the division bell has rung?
Mr. Vice-President: | never go by technicalities | shall continue to use common sense if | am here. I have little knowledge of technicalities, but | have some knowledge of human nature. | know that in the long run it is good sense, it is common sense, it is goodwill which alone will carry weight. | ask the permission of the House to postpone the voting. |
Honourable Members: Yes.
ARTICLE 16
The Honourable Dr. B.R. Ambedkar: Mr. Vice-President, what understood from Mr. Subramaniam, if | have understood him correctly is not that he objects to article 16, but his objection is directed to the place which this article finds. He says that although there may be utility and necessity so far as this article is concerned, it ought not to find a place in the fundamental rights. And his second point, if | have understood him correctly is that as this article is made subject to article 244, article 16 may be completely nullified, and to use his own words, no residue of it might be left if the powers given under article 244 were exercised. | think | am right in thus summarizing what he said.
Now, I quite appreciate the argument that this article 16 is out of place in the list of fundamental rights, and to some extent, agree with Mr. Subramaniam. But | shall explain to him why it was found necessary to include this matter in the fundamental rights. My Friend, Mr. Subramaniam will remember that when the Constituent Assembly began, we began under certain limitations. One of the limitations was that the Indian States would join the Union only on three subjects — foreign affairs, defence and communications. On no other matter they would agree to permit the Union Parliament to extend its legislative and executive jurisdiction. So, he will realise that the Constituent Assembly, as well as the Drafting Committee, was placed under a very serious limitation. On the one hand it was realised that there would be no use, and no purpose served in forming an All-India Union if trade and commerce throughout India was not free. That was the general view. On the other hand, it was found that so far as the position of the States was concerned, to which | have already made a reference, they were not prepared to allow trade and commerce throughout India to be made subject to the legislative authority of the Union Parliament.
(To be continued)
