{"id":257639,"date":"1947-05-01T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1947-04-30T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/constituent-assembly-debates-on-1-may-1947"},"modified":"2017-08-26T17:08:48","modified_gmt":"2017-08-26T11:38:48","slug":"constituent-assembly-debates-on-1-may-1947","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/constituent-assembly-debates-on-1-may-1947","title":{"rendered":"Constituent Assembly Debates On 1 May, 1947"},"content":{"rendered":"
Constituent Assembly Debates<\/div>\n
Constituent Assembly Debates On 1 May, 1947<\/div>\n
  \n\n \n\n  CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY OF INDIA--VOLUME-III \n\n Thursday, the 1st May, 1947\n \n\n\nThe Constituent Assembly of India met in the Constitution Hall, New Delhi, at \nNine of the Clock, Mr. President (The Hon'ble Dr. Rajendra Prasad) in the \nChair.\n\n \n\n\nINTERIM REPORT ON FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS-contd.\n\n \n\n\nMr. President- We shall proceed with the discussion of the remaining clauses.\n\n \n\n\nCLAUSE 10-RIGHTs oF FREEDOM\n\n \n\n\nThe Hon'ble Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel (Bombay: General): Clause 10 reads as \nfollows :\n\n \n\n\n\"Subject to regulation by the law of the-Union trade, commerce, and \nIntercourse among the Units- by and between the citizens shall be free; -\n\n \n\n\nProvided that any Unit may by. law impose restrictions in the interest of \npublic order, morality or health or in an emergency;\"\n\n \n\n\nIn paragraph 2 we have dropped the word \"reasonable.\"\n\n \n\n\n\"Provided that nothing in this section shall prevent any Unit from sin on \ngoods imported from other Units the same duties and taxes to impression the \ngoods produced in the Unit are subject;\"\n\n \n\n\nAfter this word \"subject\", We have decided to add the words, \n\"and under regulations and conditions which are non-discriminatory.\"\n\n \n\n\n\"Provided further that no preference shall be given by any regulation of \ncommerce or revenue by a Unit to one Unit over another.\"'\n\n \n\n\nSo these are the few changes that are suggested and in order to cut short the \ndiscussion and save the time of the House I have mentioned these changes which \nwere reached after certain discussions. I move.\n\n \n\n\nMr. K. M. Munshi (Bombay: General): Mr. President, Sir, I beg to move the ' \nfollowing amendment to clause 10.\n\n \n\n\n\"In paragraph 2, clause 10, delete the word 'reasonable'.\"\n\n \n\n\nThe word \"reasonable\" gives a certain amount of vagueness and \ntherefore it is not necessary. The second amendment which I beg to move is :\n\n \n\n\n\"That after the word 'subject' in the 3rd paragraph of clause 10, add the \nwords 'and under regulations and conditions which are \nnon-discriminatory'.\"\n\n \n\n\n------------------------------------------------------------\n<\/pre>\n
10. Subject to regulation by the law of the Union trade, commerce, and
\nintercourse among the Units by and between the citizens shall be free:\n<\/p>\n
Provided that any Unit may by law impose reasonable restrictions in the
\ninterest of public order, morality or health in or in an emergency:\n<\/p>\n
Provided that nothing in this section shall prevent any Unit from imposing on
\ngoods imported from other Units the same duties and taxes to which the goods
\nproduced in the Unit are subject:\n<\/p>\n
Provided further that no preference shall be given by any regulation of
\ncommerce revenue by a Unit to one Unit over another.\n<\/p>\n
————————————————————\n<\/p>\n
The proviso contemplates that a Unit can impose certain customs duty with a
\nview to bring up the level of the price of goods imported to the level of the
\nprice of the goods manufactured in the Unit itself. Otherwise, the goods
\nproduced in other Units will flood that particular Unit. With that view only
\nhas this proviso been added. Provinces, therefore, can impose certain duties
\nand taxes on goods imported from other units with a view to bring up the value
\nto the level of goods manufactured in the Unit itself. But it was felt, Sir,
\nthat this was incomplete. Such regulations and conditions may be made as to
\nfavour the goods produced in the Unit and, therefore, the words ‘and under
\nregulations and conditions which are non-discriminatory’ have to be added, so
\nthat conditions must not be such as to force up the price of the goods
\nimported. Therefore, the whole point is that there should not be any
\nregulation or any conditions of such a nature which would favour the goods
\nproduced in the Unit as against those produced and imported from outside.\n<\/p>\n
Sri K. Santhanam (Madras: General): Sir, I have given notice of an amendment.
\nIt was more or less to meet the point raised in it that Mr. Munshi has moved
\nthe present amendment. But, in my opinion, the amendment moved by Mr. Munshi
\ndoes not fit in<\/p>\n
with the clause, because the point of my amendment is that when a Unit imposes
\ncertain conditions besides duties on goods within its Own frontiers, it should
\nbe able to insist that the goods coming from other Units should also conform
\nto the same conditions. For example, there may be regulations about packing,
\nlabelling, disclosure of the materials used in an article and many other
\nconditions and the goods produced from other Units should not have in these
\nmatters any advantage over goods produced in the same Unit. As Mr. Munshi’s
\namendment stands, it will be subject to regulations and conditions which are
\nnon-discriminatory, but it does not say that the Unit concerned will have the
\nright to impose these regulations on goods produced from other units.
\nTherefore, either his amendment should be properly integrated with the clause
\nor my amendment which says that in the second proviso to clause 10, for the
\nwords ‘the same duties and taxes’ the words ‘the same regulations, duties and
\ntaxes’ be substituted should be accepted. I am quite willing Jo accept any
\namendment which makes it clear that the Unit can impose the same conditions
\nand regulations on goods produced from other Units as on the goods produced in
\nthe Unit. Therefore, I move my amendment.\n<\/p>\n
Prof. K T. Shah (Bombay: General) : I do not propose to move the amendments in
\nmy name.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. President: So w have, as a matter of fact, two amendments before us, one
\nmoved by Mr. Munshi and the other moved by Mr. Santhanam.\n<\/p>\n
The Hon’ble Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel: There is one thing to which I wanted to
\ndraw the attention of the House that s paragraph 5 of the Report which I
\nforgot, which provides for the different condition prevailing in the States
\nfor which provision has to be made. We have mentioned in the Report, para 5:\n<\/p>\n
“We, therefore, consider that it would be reasonable for the Union to
\nenter into agreement with such States, in the. light of their existing rights.
\nwith a view to giving them time, upto a maximum period to be prescribed by the
\nconstitution. by which internal customs could be eliminated and complete free
\ntrade established within the Union.”\n<\/p>\n
About the amendment of Mr. Santhanam, I think Mr. Munshi’s amendment which I
\npropose to accept, satisfies the requirements because it is
\nnon-discriminatory. I do not think any further discussion on this is
\nnecessary.\n<\/p>\n
I therefore move the clause as amended for the acceptance of the House.\n<\/p>\n
There is a clerical error in the third proviso. The words “by a
\nUnit” are unnecessary. The clause will read:\n<\/p>\n
“Provided further that no preference shall be given by any regulation of
\ncommerce or revenue to one Unit over another.”\n<\/p>\n
Mr. President: Now, I will put this clause to vote.\n<\/p>\n
“Subject to regulation by the law of the Unit trade, commerce, and
\nintercourse among the units by and between the citizens shall be free.”\n<\/p>\n
There is no amendment to this clause.\n<\/p>\n
The clause was adopted.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. President: First Proviso:\n<\/p>\n
“Provided that any Unit may by law impose reasonable restrictions in the
\ninterest of public order, morality or health or in an emergency”\n<\/p>\n
The amendment proposed is- that the word “reasonable” should be
\ndropped.\n<\/p>\n
The amendment was adopted.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. President: Second Proviso:\n<\/p>\n
“Provided that nothing in this section shall prevent any Unit from
\nimposing on goods imported from other Units the same duties and taxes to which
\nthe goods produced in the Unit are subject.”\n<\/p>\n
There are two amendments to this, one by Mr. Santhanam and the other by Mr.
\nMunshi. I shall put Mr. Santhanam’s amendment first. As amended, it reads:\n<\/p>\n
“Provided that nothing in this section shall prevent any Unit from
\nimposing on goods imported from other Units the same duties, taxes and
\nrestrictions to which the goods produced in the Unit are subject.”\n<\/p>\n
He had at first used the word “regulations”. He has changed the word
\n“regulations” into “restrictions”. The last portion will
\nread-\n<\/p>\n
“the same duties, taxes and restrictions to<\/p>\n
which the goods produced in the Unit are subject.\n<\/p>\n
The other amendment of Mr. Munshi is:\n<\/p>\n
“Provided that nothing in this section shall ‘prevent any Unit from
\nimposing on goods imported from either Units the same duties and taxes to
\nwhich the goods produced in the Unit are subject and under regulations and
\nconditions which are non-discriminatory.”\n<\/p>\n
Shri M. Ananthasayanam Ayyangar (Madras: General): I, would like to add the
\nword “similar”. Otherwise, it is meaningless.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. President, I have not got your amendment. (To Mr. Ananthasayanam.
\nAyyangar).\n<\/p>\n
Mr. Santhanam’s amendment was negatived. Mr. Munshi’s amendment was adopted.
\nMr. President: Third Proviso:\n<\/p>\n
“Provided further that no preference shall be Oven, by any regulation of
\ncommerce or revenue by a Unit to one Unit over another.’<\/p>\n
Here there is a verbal change suggested. We are asked to omit the words
\n“by a Unit” because they are unnecessary. The proviso will read like
\nthis:\n<\/p>\n
‘Provided further that no preference shall be given by any regulation of
\ncommerce or revenue to one Unit over another.”\n<\/p>\n
As amended the proviso is put to the House,<\/p>\n
The proviso, as amended, was adopted.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. President- I shall now put the whole clause as amended. Mr. C.
\nRajagopalachariar suggests that the first proviso should come last and the
\nother should be changed.\n<\/p>\n
The Hon’ble Sri C. Rajagopalachariar (Madras: General): The reason is this.
\nThe restrictions to be imposed in the interests of public health will
\ncertainly differ from Unit to Unit. If we say in the second proviso that there
\nshall be no discriminatory restrictions, it will mean that when there is
\ninfection, you will have to impose on all Units whatever you,impose on one
\nUnit. That will be avoided if you add the special proviso as the last proviso
\ninstead of that being the first.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. President: I put the whole clause as amended with the change in the order
\nof provisos.\n<\/p>\n
Sri L. Krishnaswami. Bharathi (Madras: General): The word “further”
\nmust be added so as to read “Provided further.”\n<\/p>\n
Mr. President: The amendment is:\n<\/p>\n
‘That the word ‘further’ be added to the first proviso which becomes the
\nthird.,<\/p>\n
The amendment was adopted. Mr. K. M. Munshi: It is only a matter of
\narrangement. I do not want to argue. At the time of drafting the Act, it will
\nbe placed here.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. President: The clause, as amended, is put to the House. The clause, as
\namended, was adopted.\n<\/p>\n
CLAUSE 11.-RIGHTS OF ‘FREEDOM<\/p>\n
The Hon’ble Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel Clause 11 is as regards forced labour and
\nit reads:\n<\/p>\n
“11. (a) Traffic in human beings, and<\/p>\n
(b) forced labour in any form including begar and involuntary servitude except
\nas a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted,are
\nhere by prohibited and any contravention of this prohibition shall be an
\noffence.\n<\/p>\n
Explanation-\n<\/p>\n
“Nothing in this sub-clause shall prevent the State from imposing
\ncompulsory service for- public purposes without any discrimination on the
\nground of race, religion, caste or class.”\n<\/p>\n
Now we have to try to discuss this and abridge it and put it in a
\ncomprehensive form instead of separate clauses and put it in one clause
\n“traffic in human beings”.\n<\/p>\n
Mr, President: The suggested amendments have not been circulated to the
\nMembers and they do not know what changes are suggested. would request that
\nyou move the clause and then the amendments may be moved.\n<\/p>\n
The Hon’ble Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel: Then I move this clause.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. President: I have got notice of a number of amendments to this clause. Mr.
\nMunshi’s amendment has not been circulated. I have got this only two minutes
\nago. Still we have to go on with the work. I will take the other amendments
\nfirst.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. M. R. Masani (Bombay: General): It is very difficult to decide whether to
\nmove the other amendments until Mr. Munshi’s amendment is moved. I would
\nsuggest that the agreed amendment be moved.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. President: I am not aware of any agreed<\/p>\n
amendment.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. K M. Munshi: Mr. President, Sir, the amendment I move is the following-\n<\/p>\n
“That for clause II the following be substituted:\n<\/p>\n
‘Traffic in human beings, and begar, and other similar forms of forced labour
\nare prohibited, and any contravention of this prohibition shall be an
\noffence.”\n<\/p>\n
The object is to deal in one sentence with both subjects.\n<\/p>\n
The Explanation has to be dropped because in view of the shortening of the
\nwhole sentence, the Explanation is not necessary at all. The object of this is
\nthat if there is any sort of forced labour like begar, it will be prohibited.
\nTraffic in human beings will be prohibited. But the other forms of labour e.g.
\nlabour for educational purposes or for any other purpose of public service,
\nwill be regulated by legislation.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. P. R. Thakur (Bengal: General): The word ‘begar’ should be in italics.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. President: The clause, as amended, if the amendment is accepted, will read
\nthus-\n<\/p>\n
“Traffic in human being and begar and other similar forms of forced
\nlabour are prohibited and any contravention of this prohibition shall be an
\noffence,”\n<\/p>\n
The Explanation to the sub-clause (b) is dropped, and so the whole thing will
\nbe much shorter and more comprehensive.\n<\/p>\n
There are a number of amendments of which notices have been received. I will
\ncall the members to move one after another.\n<\/p>\n
The Hon’ble Mr. Jagjivan Ram (Bihar: General): In view of this amendment, I do
\nnot want to press my amendments. (Nos. 27 and 28 of the Supplementary List
\nII).\n<\/p>\n
Mr. H. V. Kamath (C.P. and Berar: General): In the event of acceptance by the
\nHouse of Mr. Munshi’s amendment, there is no necessity for my amendment. (No.
\n29 of the Supplementary List II). If it is not accepted, I will reserve the
\nright to move my amendment later on.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. M. R. Masani: Mr. President, I had given notice of an amendment (No. 36 of
\nthe Supplementary List II) in order to safeguard the rights of Concientious
\nObjectors in view of the very wide powers given to the State by the
\nExplanation.\n<\/p>\n
I am glad to see that the Explanation has been dropped. I do Dot, therefore,
\nwish to press my amendment at this stage.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. President- Now the motion and the amendment are OPen for discussion.\n<\/p>\n
Dr. B. R. Ambedkar (Bengal: General): The point that I want to make is this,
\nthat, while I have no objection to the redrafting of subclause (a) and (b) in
\norder that they may run in a compact manner, I have a certain amount of doubt
\nas to whether the dropping of the Explanation is in consonance with the desire
\nof the majority of the members of the Advisory Committee that the State should
\nnot have power in any way for introducing compulsory service. Mr. Munshi
\nsuggests that, if the clause stands as redrafted and if the Explanation is
\nomitted, nonetheless, the State will have the right to introduce compulsory
\nmilitary service. I ‘have not had sufficient time to apply my mind to the
\nconsequences of the proposed change, i.e., the dropping of the Explanation but
\nI fear that the dropping of the Explanation and retaining the clause in the
\nform in which it is stated may have opposite and serious consequences. Because
\n‘begar’ is also something which is imposed by the State. , So far as I know,
\nin Bombay, ‘begar’ is demanded by the State for certain public purposes, and
\nif the State is prohibited from having ‘begar’ it is perfectly possible for
\nanybody to argue that even compulsory military service is begar. I am.
\ntherefore, not quite satisfied that the dropping of the Explanation is
\nsomething which is advisable at this stage. I am not in a position to suggest
\nany definite course of action in this matter, but I think I shall be
\nsufficiently discharging my duties if I draw the attention of the House to the
\ndoubt which I have in mind about the effect which the dropping of the
\nExplanation may have on the right of the State in regard to compulsory service
\neither for military purposes or for social purposes for the State. MY
\nsuggestion would be that at this state we should<\/p>\n
not drop the Explanation, but leave it as it is and have the whole matter
\nreconsidered the Provincial Constitution and he Federal Constitution are when
\ndrafted in their final form.\n<\/p>\n
Shrimati Dakshayani Velayudan (Madras: General) Mr. President, I have great
\npleasure in commending Clause 11 because it is a clause which mostly relates
\nto a community, a vast regiment of people who are subjected to untold miseries
\nfor so many centuries. Sir, even nowadays we find traffic in human beings in
\nsome parts of India and this clause will have a great effect on the underdogs
\nof this land who will have a voice when India gets her independence. This
\nclause will bring about an economic revolution in the fascist social
\n‘structure existing in India. All the disabilities of the underdogs of this
\nland are mainly due to the economic backwardness of the unfortunate brethren
\nof the neglected community. it is unfortunate that a section of the people of
\nthis land will have to work without getting any remuneration whatsoever, even
\nfor their daily maintenance and the people who work in the fields or in other
\nplaces- will have to go back to their homes even without getting a single pie.
\nThey have not got the right to demand the wages even though they will work for
\nday and night. If the people are called upon to work and if they do not go for
\nthat work they will get punishments. That is what we find in certain Provinces
\nof India like the United Provinces. Even if there is not the system of ‘begar’
\nin other parts of India, almost a similar sort of compulsion exists throughout
\nIndia and the majority of the people are subjected to exploitation economical
\nand in all sorts of ways. The underdogs of this land are deprived of the
\nfacilities that make life happy. This System ought to have been, abolished
\neven before the Provinces got self-government. Even if there are rules and
\nregulations regarding this in certain provinces, the system still prevails and
\nthe people who are subjected to the system have no voice whatsoever in
\ndeciding their fate. So, this clause when it comes into existence will give
\ngreat relief’ to a great number of people who are subjected to economic
\nexploitation. When this sort of economic exploitation is eliminated from this
\nland, the underdogs also will rise up and will be in a position to assert
\ntheir rights and keep up their selfrespect and dignity and they too will have
\na right to enjoy like the people belonging to the upper class and upper caste.
\nI have great pleasure in supporting this clause.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. B. Das (Orissa: General): I have great pleasure in supporting Mr. Munshi’s
\namendment to Clause 11. I accept the new draft of the clause. Sir, I have
\nstudied a good deal of forced labour problems since 1929. I was a member of
\nthe Forced Labour Convention in Geneva in 1929. India accepted the Forced
\nLabour Convention in 1930, but the Indian States, with certain exceptions, did
\nnot accept it. That practice does not exist among the major States whose
\nrepresentatives I find today in this House. Sir, in my part of the country
\nforced labour has been taken advantage of by most of the small Indian States.
\nThey receive grants from the Government of India for the construction of roads
\nand utilise the money for their own purposes and by means of forced labour
\nthey construct roads and other civil works. Therefore, Sir, I do not apprehend
\nthe trouble which my friend Dr. Ambedkar has just now voiced. In case of
\nnational emergency the State must come forward and everybody must compulsorily
\nwork for the country, be it war or famine or drought. But I do not want any
\nlacuna left over which will allow some of the Indian Princes to use forced
\nlabour for their own gains.\n<\/p>\n
Sir, one point I am not satisfied with is whether traffic in human beings
\nincludes women traffic. Sir, some of us have studied this problem about
\nwomen’s traffic for the last ten years or more. Unfortunately, every year
\nthousands of women of Orissa and the Province of Bengal, where there are
\nsurplus women, are carried away to other parts of India.\n<\/p>\n
There is a regular traffic going on by crooks and gangsters who carry away
\nthese women to some outside Provinces. I do not know whether they are regular
\nhouse-wives or whether they lead the life of shame. We do know that in
\nprovinces like the Punjab and the Frontier the number of women is less than
\nthe population of men.\n<\/p>\n
Sir, we had the painful experience during the Bengal famine when lakhs of
\nwomen were spirited away. Whether these women were taken to the provinces
\nwhere there are less women or whether they were used to supply women to the
\nhuge British army that was then in the eastern part of India, that is a
\nproblem that social workers must work out, But I would have been happy to sse
\n“traffic in women” being specifically mentioned in the clause. Those
\nof us who belong to the eastern part of India still apprehend that in spite of
\nthis provision in the Fundamental Rights, traffic in women will be carried on
\nby unscrupulous moneymakers. I, therefore, want Sardar Patel to assure me
\nwhether he has in contemplation some kind of legislation by which this traffic
\nin women may be stopped for ever.\n<\/p>\n
Sir, I want a further assurance from the representatives of the Indian States
\nhere whether they will persuade their colleagues in the less advanced States
\nto abolish forced labour which is a source of profit and gain to many small
\nprincipalities in India.\n<\/p>\n
Dr. P. K. Sen (Bihar: General): Sir, might I be permitted to point out some of
\nthe,difficulties that would present themselves if we put the, clause in the
\ntruncated form suggested ? First of all, there can be no question, nobody can
\ndoubt for a moment that forced labour in any form must go. But there were
\ncertain qualifying explanations in the original form of the clause which have
\nnow been omitted. Those are- “involuntary servitude except as punishment
\nfor crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted.”\n<\/p>\n
Now, it is well known that it is not only from children in the reformatory
\nschools or from adolescents in the Borstal institutions, but also from
\nadults.-grown up people who may be regarded as under State tutelage, during
\ntheir incarceation-it is right and legitimate, , in fact, necessary, to exact
\nlabour according to the rules of the prisons. All that may really become very
\ndifficult if we put the clause in the form, that begar or forced labour shall
\nbe prohibited and any contravention of this rule would be regarded as an
\noffence. I quite agree with my friend, Dr. Ambedkar, that the only way of
\ngetting out of this difficulty would be to retain the Explanation and then
\nsuch cases would come under the expression `for public purposes”, because
\neven in jails and prisons or any other organisations where people are under
\nState tutelage, forced labour can legitimately be exacted for the good of the
\ninmates and also for the good of the State. If there is still any doubt, we
\ncan add the words “in the case of those under the State tutelage” or
\nsome such expression as that. But the amendment as it has been put, i.e.,
\nTraffic in human beings, and begar and forced labour in any form are hereby
\nprohibited<\/p>\n
Mr. K. M. Munshi There are also the words “other similar forms”.\n<\/p>\n
Dr. P. K. Sen: ‘Similar’ is a very vague word. I really cannot imagine what
\ndifficulty or objection there can be in the way of retaining the Explanation.
\nThe Explanation is quite innocuous, and it only says that for certain public
\npurposes as in all civilized countries, it is necessary to get compulsory
\nservice from the citizens, for their own good and for the good of the State.
\n1, therefore, submit that the Explanation either in the form as it stands or
\nwith any requisite modification may be accepted. Otherwise, all sorts of
\ncomplications might arise.\n<\/p>\n
Dewan Bahadur Sir Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar (Madras: General): Mr. President,
\ngoing into the question as to whether there is necessity for the retention of
\nthe Explanation or not, I am quite clear in ray mind. So far as the first
\nsub-clause is concerned, it will not preclude military conscription. In the<\/p>\n
Committee, there was a special clause inserted by Mr. Masani to the effect
\nthat there shall not be military conscription; but that has been omitted. In
\nspite of the existence of the slavery and. anti-slavery clause in the United
\nStates Constitution, the Supreme Court of the United States has held that
\nthere is nothing to prevent military conscription being introduced. The
\nlearned Judges referred to various writers on international law and they
\npointed out that the very existence of the State depends upon military force,
\nand the slavery and antislavery or servitude clause cannot be construed as
\nprecluding the United States of America from introducing conscription.
\nTherefore, the words ‘begar and similar forms of forced labour’ cannot
\npossibly be interpreted as excluding conscription. That is my view and I do
\nnot think that the future legislatures will be precluded from introducing
\nconscription by reason of a clause like this. The word “similar”
\noccurring in the clause makes it quite clear that it cannot have in view a
\nmilitary conscription law. Therefore, under those circumstances, there need
\nnot be any apprehension. That does not, however, mean that I am opposed to the
\nretention of the Explanation. The retention, it was pointed out yesterday in
\nthe Committee, might give rise to considerable difficulties is the working of
\nthe village economy and village institutions, and no harm would result by the
\nomission of the Explanation, and therefore, yesterday, in the course of the
\ndiscussions in the Committee, it was omitted. I do not think there is any
\ndanger of military conscription being ruled out as a power inherent in the
\nUnion by reason of the forced labour clause as it stands.\n<\/p>\n
Sri M. Ananthasayanam Ayyangar: I was also of the same opinion as Sir Alladi
\nKrishnaswami Ayyar, when in the party meeting I consented to the change of the
\npresent clause, but I find on reconsideration that the original clause might
\nstand. I shall presently give the reasons. The reasons are these. Two points
\nreferred to in the clause are, one, traffic in human beings is prohibited,
\nand, secondly, forced labour ought not to be allowed. Both these are already
\nprovided for in the Penal Code. Section 370 of the Indian Penal Code prohibits
\ntraffic in human beings, and section 374 makes it an offence to compel any
\nperson to labour against his will, but the word “unlawful” is used
\nthere. “Unlawful” means, it is lawful for any legislature to pass a
\nlaw that for particular purposes labour may be enforced, as when a person is
\nconvicted of a crime and he is sentenced to penal servitude. Or in the
\ninterests of village administration when there are floods, the villagers may
\nbe obliged or forced to repair breaches in tanks, etc. it also allows
\ncompulsory military service. Now, that these two provisions which are already
\nin the general law under sections 370 and 374 of the Indian Penal Code are
\nraised to the status of fundamental rights, we have to be a little careful.
\nWhen we are giving the status of fundamental rights, unless we add other
\nexplanations allowing the State to make an exception to these two fundamental
\nrights which are now being given, it might appear, and courts may also
\ninterpret that by taking these out of the ordinary law and placing them in the
\nStatute Book as fundamental rights-that the States’ jurisdiction to legislate
\nfor such purposes, for forced labour even under an emergency has been taken
\naway. If Mr. Munshi who has moved this amendment has at the back of his mind
\nthat the State Ought not to be prevented from introducing conscription
\nwhenever or wherever necessary, let the matter be cleared here and now. I do
\nnot see any objection to having an Explanation or even having the original
\nclause as it stands. There is no need to make the amendment. Let us be clear
\nin our minds. Otherwise, it will mean that we have given up, irrespective of
\nany considerations requiring conscription, or irrespective of other
\nconsiderations requiring any local legislature or any particular unit to
\ncompel persons to come and help by<\/p>\n
way of forced labour-irrespective of all these considerations the fundamental
\nright has been given, and that means that the right of the State has been
\nabrogated once and for all. There is much force in the argument of Dr.
\nAmbedkar, and I am not in favour of this amendment. The original clause as it
\nstands may stand. Let us be clear in our minds whether we want conscription
\nhere and now or not. Let us not leave it to the judges to decide. Sir Alladi
\nKrishnaswami Ayyar said that it has been interpreted by the American Court.
\nThe American Law was framed so long ago, and therefore, it is necessary to
\ninterpret it from time to time to enlarge its scope. We know too well that the
\nJustinian Code running into 150 volumes has been developed by interpretation
\nof the Twelve Tables. People are not in favour of’ modifying the statute from
\ntime to time, but lawyers have introduced various things as interpretations
\nand have been evolving new law out of that. Now, that we are making a statute,
\nwhy should we rely upon the future interpretation and leave it to the judges
\nto decide? I oppose the amendment and I am in favour of retaining the original
\nclause.\n<\/p>\n
Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: May I make a suggestion? We have heard the arguments of
\nSir Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar who has said that according to his reading of
\nthe rulings of the Supreme Court of the United States, even if the Explanation
\nwas not there, the State would be permitted to have compulsory military
\nservice. Fortunately, for me I also happened to look into the very same cases
\nwhich I am sure Sir Alladi has in mind. I think he will agree with me, if he
\nlooks at the reasoning of the judgment given by the Supreme Court, he will
\nfind that they proceeded on the hypothesis that in a political Organisation
\nthe free citizen has a duty to support. the Government and as every citizen
\nhas a duty to support the Government therefore’compulsory military law was
\ndoing nothing more than calling upon the citizen to do the duty which he
\nalready owes to the State. I submit that that is a very precarious foundation
\nfor so important a subject as the necessity of compulsory military service for
\nthe defence of. the State.\n<\/p>\n
I submit that we ought not to rest content with that kind of reasoning which
\nthe Supreme Court in India may adopt or may not adopt. Therefore,.my,
\nsuggestion is this, that, just as in the case of the other clause dealing with
\ncitizenship you were good enough to remit the matter to a small committee to
\nhave it further examined. It will be desirable that this question as to
\nwhether the Explanation should be retained or not may also be remitted to a
\nsmall committee which should report to this House. It will then be possible
\nfor the House to-take a correct decision in the matter.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. President: I think it is not necessary to have any further discussion if
\nthe suggestion which has been made by Dr. Ambedkar is acceptable to the House.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. R.K. Sidhwa (C.P. and Berar: General) : The question regarding compulsory
\nmilitary service may be discussed here.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. President: We are not deciding here whether we ought to have conscription
\nor not. The question is whether under fundamental rights conscription is
\nprohibited. I think it is best to refer it to the game committee to which the
\nother clause has been remitted.\n<\/p>\n
An Hon’ble Member: The whole clause 11.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. President: Yes, the whole clause 11.\n<\/p>\n
The clause was remitted.\n<\/p>\n
Clause 12<\/p>\n
RIGHTS or FREEDOM.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. President: Clause 12.\n<\/p>\n
The Hon’ble Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel: I move clause 12. Clause 12 says :\n<\/p>\n
“No child below the age of 14 years shall be engaged to work in any
\nfactory, mine or any other hazardous employment.”\n<\/p>\n
It is proposed to delete the Explanation. But I move the clause as it is, and
\ndeletion of the, Explanation may be moved as an amendment.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. K. M. Munshi: I move that the Explanation be deleted. The Explanation
\nsays:\n<\/p>\n
“Nothing in this shall prejudice any educational programme or activity
\ninvolving compulsory labour-”\n<\/p>\n
That has nothing to do with sub-clause and I submit it should be deleted<\/p>\n
Mr. President: Amendment No. 37-Mr. Kamath.\n<\/p>\n
———————————————————————————————————————————\n<\/p>\n
No Child below the age of 14 years shall be engaged to. work in any factory,
\nmine or any other hazardous employment.\n<\/p>\n
Explanation: Nothing in this shall prejudice any educational programme or
\nactivity involving compulsory, labour.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. H. V. Kamath: I am told that this clause deals only with children below
\n14, and that, therefore, expectant mothers and old people are out of place. I
\nshall reserve my right to move my amendment at a later stage. I do not move it
\nnow.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. B. K Sidhwa: As regards amendment No. 43, they are all new clauses, and as
\ndecided by the Honourable House yesterday, I will take them at the end of all
\nthese clauses.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. President: These are the amendments. I will put the amendment of Mr.
\nMunshi for deletion of the Explanation, to the House.\n<\/p>\n
The amendment was adopted. Claused 12, as amended, was adopted.\n<\/p>\n
CLAUSE 13-RIGHTS RELATING TO RELIGION.\n<\/p>\n
The Hon’ble Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel: Sir, I move the adoption of clause 13,
\nviz.,<\/p>\n
“All persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience, and the right
\nfreely to profess, practise and propagate religion, subject to public order,
\nmorality or health, and to the other provisions of this Part.\n<\/p>\n
Explanation 1-The wearing and carrying of kirpans shall be deemed to be
\nincluded in the profession of the Sikh religion.\n<\/p>\n
Explanation 2-The above rights shall not include any economic, financial,
\npolitical or other secular activities that may be associated with religious
\npractice.\n<\/p>\n
Explanation 3-The freedome of religious practice guaranteed in this clause
\nshall not debar the State from enacting laws for the purpose of social welfare
\nand reform.”\n<\/p>\n
I see that there are a number of amendments on the Order Paper. I shall speak
\non them when they are moved and, if there is any that could be accepted, I
\nshall accept.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. K. M. Munshi: Sir, I move an amendment to the effect that, after the last
\nExplanation, the following words be added:-\n<\/p>\n
“and for throwing open Hindu religious institutions of a public character
\nto any class of section of Hindus.”\n<\/p>\n
After the Explanation above was drafted it was thought that the practice of
\nreligion referred to should not be of such a character as will interfere with
\nthe right of the Legislature to legislate on social questions. The question
\narose with regard to the throwing open of all temples to all classes of
\nHindus, whether it would be religious practice. In order to prevent any, such
\nconstruction of clause, it was decided that the throwing open of Hindu
\nreligious institutions shall not be held to contravene the practice of Hindi
\nreligion.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. President: I shall now call upon Members who have given notice of
\namendments to this clause, to move them (after a pause ) As I find that there
\nis no amendment moved to the clause I shall put it to the vote of the House.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. H. J. Khandekar (C. P. and Berar): Sir, in case Mr. Munshi’s amendment to
\nthis clause is accepted, it may be necessary to have a definition for
\n“places of public worship”. Unless this is done it may be difficult’
\nfor people to know which is a place of public worship. Even where admission to
\npeople of all classes is given, depressed classes are not allowed. Even when
\nthere is a written record that a certain temple is open to worship by
\ndepressed classes, the pujaris obstruct and say that that temple is a private
\none and, therefore, not open to depressed classes. So, Sir, if there is
\ndefinition of “places of public worship” there will be no
\ndifficulty. I suggest, therefore, that the-re should be a definition for
\n“places of public worship”.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. President: May I know in which clause that expression occurs?\n<\/p>\n
Mr. H. J. Khandekar: Explanation 3.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. President: I do not find this expression there.\n<\/p>\n
There is no mention of any place of public worship there.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. H. J. Khandekar: I want a definition for “religious institutions of a
\npublic character”.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. President: Mr. Khandekar wants some explanation of the term
\n“religious institutions of a public character” so that it may be
\nclear what religious institutions are referred to.\n<\/p>\n
Shri L. Krishnaswami Bharathi: Sir, the clause reads: “other provisions
\nof this Chapter”. It should read “other provisions of this
\nPart”.\n<\/p>\n
The Hon’ble Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel: The word “Chapter” has been
\nsubstituted by the word “Part”.\n<\/p>\n
I accept Mr. Munshi’s amendment and I congratulate the House on agreeing to
\npass this very controversial matter which has taken several days in the
\nCommittees and gone through several Committees. There might be differences of
\nopinion, but on the whole we have tried our best to accommodate all sections
\nof the people. I move that this clause as amended be passed.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. President: I am putting to the vote first the amendment to Explanation No.\n<\/p>\n
3. The amendment is:\n<\/p>\n
“That the words ‘and for throwing open Hindu religious institutions of a
\npublic character to any class or section of Hindus be added at the end of-
\nExplanation No. 3’<\/p>\n
The amendment was adopted. Mr. President: Now I put the clause as amended to
\nthe House.\n<\/p>\n
Clause 13, as amended, was adopted.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. President: Now we go to clause A<\/p>\n
CLAUSE 14.\n<\/p>\n
The Hon’ble Sardar Ballabhbbai Patel: Now I move clause 14.\n<\/p>\n
“Every religious denomination shall have the right to manage its own
\naffairs in matter of religion and, subject to the general law. to own, acquire
\nand administer property movable and immovable, and to establish and maintain
\ninstitutions for religious or charitable purposes.\n<\/p>\n
There is a little addition by way of an amendment which Mr. Munshi will move.
\nI move this clause for the acceptance of the House.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. K. M. Munshi: Sir, I move an amendment that in clause 14 the words
\n“or a section thereof” be added between the word
\n“denomination” and the word “shall”. It was felt that the
\nuse of the term “religious denomination” may prevent a section of a
\ndenomination from being protected.\n<\/p>\n
Sri K. Santhanam: What is meant by “general law”.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. K. M. Munshi: There is a general law of the country as apart from any
\nspecial legislation. When the word ‘law’ is used, it means the law of either
\nthe Unit or the Union according to the power which is being exercised. If it
\nis a Union subject, it is Union law. If it is a Unit subject, it is Unit law.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. President: Has the word “general” any special significance here,
\nLaw is law.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. K. M. Munshi: The intention was that any specific legislation was to be
\nexcluded. There are certain legislations specifically intended for certain
\nclasses of people. If the desire of the House is that it should be ‘law’, I
\nhave no objection.\n<\/p>\n
Some Hon’ble Members: “.subject to “law’.”\n<\/p>\n
Mr. President: Mr. Santhanam, there is an amendment to be moved by you,
\namendment No. 63.\n<\/p>\n
Sri K. Santhanam: No, Sir. I am not moving it.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. President: Mr. Rajagopalachariar, you have an amendment.\n<\/p>\n
The Hon’ble Sri C. Rajagopalachariar: No, Sir. I am not moving it.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. President: The clause and the amendment are now open for discussion.\n<\/p>\n
Sri M. Ananthasayanam Ayyangar: I oppose the omission of the wora general’
\nwhich is opposed to special or local laws which are defined in the Indian
\nPenal Code as relating to a particular subject or a particular part of British
\nIndia. There ought to be no restriction on the acquisition of rights and
\nproperty by any religious institution under any special law. The same
\ndefinition relating to special and local laws will be found in the General
\nClauses Act also. I, therefore, want the retention of the word ‘general’. I
\nthink the framers of the clause were right in including it.\n<\/p>\n
Diwan Bahadur Sir Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar: The General Clauses Act and the
\nPenal Code will not apply to the<\/p>\n
interpretation of our Constitution. We must have an interpretation clause in
\nour Constitution when the Constitution is finally framed.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. H. V. Kamath: I could not hear a word of what Sir Alladi said.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. President: Sir Alladi’s view was that the General Clauses Act and the
\nPenal Code will not apply to our Constitution and, therefore, We need not
\nattach any importance to them.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. D. N. Datta (Bengal: General): If the words “existing Indian
\nlaw” are there, the General Clauses Act will apply.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. President: You are at liberty to differ from Sir Alladi.\n<\/p>\n
The Hon’ble Sri C. Rajagopalachariar: Apart from the question of how words
\nshould be interpreted, it is very necessary that this special right that we
\nare giving to religious denominations should be subject to all the laws that
\nwill be enacted and, therefore, the expression should be only ‘law’ and not
\nany particular portion of the law.\n<\/p>\n
Sri M. Ananthasayanam Ayyangar: We are trying to get these on the statute
\nbook. What is the meaning of taking these technical objections?\n<\/p>\n
Mr. President: As a matter of fact, the point has been discussed, and if there
\nis anything else, then the Drafting Committee will attend to them.\n<\/p>\n
Now I will put the various amendments. The first amendment I will put is that
\nthe words “or a section thereof” be added between
\n“denomination” and “shall”. That part of the clause will
\nread as follows :\n<\/p>\n
“Every religious denomination or a section thereof shall have the right
\nto manage its own affairs. and so on.\n<\/p>\n
The amendment was adopted.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. president: The next amendment is that the be omitted.\n<\/p>\n
The amendment was adopted.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. President: The clause as amended will read:\n<\/p>\n
“Every religious denomination or a section thereof shall have the right
\nto manage its own affairs in matters of religion and, subject to law, to own,
\nacquire and administer property movable and immovable, and to establish and
\nmaintain institutions for religious or charitable purposes.”\n<\/p>\n
I put the clause, as amended, to the House.\n<\/p>\n
Clause 14, as amended, was adopted.\n<\/p>\n
CLAUSE 15<\/p>\n
The Hon’ble Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel: Clause 15.\n<\/p>\n
“No person may be compelled to pay taxes, the proceeds of which are
\nspecifically appropriated to further or maintain any particular religion or
\ndenomination.”\n<\/p>\n
I do not think that there is any amendment to this clause and I move this
\nclause for the acceptance of the House.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. President: As there is no amendment to this clause, I put it to the vote
\nof the House.\n<\/p>\n
Clause 15 was adopted.\n<\/p>\n
CLAUSE 16<\/p>\n
The Hon’ble Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel: Clause 16. This clause was passed in the
\nAdvisory Committee, but I think that it may be referred back to the Advisory
\nCommittee, because there are some difficulties and it has been suggested that
\nit may be referred back. The House agrees that this clause may be referred
\nback to the Advisory Committee.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. President: Then you formally move it.\n<\/p>\n
The Hon’ble Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel: I formally move:\n<\/p>\n
“No person attending any school maintained or receiving aid out of public
\nfunds shall be compelled to take parts in the religious instruction that may
\nbe given in the school or to attend religious worship held in the school or in
\npremises attached thereto.”\n<\/p>\n
Mr. President: On the vote of the House this clause is referred back to the
\nAdvisory Committee.\n<\/p>\n
CLAUSE 17<\/p>\n
The Hon’ble Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel: Sir, I move Clause 17.\n<\/p>\n
“Conversion from one religion to another brought about by coercion or
\nundue influence shall not be recognised by law.”\n<\/p>\n
Mr. K. M. Munshi: Sir, I beg to move the following amendment,<\/p>\n
‘That for clause 17 substitute the following clause:\n<\/p>\n
‘Any conversion from one religion to another of any person brought about by
\nfraud, coercion or undue influence or of a minor under the age of 18 shall not
\nbe recognised by law.”\n<\/p>\n
The additions that are made to the clause as it is originally moved are there.
\nFirst of all, the word<\/p>\n
‘fraud’ is added to the words, ‘coercion.’and undue influence’. The second
\nmatter is with regard to the conversion words “the general” of a
\nminor. As a matter of fact, it was proposed by one of the other Committees in
\nsome form or other-, and it is the general feeling that this clause should be
\nrestored in this form,–any conversion of a minor under the age of 18 shall
\nnot be recognised by law. The only effect of nonrecognition by law would mean
\nthat even though a person is converted by fraud or coercion or undue influence
\nor be converted during his minority he will still in law be deemed to continue
\nto belong to the old religion and his legal rights will remain unaffected by
\nreason of his conversion. The idea behind this proposal is that very often, if
\nthere are conversions by fraud or undue influence or during minority, certain
\nchanges in the legal status take place, certain rights are lost. This will
\nhave only this effect that the rights will remain exactly the same as at the
\nmoment a person was converted by fraud or coercion or undue influence and in
\nthe case of a minor at the moment of conversion.\n<\/p>\n
If Hon’ble Members desire I will read the whole clause. The whole clause is
\nput in this form.\n<\/p>\n
“Any conversion from one religion to another of any person brought about
\nby fraud, coercion or undue influence or of a minor under the age of 18 shall
\nnot be recognised by law.”\n<\/p>\n
Srijut Rohini Kumar Chaudhury (Assam: General): May I ask you to explain as to
\nwhat is meant by the words “undue influence”? Is it used in the
\nsense laid down in the Contract Act or in the general sense ?\n<\/p>\n
Mr. K. M. Munshi: It is difficult for me to say, but I am sure
\n“fraud” is fraud all the world over and in all systems of
\njurisprudence. There is no difference between the two words coercion and undue
\ninfluence ax understood in India and in other countries. There may be little
\nshades of difference but the free India will form its definitions and it may
\nnot be different from the Oxford dictionary meaning so far as I can see.\n<\/p>\n
Shri Phool Singh (United Provinces: General): In view of the amendment moved
\nby Mr. Munshi, my amendment will not fit in. But I suggest. Sir, that
\nconversion by coercion should be made an offence. I would suggest he might
\nmove an amendment to this effect.\n<\/p>\n
The Hon’ble Mr. Jagjivan Ram: I am not moving my amendment (No. 72 of the
\nSupplementary List II).\n<\/p>\n
Mr. President: Amendment No. 73 of the Supplementary List II<\/p>\n
Mr. B. K. Sidhwa: This is a new clause.It may be taken up later.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. F. B. Anthony (Bengal: General): Mr. President, my amendment, is with
\nspecific reference to Mr. Munshi’s amendment, “or of a minor under the
\nage of 18″. To this part of the clause I want to add these words: ”
\nexcept when the parents or surviving parents have been converted and the child
\ndoes not choose to adhere to its original faith”. This was more or less
\nthe form in which the particular clause was accepted by the Minorities
\nSub-Committee. We discussed it at length and it was felt that in the form,, I
\nhave sought to re-introduce, it would best serve the interests that we were
\nconsidering there.\n<\/p>\n
I agree that conversion under undue influence, conversion by coercion or
\nconversion by fraud should not be recognised by law. I am only interested in
\nthis question, Sir, on principle. My community does not propagate. We do not
\nconvert, nor are we converted But I do appreciate how deeply, how passionately
\nmillions of Christians feel on this right to propagate their religion. I want
\nto congratulate the major party for having, in spite of its contentious
\ncharacter, retained the,words “right to practise and propagate their
\nreligion”. Having done that, I say that after giving with one hand this
\nprincipal fundamental right a right which is regarded as perhaps the most
\nfundamental of Christian rights, do not take it away by this proviso, “or
\nof a minor under the age of 18”. 1 say that if you have this particular
\nprovision, or if you place an absolute embargo on the conversion of a minor,<\/p>\n
you will place an embargo absolutely on the right of conversion. You will
\nvirtually take away the right ‘Lo convert. Because, what will happen ? Not a
\nsingle adult who is a parent, however deeply he may feel, however deeply he
\nmay be convinced, will ever adopt Christianity, because, by this clause you
\nwill be cutting off that parent from his children. By this clause You will
\nsay, although the parents may be converted to Christianity, the children shall
\nnot be brought up by these parents in the faith of the parents. You win be
\ncutting at the root of family life. I say it is contrary to the ordinary
\nconcepts of natural law and justice. You may have your prejudices against
\nconversion; you may have your prejudices against propagation. But once having
\nallowed it, I plead with you not to cut at the root of family life. ‘This is a
\nright which is conceded in every part of the world, the right of parents to
\nbring up their children in the faith that the parents want them to pursue. You
\nhave your safeguards. You have provided that conversion by undue influence,
\nconversion by fraud, conversion by. coercion shall not be recognised by law. I
\nhave gone further, and unlike the position in other parts of the world, I have
\neven given discretion to the child provided it has attained the age of
\ndiscretion, to adhere to its original faith. The wording is “and the
\nchild does not choose to adhere to its original faith”. If both the
\nparents are converted and if they want their children to be brought up as
\nChristians, if these children have reached the age of discretion and say that
\nin spite of the conversion of their parents, they do not want to be brought up
\nas Christians, under the restriction which I have introduced, they will not be
\nbrought up in the Christian faith.\n<\/p>\n
I have also added the word “surviving parent”. for this reason, I
\nsay that if you restrict it to both the parents,-What will happen? If a widow,
\nlet us assume, adopts Christianity, do you mean to say that if she wants to
\nbring up her children in the Christian faith, and if those children themselves
\nwant to be brought up in the Christian faith, you are placing an embargo on
\nthis? If you do not use the word “surviving parents”, if the father
\nwho happens to be a widower adopts the Christian faith, and the children wish
\nto be brought up as Christians, it may be said that since both the parents are
\nnot alive, the father cannot bring up the children in his faith. He will
\nautomatically be cut off from his children.\n<\/p>\n
I realise how deeply certain sections of this House feel on this question of
\nconversion. But I do ask you, having once conceded the right to propagate, to
\nconcede this in consonance with the principles of family law and in consonance
\nwith the principles of natural law and Justice.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. P. R. Thakur: Sir, I am a member of the Depressed Clauses. This clause of
\nthe Fundamental Rights is very important from the standpoint of my community.
\nYou know well, Sir, that the victims of these religious conversions are
\nordinarily from the Depressed Classes. The preachers of other religions
\napproach these classes of people, take advantage of their ignorance, extend
\nall sorts of temptations and ultimately convert them. I want to know from Mr.
\nMunshi whether “fraud” covers- all these things. If it does not
\ncover, I should ask Mr. Munshi to re-draft this clause so that fraud of this
\nnature might not be practised on these depressed classes. I should certainly
\ncall these “fraud”.\n<\/p>\n
The Hon’ble Rev. J. J. M. Nichols-Roy (Assam: General): Mr. President, Sir, it
\nappears to me that the clause as it came out of the Advisory Committee is
\nsufficient and should not be amended at all. The amendment seeks to prevent a
\nminor, who is of twelve years of age, or thirteen years of age, up to eighteen
\nyears of age from exercising his own conscience. The age limit may be quite
\nright in law. But to think that a youth under the age of eighteen does not
\nhave a conscience before God and, therefore, he cannot express his belief is
\nwrong. That side of the question<\/p>\n
must be appropriately considered. There is a spiritual side in conversion
\nwhich ought to be taken notice of by this House. Conversion does not mean only
\nthat a man changes his form of religion from one religion to another I or
\nadopts a different name of religion, such as, a Hindu becomes a Christian. But
\nthere is the spiritual aspects of conversion, that is, the connection of the
\nsoul of man with God, which must not be overlooked by this House. I know there
\nare those who change their religion being influenced by material
\nconsiderations, but there are others who are converted being under the
\ninfluence of spiritual power. When a boy feels that he is called by God to
\nadopt a different faith, no law should prevent him from doing that. The
\nconsciences of those youths who want to change their religion and adopt
\nanother religion from a spiritual standpoint should not be prevented from
\nallowing these youths to exercise their right to change their legal status and
\nchange their religion. We know, Sir, in the history of Christianity, there
\nhave been youths, and I know personally, there have been many youths, who,
\nhave been converted to Christianity, who are ready to die for their conviction
\nand who are ready to lose everything. I myself was converted when I was about
\nfifteen years old when I heard the voice of God calling me. I was ready to
\nlose anything on ‘earth. I was ready to suffer death even. I did not care for
\nanything save to obey and follow the voice of God in my soul. Why should a
\nyouth who has such a call of God be prevented by law from changing his
\nreligion and calling himself by another name when he feels before God that he
\nis influenced by the Spirit of God to do that end is ready even to sacrifice
\nhis life for that. This part of the amendment about minors is absolutely wrong
\nwhen we consider it from the spiritual standpoint, From the standpoint of
\nconscience I consider that it is altogether wrong not to allow a youth from
\nthe age of twelve to eighteen to exercise his own conscience before God. It
\nwill oppress the consciences of the youths who want to exercise their
\nreligious faiths before God. Therefore, I am against this amendment as it is.
\nThe clause should be left as it was before. The legal and other aspects have
\nbeen discussed by Mr. Anthony regarding the conversion of the children of the
\nconverted parents. Certain minors should be allowed to follow their own
\nconviction if they have any, and should not be forced to do anything against
\ntheir own conviction. Why should the law not allow them if they themselves do
\nnot care for their former legal status? Why should they one Prevented from
\nchanging their religion ? Why should their consciences be oppressed? That is a
\nvery important point, Sir, to be considered by this House. This freedom I
\nconsider to be a Fundamental Right of the ,Youths. No law should be made which
\nwill work against good spiritual forces. India, especially, is a country of
\nreligions, a country where there is religious freedom. If this amendment is
\ncarried in this House, it will only mean that in making a law to prevent the
\nevil forces our minds lose sight of the real religious freedom which the
\nyouths of this land ought to have. Therefore, I am against this very principle
\nof forcing the youths by not allowing them to exercise their religious
\nconviction according to their consciences. I would suggest, Sir, that if in
\nthe amendment moved by Mr. Anthony the words ‘or save when the minor himself
\nwants to change his religion’ are included, then I do not object to this
\namendment. I am against any conversion by undue influence or by fraud or
\ncoercion. When we make a law against all these evils we should be careful to
\nsee that that law does not oppress the consciences of the youths who also need
\nfreedom.\n<\/p>\n
The Hon’ble Shri Purushottamdas Tandon (United Provinces: General) : [Mr.
\nPresident, I am greatly surprised at the speeches delivered here by our
\nChristian brethren. Some of them have said that in this Assembly we have
\nadmitted the right of every one to propagate his<\/p>\n
religion and to convert from one religion to another. We Congressmen deem it
\nvery improper to convert from one to another religion or to take part in such
\nactivities and we are not in favour of this. In our opinion it is absolutely
\nfutile to be keen on converting others to one’s faith. But it is only at the
\nrequest of some persons, whom we want to keep with us in our national
\nendeavour that we accepted this. Now it is said that they have a right to
\nconvert young children to their faith. What is this ? Really this surprises me
\nvery much. You can convert a child below eighteen by convincing and persuading
\nhim but he is a child of immature sense and legally and morally speaking this
\nconversion can never be considered valid. if a boy of eighteen executes a
\ntransfer deed in favour of a man for his hut worth only Rs. 100, the
\ntransaction is considered unlawful. But our brethren come forward and say that
\nthe boy has enough sense to change his religion. That the value of religion is
\neven less than that of a hut worth one hundred rupees. It is proper that a boy
\nshould be allowed to formally change his religion only when he attains
\nmaturity-\n<\/p>\n
One of my brethren has said that we are taking away with the left hand what we
\ngave the Christians with our right hand. Had we not given them the right to
\nconvert the young ones. along with the conversion of their parents they would
\nhave been justified in their statement. What we gave them with our right hand.
\nis that they have a right to convert others by an appeal to reason and after
\nhonestly changing their views and outlook. The three words, ‘coercion’,
\n‘fraud’ and ‘undue influence’ are included as provisos and are meant to cover
\nthe cases of adult converts. These words are not applicable to converts of
\nimmature age. Their conversion is coercion and undue influence under all
\ncircumstances. How can the young ones change their religion ? They have not
\nthe sense to understand the teachings of your scriptures. If they change their
\nreligion it is only under some influence and this influence is not fair. If a
\nChristian keeps a young Hindu boy with him and treats him kindly the boy may
\nlike to live with him. We are not preventing this. But the boy can change his
\nreligion, legally only on attaining maturity. If parents are converted why
\nshould it be necessary that their children should also change their religion ?
\nIf they are under the influence of their parents they can change their
\nreligion on maturity. This is my submission.\n<\/p>\n
With your permission, Mr. President, I would like to address a few words in
\nEnglish that such of my friends who do not know Hindi may follow me.]<\/p>\n
————————————————————\n<\/p>\n
English translation of Hindustani speech begins.\n<\/p>\n
]English translation of Hindustani speech ends.]<\/p>\n
Sir, I am astonished at the manner in which some Christian friends have
\nadvanced the claim to convert minors. We have agreed to the right of
\nconversion. Generally, we, Congressmen do not think it at all right I say so
\nfrankly-that people should strenuously go about trying to convert peoples of
\nother faith into their own, but we want to carry our Christian friends with
\nus–friends who feel that they should have the right to make conversions-and
\nwe have agreed on their insistence to retain this formula about
\n“propagation”. They know that we are opposed to it, yet we have
\nagreed.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. C. E. Gibbon (C.P. & Berar: General): It is quite wrong.\n<\/p>\n
The Hon’ble Shri Purushottamdas Tandon: I am speaking, Sir, as a Congressman.
\nI say that the majority of Congressmen do not like this process of making
\nconverts (interruption), but in order to carry our Christian friends with
\nus….\n<\/p>\n
Mr. C. E._ Gibbon: On a point of order, Sir.\n<\/p>\n
The Hon’ble Shri Purushottamdas, Tandon: There can be no point of Order. There
\nmay be a point of opinion.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. C. E. Gibbon: I do not think, Sir, that the Speaker is competent to speak
\nfor all Congressmen.\n<\/p>\n
Some Hon’ble Members: Why not?\n<\/p>\n
Mr. President: That is<\/p>\n
no point of order.\n<\/p>\n
Shri Balkrishna Sharma (United Provinces: General): The Speaker has every
\nright to speak on behalf of most of the Congressmen. He is most certainly
\nentitled to do so.\n<\/p>\n
The Hon’ble Shri Purushottamdas Tandon: I know Congressmen more than my friend
\nover there. I know their feelings more intimately than probably he has ever
\nhad an opportunity of doing, and I know that most Congressmen are opposed to
\nthis idea of “propagation”. But We agreed to keep the word
\n“propagate” out of regard for our Christian friends. But now to ask
\nus to agree to minors also being converted is, I thing, Sir, going too far. It
\nis possible that parents having a number of children are converted into some
\nother faith but why should it be necessary that all these children who do not
\nunderstand religion should be treated as converts? I submit it is not at all
\nnecessary. The law of guardianship will see about it. Guardians can be
\nappointed to look after these children, and when they grow up, if they feel
\nthat Christianity is a form of religion which appeals to their minds they will
\nbe at liberty to embrace it. That much to my Christian friends.\n<\/p>\n
I understand, Sir, that it is possible that difficulties may be raised by some
\nlawyers. What is the legal difficulty about this matter ? The ordinary law of
\nguardianship will see about this. When we say that minors cannot be converted,
\nthat implies that when parents go to another faith and they have a number of
\nchildren to look after, the law of the country will take care of those
\nchildren. You can always enact a law of guardianship and you can, if
\nnecessary, add to the laws which at present exist on the subject so that in
\nsuch cases the minors should be taken care of. I do not, Sir, therefore, see
\nthat there is any legal difficulty in the way of the amendment which Mr.
\nMunshi has proposed being accepted. I heartily support Mr. Munshi’s amendment.\n<\/p>\n
(Mr. Dhirendra Nath Datta rose to speak).\n<\/p>\n
Sri Ramnath Goenka (Madras: General): Mr. President, I rise on a point of
\norder.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. President: But Mr. Datta has risen before you on a point of Order.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. P. N. Datta: Mr. President, I would not have risen but for the speech of
\nthe previous speaker……\n<\/p>\n
Mr. President: I thought you were raising a point of order.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. D. N. Datta: No, Sir. I do not raise a point of order.\n<\/p>\n
Mr, President: Then, please wait. Yes, Mr. Goenka.\n<\/p>\n
Sri Ramnath Goenka: My point of order is, Sir, that under clause 13 which we
\nhave passed, all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience.
\n“All persons” must necessarily include at least those persons who
\nhave attained the age of discretion. It is not necessary that they must attain
\nthe age of 18 before developing conscience, it may be at the age of twelve,
\nfifteen, sixteen or seventeen. If we pass clause 17 and prescribe the age of
\n18, then it will be inconsistent with clause 13. We have said in clause 13
\n“all persons”. They must, I think, attain freedom of conscience any
\ntime before 18. So if we pass this clause 17 and prescribe the age of 18, it
\nwill be inconsistent with clause 13 which we have just now passed.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. President: But what is the point of order ? (Laughter)<\/p>\n
Sri Ramnath Goenka: It is that it will be inconsistent with clause 13 which we
\nhave passed.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. President: That is on the merits of the thing. You do not say that the
\nHouse cannot take it up because it is inconsistent.\n<\/p>\n
Sri Ramnath Goenka: I say the amendment is out of order.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. President: Which amendment?\n<\/p>\n
Sri Ramnath Goenka: The amendment moved by Mr. Munshi. It is out of order if
\nyou agree with me that the age of discretion will be any time before eighteen
\nyears. Sir, my point of order is that the amendment of Mr. Munshi will be out
\nof order.\n<\/p>\n
Shri Mahavir Tyagi (United Provinces: General): But Mr. Munshi is above that
\nage.\n<\/p>\n
Sri Ramnath Goenka: It is not a question of Mr. Munshi being over eighteen.
\n(Laughter).\n<\/p>\n
Mr. President: I take it<\/p>\n
that the point of order raised by Mr. Goenka is that we have already taken a
\ndecision with regard to clause 13 and, therefore, the House is not entitled to
\ntake-up this amendment moved by Mr. Munshi. But I believe the House is always
\nfree to revise its own decision<\/p>\n
Sri Ramnath Goenka. Certain, Sir. But as long as clause 13 stands as it is,
\nthis amendment will be out of order.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. K. M. Munshi: May I reply to this, Sir?\n<\/p>\n
Mr. President: Yes.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. K. M. Munshi: Sir, my friend, Mr. Goenka, I think should not have ventured
\nin the region of construction. If you look at clause 13, you will see that. is
\nsays-\n<\/p>\n
“All persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience. and the right
\nfreely to profess-practise and propagate religion subject to public order,
\nmorality or health and to the other provisions of tiffs Part.”\n<\/p>\n
This provision is generally subject to the other provisions of this Part and
\nif the House passes this clause, that freedom will be subject to this
\nparticular clause, The matter is as plain as a pikestaff.\n<\/p>\n
Sri Ananthasayanam Ayyangar. Sir, I want to pose this point of order raised by
\nMr. Goenka in a different way. The mover of this point of order said he has no
\nobjection to persons who are of the age of discretion being converted. But the
\nage of discretion has not been defined anywhere. It is open to this Assembly
\nto say that the age of discretion is eighteen. Therefore, there is really no
\npoint of order, or there is no point in this point of order.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. President: I think this amendment is in order. Now we can discuss the
\nmotion as well as the amendment.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. D. N. Datta: Mr. President, Sir, I feel that the whole of this clause 17
\nshould go into the Fundamental Rights Committee and I would be glad if the
\nwhole clause could be deleted. I know the reasons for enumerating this under
\nFundamental Rights, because we are now working under the present setting. But
\nas it is going to be enumerated in the fundamental rights. it has to be peen,
\nSir, whether the amendment of Mr. Munshi is to be accepted or the amendment of
\nMr. Anthony should be accented. Mr. Anthony wants that the option of the
\nminors to join the religion they like on attaining majority, should be
\nretained, just as the choice is given to Mohammadan children given in marriage
\nduring minority to repudiate the marriage on attaining majority,-What we call
\nthe option of puberty. A similar right he intends to be given to the children
\nof the parents who have been converted. On attaining majority the child shall
\nhave the right of declaring whether he adheres to his original faith or
\nwhether he will join the faith of his parents who were converted. I for
\nmyself, do not see any reason, why that right should not be given to the child
\non attaining majority. On attaining,-he may declare, if he was a Hindu, that
\nhe will adhere to Hinduism or if his parents have taken to Christianity,
\nwhether he will become a Christian. I think this right should not be taken
\naway. It should be given and how it is to be given, it is for the Drafting
\nCommittee to determine. For that, Sir,’I suggest that the whole clause should
\ngo to the drafting Committee, or, better still, that it should go to the
\nFundamental Righs Committee to determine whether this clause should remain or
\nhow it should remain.\n<\/p>\n
And before I go, I must say that the remark of Mr. Tandon that the majority of
\nthe Congress members are not in favour of introducing the word ‘propagate’ in
\nclause 13 is not correct. This matter was discussed yesterday and the majority
\nwere in favour of keeping the word ‘propagate’. Therefore, the contention of
\nMr. Tandon is not correct<\/p>\n
Sri Lakshminarayan Sahu. (Orissa: General): Mr. President; Sir, I welcome this
\nclause in the Fundamental Rights, but I have a little doubt to start with, as
\nto what should be called a minority. I think that doubt may be cleared
\nafterwards. As the conditions are today, I would like to point out to the
\nHouse how in the Midnapore District, half of which is Oriya speaking,<\/p>\n
the language has been killed there from 1891 to 1931. I will give the census
\nfigures for that. In 1891, the number of Oriyas in the District of Midnapore
\nwas 6 lakhs. Ten years after, in 1901 it was less than 3 lakhs. From 6 lakhs
\nit went down to about 3 lakhs. And in 1911<\/p>\n
Mr. President: Mr. Sahu we are not on the question of language now, we are
\ndealing with clause 17, about religion, and not clause 18.\n<\/p>\n
Sri Lakshminarayan Sahu: I am sorry.\n<\/p>\n
Rev. Jerome D’Souza (Madras: General): Mr. President; I regret, Sir,. that
\nthis discussion should have taken a turn which makes it look as if it is
\nalmost exclusively a minority problem, and as a result of that, a degree of
\nheat has been imported into it which most of us regret very much indeed. Sir,
\nwhen this matter was discussed at the committee stage, quite independently
\nfrom the question of minorities, legal difficulties with which this question
\nbristles were brought home to us by men of the highest authority like Sir
\nAlladi. As far as the minority rights, are concerned, I can only say this,
\nthat the way in which clause 13 has been handled by this House is so
\nreassuring and so encouraging to the minorities that we have no reason at all
\nto quarrel or to ask for stronger assurances. That attitude must provoke on
\nthe part of the minorities an equally trustful attitude which I hope will
\ninspire future relations and future discussions. I appreciate Mr. Anthony’s
\nstand that this is a question of a wider nature of principle and family
\nauthority. I assure you I am speaking from that point of view. This question
\nof conversion of minors may affect not only majorities in relation to
\nminorities but the minorities among themselves,–one Christian group in
\nrelation to another Christian group, as Catholics and Protestants, and so on.
\nBut among all sections, in regard to the authority of a man over his family, I
\nthink certain rights should be assured and must be part of fundamental rights.
\nWe have nothing in these fundamental rights that safeguards or encourages or
\nstrengthens the family in an explicit way, and indeed I do not think this is
\nnecessary at this stage, because that is not a justiciable right. There are
\ncertain constitutions where the wish of the State to protect and encourage the
\nfamily is explicitly declared. I hope in the second part, among these
\nfundamental rights which are not justiciable, some such declaration or
\napprobation of the institution and rights and privileges associated with
\nfamily We will be introduced. It may perhaps be thought that in our country
\nsuch a declaration is not necessary because among us the strongest family
\nfeeling is universal; we have not merely individual or unitary families but we
\nhave also joint families.- I believe the discussion on this point has been
\npartly influenced by that background of the joint family system. I am sure
\nthat Tandonji, if I may be permitted to refer to him by name, when he was
\nspeaking of the minor child of converted parents, was thinking really in terms
\nof the joint family where there are people ready to take over and bring up
\nsuch children. But we are legislating for all sections of our people, for
\nthose also who are not in joint families but in unitary families. We are
\nlegislating for them, and, therefore, some provisions must be made which, in
\nthe last analysis, will safeguard the authority of the parent, both parents or
\nthe surviving parent, in particular, as Mr. Anthony has said in regard to
\nbabies in the arms of their mothers. To take them away from the mother or
\nfather who are one with them, practically identified physically and
\njuridically with them , is to introduce into our legislation an element which
\ncertainly weakens the concept of the authority and sanctity of the family. On
\nthis ground, as well as on the legal implications to which attention has been
\ndrawn. I mean difficulties in connection with the death, the marriage, the
\nsuccession rights, of these minors, I oppose Mr. Munshi’s amendment as it,
\nstands. Take the question of marriage. Marriage is permitted before<\/p>\n
18 years. Now Mr. Munshi has carefully explained that his amendment. does not
\nprevent the minor children from going with the parents. But it they are to bee
\nmarried, under what law, by the ceremonies of which religion will they be
\nmarried ? If they follow their conscience and the religion they have adopted,
\nwhether they be Hindus, Muslims, or Christians, the question of the validity
\nof that marriage will come in. All this is bristling with legal and juridical
\ndifficulties, quite apart from those other considerations into which, as I
\nsaid, I regret we have entered with undue warmth. While I want to support Mr.
\nAnthony’s motion, I am more inclined to support the suggestion of the speaker
\nwho immediately preceded me, and ask the House to refer the entire clause back
\nto the Advisory Committee so that the wording of it may be most carefully
\nweighed. It can be brought back to this House just as we have decided, to
\nbring back three or four other controversial matters. That is my suggestion
\nand I would request……\n<\/p>\n
The Hon’ble Mr. B. G. Kher (Bombay: General): You may refer it to the other
\nCommittee which the President has appointed.\n<\/p>\n
Rev Jerome D’Souza: I accept it. I want it to be discussed in a very much
\ncalmer manner. I suggest that it may go back to the Committee which the
\nPresident has already appointed.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. R. K. Sidhwa: I do not want it to be sent back to the Committee.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. President: I have got a list of a number of names of members who wish to
\nspeak on this amendment. I take it that my eye catches members in the order in
\nwhich I have received the requests. So, I call upon Shri Algu Rai Shastri.\n<\/p>\n
Shri Algu Rai Shastri (U.P.: General):[Mr. President I stand here to support
\nthe amendment moved by Mr. Munshi. I believe that by accepting the amendment
\nwe shall be doing justice to those minors who have perforce to enter the fold
\nof the religion which their parents embrace out of their greed. This practice
\nis like the one prevailing in the transactions of transfer of land and which
\nis that ‘trees go with the land’. It is on some such basis that the minor
\nchildren who do not understand what change of religion or coercion or
\nreligious practices mean, have to leave their old faith along with their
\nparents. This evil practice has a very bad effect, on the strength of our
\npopulation. It is proper for US that we, who are framing the charts of
\nFundamental Rights, should safeguard their interests and save them from such
\nautomatic conversion. The dynamic conditions of our society make it more
\nimportant than ever that we should incorporate such a provision in our.
\nConstitution as will prevent such practices. Such minors on attaining majority
\noften regret that they were made to change their religion, improperly. Where
\never the Europeons or the white races of Europe, who rule practically over the
\nwhole world, have gone, they have, as Missionaries. A study of the ‘Prosperous
\nIndia’ by Dig by shows that ‘cross was followed by the sword’. The missionary
\nwas followed by the batons, the swords and the guns, It was in this way that
\nthey employed coercion for spreading their religions and for extending their
\nEmpire. At the same time, they put economic and political ‘pressure on the
\nindigenous tribes. and consolidated the foundations of their dominion. We want
\nsuch an amendment in this clause of Fundamental Rights that a person who wants
\nto change his religion should be able to do so only after he is convinced
\nthrough cool deliberation that the new religion is more satisfactory to him
\nthan the old one. For example it is only when I am convinced that Sikkism is
\npreferable to Hinduism, that I should be able to change my religion<\/p>\n
————————————————————-\n<\/p>\n
[English translation of Hindustani speech begins.\n<\/p>\n
This right I believe we have. But no one should change religion out of greed
\nand temptation. When the followers of one religion employ, sword and guns to
\nattack a family consisting of a few members, the latter have no option but to<\/p>\n
accept the religion of the aggressors in order to save their lives. Such a
\nconversion should be considered void and ineffective because it has been
\nbrought about through coercion and undue influence. In view of such conditions
\nwhich exist today, conversion brought about through temptation and allurement
\nis, in fact, not a conversion in the real sense of the term. I have a personal
\nexperience extending over a period of 24 years as to how the elders of the
\nfamily are induced through prospects of financial gain to change their
\nreligion and also with them the children are taken over to the fold of the new
\nreligion. It appears as if some are taking the land physically in his
\npossession and the helpless trees go with it to the new master.\n<\/p>\n
One particular part of the country has been declared as an “Excluded
\nArea” so that a particular sect alone may carry on its propaganda
\ntherein. Another area has been reserved for the “Criminal tribes”.
\nSimilarly, other areas have also been reserved wherein missionaries alone can
\ncarry on their activities. In Chattisgarh and other similar forest areas there
\nare tribes which follow primitive faiths. There the Hindu missionaries cannot
\ncarry on their activities. These are called “Excluded and partially
\nExcluded Areas”, and no religious propaganda can be carried on in these
\nareas except by the missionaries. This was the baneful policy of the
\nGovernment. We should now be delivered from this policy of religious
\ndiscrimination In his book “Census of India-1930” Dewton writes that
\nthe Christian population of Assam has increased 300 times and attributes this
\nincrease to certain evils in Hindu Society. It is these evils which gave other
\nmissionaries opportunities to make conversions. In his book “Census of
\nIndia-1911” Mr. S. Kamath has said that the missionaries of one
\nparticular religion are reducing the numbers of another by exploiting the
\nevils of that group. They convert some influential persons by inducement and
\npersuasion. The bitterness of the present is due to such activities. I am
\nconversant with what Christian missions have done for the backward classes and
\nI have also seen their work among such classes of people. I bow. to them with
\nrespect for the way in which they (missionaries),. have done their work. How
\ngracious it would have been had they done it only for social service I found
\nthat the dispute, if and when it occurs, between members of such castes as the
\nsweepers or the chamars on the one side and the land-lords or some other
\ninfluential persons on the other have been exploited to create bitterness
\nbetween them. No effort has been made to. effect a compromise. This crooked
\npolicy has been adopted to bring about the conversion of the former.
\nSimilarly, people of other faiths have intensified and exploited our
\ndifferences in order to increase their own numbers. The consequence is that
\nthe grown-up people in such castes as Bhangies and chamars are converted, and
\nwith them their children also go into the fold of the new religion. They
\nshould be affectionately asked to live as brothers. This is what has been
\ntaught by prophets, angels and leaders. But this is not being practised,
\ntoday. We are in search of opportunities to indulge in underhand dealings. We
\ngo to people and tell them “you are in darkness; this is not the way for
\nyour salvation”. Thus every body can realise how all possible unfair
\nmeans have been adopted to trample the majority community under feet. It is in
\nthis way that the Foreign bureaucracy has been working here, and has been
\ncreating vested interests in order to maintain its political strangle-hold
\nover the people. If we cannot remove this foundation whom are we going to give
\nthe Fundamental Rights ? To these minors who are in the lap of their parents ?
\nIf we permit minors to be transferred like trees on land with the newly
\nembraced religion of their parents, we would be doing an injustice. Many
\nfallacious arguments are offered to permit this. We must not be misled by
\nthese. We know that our failure to stop conversion under coercion<\/p>\n
would result in grave injustice. I have a right to change my religion. I
\nbelieve in God. If I realise tomorrow that God is a farce and an aberration of
\nhuman mind then I can become an atheist. If I think that the Hindu faith is
\nfalse, 1, with my gray hair, my fallen teeth and ripe age, and my mature
\ndiscretion can change my religion. But if my minor child repeats what I say,
\nare you going to allow him also a right to change his religion (at that age)?
\nRevered Purushottam Das Tandon has said in a very appealing manner that if a
\nchild transfers his immovable property worth Rs. 100 the transaction is void.
\nHow unjust it is that if a minor changes his religion when his parents do so,
\nhis act is not void? It has an adverse effect on innocent children. This
\nattempt to increase population has increased religious bitterness. The
\ncommunal proportion has been changed so that the British bureaucracy may
\nretain its hold by a variation in the numbers of the different communities. I
\nam saying all these things deliberately but I am not attacking any one
\ncommunity in particular. The sole interest of the government in the illusory
\nweb of the census lies in seeing a balance in the population of the
\ncommunities so that these may continue to quarrel among themselves and thereby
\nstrengthen its own rule. This amendment of Mr. Munshi is directed against such
\nmotives. Nothing can be better than that, and, therefore, I support it.\n<\/p>\n
In my opinion this majority community should not oppress the minority. We
\nrespect and honour all and we give an opportunity to every body to propagate
\nhis religion. Those who agree with you may be converted. But convert only
\nthose who can be legitimately converted. Improper conversions would not be
\nright. You tempt the innocent little ones whom you take in your lap, by a suit
\nof clothes, a piece of bread and a little toy and thus you ruin their lives.
\nLater, they repent that they did not get an opportunity to have a religion of
\ntheir choice. 1, myself, am prepared to change my religion. But some one
\nshould argue with me and change my views and then convert me. Surely, I’
\nshould have no right to change the religion of my children with me–specially
\nchildren below a certain age. Those children are considered to be minors who
\nare under teens, i.e., below eighteen.]<\/p>\n
Mr. H. V. Kamath: [Under teens includes nineteen.]<\/p>\n
Shri Algu Rai Shastri: (However if it is nineteen, it is all the better. Even
\nif it is not possible they should extend minority by a year of grace. The age
\nlimit fixed for minors and majors should be adopted in religious matter as
\nwell. They say that there would be no incentive for conversion if people have
\nto forego their children. I hear that in Japan the father has one religion and
\nthe child another. What does religion mean ? Does the mother feed her baby so
\nthat the child’s religion might change? If the mother’s love is true she will
\nsurely feed her baby. Does the mother’s milk change the religion? We do not
\nwish to snatch away. the child from the mother’s lap, but we wish to give to
\nthe baby a right to record his (natal) religion in the report of the Census
\nand any other<\/p>\n
————————————————————\n<\/p>\n
[ English translation of Hindustani speech ends.\n<\/p>\n
[] English translation of Hindustani speech.\n<\/p>\n
[ English translation of Hindustani speech begin.\n<\/p>\n
government records, till he attains majority and declares his (new) religion.
\nWe give him things right in this amendment. Parents need the company of their
\nchildren. If they have changed their religion discreetly, let them educate
\ntheir children. But the change in the religion of the children may be
\nconsidered (only) on their declaration at reaching majority. This is the
\npurpose of this amendment and I support it, and I strongly oppose the view
\nthat this right should not be given to children.)<\/p>\n
Mr. Jagat Narain Lal (Bihar: General): [Mr. President, I was expecting that
\nafter the acceptance of clause 13, no representative of any minority in this
\nHouse<\/p>\n
will have any ground for any objection. Clause 13 lays down that-\n<\/p>\n
“All persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscious, and the right
\nfreely to profess, practice and propagate religion subject to public order,
\nmorality or health or to the other provisions of this Chapter.”\n<\/p>\n
This goes to the “farthest limit”. If you look to any of the best of
\nmodem world” Constitutions, you will find that nowhere has this right to
\npropagate been conceded. If you look at Article 50 of the Swiss Confederation,
\nit lays down that “the free exercise of religion is guaranteed within
\nlimits compatible with public order and morality.” It ends there. If you,
\nlook at Article 44 sub-clause (2) 1 of the Irish Free State, you will find
\nthere-\n<\/p>\n
“Freedom of conscience and the free profession and practice of religion
\nare subject to public order and morality, guaranteed to every citizen.”\n<\/p>\n
If you refer to Article 124 of the Constitution of the Union of the Soviet
\nSocialist Republics you will find-\n<\/p>\n
“In order to ensure to citizens freedom of conscience, the Church in the
\nU.S.S.R. is separated from the State and the school from the Church. Freedom
\nof religious worship and freedom of anti-religious propaganda is recognised
\nfor all citizens.”\n<\/p>\n
If I place before you all the clauses pertaining to “Freedom of
\nprofessing religion,” it will tax your patience. I do not want to waste
\nmore of your time in this connection. My submission is that this House has
\ngone to the farthest limit possible with regard to the minorities, knowing
\nwell the fact that there are a few minorities in this country whose right to
\ncarry, on propaganda extends to the point of creating various difficulties. I
\ndo not want to go into its details. The previous speaker had referred to
\ncertain things in this connection. I submit that that should be sufficient.
\nHon’ble Tandonji by his observation that on reading the mind of most of the
\nCongress members of this House he did not want to keep “right to do
\npropaganda” (on the statute), has rightly interpreted the mind of most of
\nus. The fact is that we desire to make the minorities feel that the rights
\nwhich they had been enjoying till now shall be allowed to continue within
\nreasonable limits by the majority. We have no desire to curtail them in any
\nway. But we do not concede the right to do propaganda. I want to appeal to
\nthose who profess to speak for the minorities not to press for too much. They
\nmust be satisfied with this much. It will be too much to press for more. That
\nwould be taking undue advantage of the generosity of the majority. That will
\nbe very regrettable. It is difficult, rather impossible, for us to go to that
\nlimit. I think that the amendment tabled by Mr. Munshi becomes essential if
\nthe right to propagate is conceded. The House should, therefore, accept it.
\nVarious arguments have been advanced in the House, and so ]English translation
\nof Hindustani speech ends.]<\/p>\n
————————————————————\n<\/p>\n
[English translation of Hindustani speech begins.]<\/p>\n
[English translation of Hindustani speech begins.\n<\/p>\n
I do not want to comment upon them again. With these words I support Mr.
\nMunshi],<\/p>\n
Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Mr. President, Sir, I am sorry to say that I do not find
\nmyself in agreement with the amendment which had been moved by Mr. Munshi
\nrelating to the question of the conversion of minor children. The clause, as
\nit stands, probably gives the impression to the House that this question
\nrelating to the conversion of minors was not considered by the Fundamental
\nRights Committee or by the Minorities Sub-Committee or by the Advisory
\nCommittee. I should like to assure the House that a good deal of consideration
\nwas bestowed on this question and every aspect was examined. It was, after
\nexamining the whole question in all its aspects, and seeing the difficulties,
\nwhich came up, that the Advisory Committee came to the conclusion that they
\nshould adhere to the clause as it now stands.\n<\/p>\n
Sir, the difficulty is so clear to my mind<\/p>\n
that I find no other course but to request Mr. Munshi to drop his amendment.\n<\/p>\n
With regard to children, there are three possible cases which can be
\nvisualised. First of all, there is the case of children with parents and
\nguardians. There is the case of children who are orphans, who have no parents
\nand no guardians in the legal sense of the word. Supposing you have this
\nclause prohibiting the conversion of children below 18, what is going to be
\nthe position of children who are orphans ? Are they not going to have any kind
\nof religion? Are they not to have any religious instruction given to them by
\nsome one who happens to take a kindly interest in them ? It seems to me that,
\nif the clause as worded by Mr. Munshi was adopted, viz., that no child below
\nthe age of 18 shall be converted it would follow that children who are
\norphans, who have no legal guardians, cannot have any kind of religious
\ninstruction. I am sure that this is not the result which this House would be
\nhappy to contemplate. Therefore, such a class of subjects shall have to be
\nexcepted bum the operation of the amendment proposed by Mr. Munshi.\n<\/p>\n
Then, I come to the other class, viz., children with parents and guardians.
\nThey may fall into two categories. For the sake of clarity it might be
\ndesirable to-consider their cases separately; the first is this:_ where
\nchildren are converted with the knowledge and consent of their guardians and
\nparents. The second case is that of children of parents who have become
\nconverts.\n<\/p>\n
It does seem to me that there ought to be a prohibition upon the conversion of
\nminor children with legal guardians, where the conversion takes place without
\nthe consent and knowledge of the legal guardians. That, I think, is a very
\nlegitimate proposition. No missionary who wants to convert a child which is
\nunder the lawful Guardianship of some person, who according to the law of
\nguardianship is entitled to regulate and control the religious faith of that
\nparticular child, ought to deprive that person or guardian of the right of
\nhaving notice and having knowledge that the child is being converted to
\nanother faith., That, I think, is a simple proposition to which there can be
\nno objection.\n<\/p>\n
But when we come to the other case, viz., where parents are converted and we
\nhave to consider the case of their children, then I think we<\/p>\n
————————————————————-\n<\/p>\n
[English translation of Hindustani speech ends<\/p>\n
come across what I might say a very hard rock. If you are going to say that,
\nalthough parents may be converted because they are majors and above the age of
\n18, minors below the age of 18, although they are their children, are not to
\nbe converted with the parent, the question that we have to consider is, what
\narrangement are we going to make with regard to the children ? Suppose, a
\nparent is converted to Christianity. Suppose a child of such a parent dies.
\nThe parent, having been brought up in the Christian faith, gives the Christian
\nburial to the dead child. Is that act on the part of the parent in giving a
\nChristian burial to the child, to be regarded as an offence in law ? Take
\nanother case. Suppose a parent who has become converted has. a daughter. He
\nmarries that daughter according to Christian rites. What is to be the
\nconsequence of that marriage ? What is to be the effect of that marriage ? Is
\nthat marriage legal or not legal ?\n<\/p>\n
If you do not want that the children should be converted, you have to make
\nsome other kind of law with regard to guardianship in order to prevent the
\nparents from exercising their rights to influence and shape the religious life
\nof their children. Sir, I would like to ask whether it would be possible for
\nthis House to accept that a child of five, for instance, ought to be separated
\nfrom his parents merely because the parents have adopted Christianity, or some
\nreligion which was not originally theirs. I refer to these difficulties in
\norder to show that it is those difficulties which faced the Fundamental Rights
\nCommittee, the<\/p>\n
Minorities Committee and the Advisory Committee and which led them to reject
\nthis proposition. It was, because we realised, that the acceptance of the
\nproposition, namely, that a person shall not be converted below the age of 18,
\nwould lead to many disruptions, to so many evil consequences, that we thought
\nit would be better to drop the whole thing altogether. (Hear, hear). The mere
\nfact that we have made no such reference in clause 17 of the Fundamental
\nRights does not in my judgment prevent the legislature when it becomes
\noperative from making any law in order to regulate this matter. My submission,
\ntherefore, is that the reference back of this clause to a committee for
\nfurther consideration is not going to produce any better result. I have no
\nobjection to the matter being further examined by persons who feel differently
\nabout it, but I do like to say that all the three Committees have given their
\nbest attention to the subject. I have therefore, come to the conclusion that
\nhaving regard to all the circumstances of the case, the best way would be to
\ndrop the clause altogether. I have no objection to a provision being made that
\nchildren who have, legal and lawful guardians should not be converted without
\nthe knowledge and notice of the parents. That, I think, ought to suffice in
\nthe case.\n<\/p>\n
The Hon’ble Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel: Sir, this is not a matter free from
\ndifficulties. There is no point in introducing any element of heat in this
\ncontroversy. It is well known in this country that there are mass conversions,
\nconversions by force, conversions by coercion and undue influence, and we
\ncannot disguise the fact that children also have been converted, that children
\nwith parents have been converted and that orphans have been converted. Now, we
\nneed not go into all the reasons or the forces that led to these conversions,
\nbut if the facts are recognised, we who have to live in this country and find
\na solution to build up a nation,–we need not introduce any heat into this
\ncontroversy to find a solution. What is the best thing to do under the
\ncircumstances ? There may be different points of view. There are bound to be
\ndifferences in the view points of the different communities, but, as Dr.
\nAmbedkar has said,’this question has been considered in three Committees and
\nyet we have not been able to find a solution acceptable to all. Let us make
\none more effort and not carry on this discussion, which will not satisfy
\neverybody. Let this be therefore referred to the Advisory Committee. We shall
\ngive one more chance.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. President: Do I take it that it is the wish of the House that this clause
\nbe referred back to the Advisory Committee for further consideration ?\n<\/p>\n
The clause was referred back to the Advisory Committee.\n<\/p>\n
CLAUSE 18-\n<\/p>\n
CULTURAL Am EDUCATIONAL RIGHTS<\/p>\n
The Hon’ble Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel: I move clause 18 now.\n<\/p>\n
“(1) Minorities in every Unit shall be protected in respect of their
\nlanguages, script and culture, and no laws or regulations may be enacted that
\nmay operate oppressively or prejudicially in this respect.\n<\/p>\n
(2) No minority whether based on religion, community or language shall be
\ndiscriminated against in regard to the admission into State educational
\ninstitutions, nor shall any religious instruction. be compulsory imposed on
\nthem.\n<\/p>\n
(3) (a) All minorities whether based on religion, community or’ language shall
\nbe free in any Unit to establish and administer educational institutions of
\ntheir choice.\n<\/p>\n
(b) The State shall not, while providing State aid to schools, discriminate
\nagainst schools under the management of minorities whether based on religion,
\ncommunity or language.”\n<\/p>\n
I move this clause for the acceptance of the House.\n<\/p>\n
Shri Mohanlal Saksena (United Provinces: General): Sir, with your, permission,
\nI would like to move that this clause be referred’back to the Advisory
\nCommittee for reconsideration. There are certain aspects which require
\nreconsideration, and, on the whole, I think it would be much better that this
\nwhole “clause be<\/p>\n
referred to the Advisory Committee for their reconsideration.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. President: Mr. Mohanlal Saksena has moved that this clause also be
\nreferred back to the Advisory Committee for further consideration.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. D. N. Datta: Mr. President, with regard to sub-clause (1) of clause 18, it
\nhas been stated that-\n<\/p>\n
“Minorities in every unit shall be protected in respect of their
\nlanguage, script and culture, and no laws or regulations may be enacted that
\nmay operate oppressively or Prejudicially in this respect.” I want to
\nillustrate my point. If in a particular Unit….\n<\/p>\n
Mr. President: You are going into the merits of the clause.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. D. N. Datta: I am not going into the merits. I want clarification.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. K. M. Munshi: I have got an amendment to move<\/p>\n
Mr. President: There is a motion by Mr. Mohanlal Saksena. He wants that the
\nclause be referred back to the Committee. If that is accepted, no amendment
\nneed be moved.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. D. N. Datta: I do not know if my request for clarification will be
\nfulfilled even if the clause be referred back to the Committee. If you would
\nallow me to speak….\n<\/p>\n
Mr. President: If the House wants to refer back the Clause to the Committee
\nthe discussion will not be of much help.\n<\/p>\n
Mr, D. N. Datta: If the House intends that this clause shall be referred back,
\nI need not speak. I am not moving any amendment.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. K. M. Munshi: Is it worth while moving any amendment if Mr. Mohanlal
\nSaksena’s suggestion is carried ? If that is accepted no amendment need be
\nmoved.\n<\/p>\n
Archarya J. B. Kripalani (United Provinces: General): If after discussing we
\nfind there are any serious difficulties, then we may send the clause back to
\nthe Advisory Committee. If there are no serious difficulties and the House is
\npractically united, then we may proceed with this.\n<\/p>\n
Many Hon’ble Members: That is right.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. President: I take it that the House wishes to discuss this clause. The
\namendments will be moved. We may take up the suggestion of Mr. Mohanlal
\nSaksena at a later stage.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. K. M. Munshi: I move that sub-clause (2) of clause 18 be referred back to
\nthe Advisory Committee. It was the general sense of many of the members that
\nthis clause should be reconsidered in the light of discussion that took place.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. President: There are other amendments of which I have got notice. I shall
\nask the Hon’ble members to move the amendments.\n<\/p>\n
Sri V. C. Kesava Rao (Madras: General): I, do not move my amendment. (No. 76
\nof the Supplementary List No. II).\n<\/p>\n
Dr. Suresh Chandra Banerjee (Bengal: General): In view of the amendment that
\nsub-clause (2) be referred back to the Advisory Committee, I do not see any
\nobject in moving my amendment, and I do not propose to move it.\n<\/p>\n
Sri R. Santhanam: I am not moving my amendment. (No. 78 of the Supplementary
\nList No. II).\n<\/p>\n
Shri Phool Singh: I am not moving amendment. (No. 80 of the Supplementary List
\nNo. II).\n<\/p>\n
Shri Algu Rai Shastri: [I do not want to move my amendment]<\/p>\n
Dr. Suresh Chandra Banerjee: In view of the assurance given by Mr. Munshi, I
\nam not moving amendment No. 72 in the List.\n<\/p>\n
The Hon’ble Shri Jagjivan Ram: I am not moving my amendment (No. 83 of the
\nSupplementary List No. II).\n<\/p>\n
Mr. R. K. Sidhwa: My amendment, i.e., No. 84, is a new clause. It may be taken
\nafterwards.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. D. N. Datta: Amendment No. 85 seeks to introduce new clauses. It may be
\ntaken up later.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. President: All the amendments of which I have got notice have been
\ndisposed of; they are not moved.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. Munshi’s amendment and the clause are now both open for discussion. There
\nis a suggestion that the whole clause be referred back and the amendment is
\nthat only sub-clause (2) be referred back-\n<\/p>\n
————————————————————\n<\/p>\n
[] English translation of Hindustani speech.\n<\/p>\n
Shri Mahavir Tyagi: Sir, I rise to support the motion of Air. Mohanlal
\nSaksena. He has only proposed that this clause be referred back to the
\nAdvisory<\/p>\n
Committee. I think, Sir, we are taking this document lightly. It may be that
\nin matters like these, i.e., cultural and educational rights, they could be
\ndefined only as far as they appertain to individuals and the question of
\nminorities had better be left for the future Governments. I think we are
\nbinding the hands of our future Governments too much. We should leave them
\nfree to do according to the times and the situations they face.\n<\/p>\n
Now, Sir, the question of guaranteeing the rights of minorities with regard to
\nculture and education privileges, I would suggest that in future occasions may
\narise when the Governments belonging to the Union may have to negotiate with
\nother units and may have to know from them as to what is happening to the
\nminorities that reside in the areas which have not chosen to join the Union.
\nNow, supposing the Governments of the Units which belong to the Union are
\ncommitted by means of this clause 18 to a certain policy towards the
\nminorities, the people here may feel the necessity of knowing as to what 1S
\nhappening to the minorities who reside in those units which have refused to
\njoin the Union and belong to Pakistan or any other parts of India which may
\norganise themselves separately., My suggestion is that on the question of
\nminorities we may not be committed here and this question be left over for the
\ntime when we may definitely know as to whether the whole of India is going to
\nbe one Unit or is going to be partitioned into two. if there is to be a
\npartition, we must know what is happening to the minorities on the other side,
\nin the other units. Therefore, the question is not so easy to solve just now.
\nI submit that the whole House Will support me when I say that this question
\nhad better be hanging fire till we definitely know as to what is going to be
\nthe final shape of India and how the Units are going to treat the minorities.
\nI therefore support the motion of Mr. Mohanlal Saksena that the consideration
\nof this clause be put off.\n<\/p>\n
Seth Govind Das (C.P. & Berar: General): [Sir, I think the motion before
\nus contains no such clause which can be considered controversial. Mr. Mahavir
\nTyagi has said that we do not know till now whether India is to remain one or
\nis to be Partitioned. For reasons which lead him to think that this should be
\nsent to the Advisory Committee, I feel that it should be passed by us today.
\nWhether there is one Hindustan or Pakistan, undivided or divided India-the
\nphantom of this thought sticks to us and we look at all problems when they
\ncome up, obsessed with that view.\n<\/p>\n
While supporting the resolution of Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru I said that we
\nshould not care whether our Muslim League brothers enter the to say that we
\nAssembly or not. On the same grounds I again wish should not care whether
\nIndia is to remain undivided or is to be divided. We want one India. We want
\nthat India should remain one. We are not to stop any of our efforts. I am even
\nagainst Mr. Munshi’s amendment, for I cannot see anything in this whole clause
\nagainst any caste or community, As I have said that without looking-to what is
\ngoing to happen to India in future, we should pass this resolution keeping in
\nview as to what our duties are and what should be done in this Assem bly-]<\/p>\n
————————————————————\n<\/p>\n
[] English translation of Hindustani speech.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. D. N. Datta: Mr. President, Sir, clause 18, sub-clause (1) says-\n<\/p>\n
“Minorities in every unit shall be protected in respect of their
\nlanguage, script. and culture, and no laws or regulations may be enacted that
\nmay operate oppressively or prejudicially in this-respect.”\n<\/p>\n
I shall illustrate my point. Suppose in a certain unit there are different
\ncommunities residing, using different scripts, and that unit intends to make a
\nlaw that there should be one script instead of different scripts now
\nprevailing. I feel that there may be necessity for the unit to promulgate a
\nlaw that there should be one script for that particular unit for the benefit
\nof the unit itself, and if that<\/p>\n
is not allowed by the Fundamental Rights, I think the interests of the Unit
\nwill suffer. I cannot suggest what should be the language of the clause under
\nwhich such laws can be promulgated so that there should be one script for the
\nbenefit of the whole Unit. I suggest that this matter may also be referred to
\nthe Drafting Committee of the Fundamental Rights Sub-Committee because it is a
\nvery fundamental matter. The minority must have a right, but at the same time
\nthe Unit itself should also have a right to promulgate such a law-that there
\nshould be one script for the whole Unit or province. So, I consider that this
\nmatter should be considered by the. Fundamental Rights Sub Committee or by
\nSardarji.\n<\/p>\n
Srijut Rohini Kumar Chaudhury: Mr. President, Sir, I wish to draw attention to
\nsub-clause (2) of clause 18:-\n<\/p>\n
“No minority whether based on religion community or language shall be
\ndiscriminated against in regard to the admission into State educational
\ninstitutions, nor shall any religious instruction be compulsorily imposed on
\nthem.”\n<\/p>\n
It refers to the compulsory imparting of religious instruction Clause 16 which
\nalso refers to compulsory participation in religious instruction in school has
\nalready been referred by this Hon’ble House to the Advisory Committee. So it
\nis only reasonable that we should agree to refer this clause to the same
\nAdvisory Committee which will’consider clause I<\/p>\n
I submit, Sir, that other sub-clause of this clause are not inoffensive or
\nfree from difficulty as they may seem on surface.\n<\/p>\n
Take for instance, sub-clause (1) which speaks of scripts. Most of the tribal
\npeople in our Province have lost their original script. Some have taken to
\nAssamese language and script, but Roman scripts have been recently imposed on
\nthem and now most of them are willing to take Hindi scripts which they would
\nnot be able to adopt if the subclause stands as it is.\n<\/p>\n
Then turning to sub-clause (3) (b), if the clause stands as it is, it will
\nseriously interfere with proper distribution of grants. So, on the whole, I
\nthink, instead of remitting sub-clauses piece-meal. it will be wise to refer
\nthe whole clause 18 to the Advisory Committee.\n<\/p>\n
Shri Rajkrushna Bose (Orissa: General): I suggest, Sir, that clause 18 as
\nmoved by Sardar Patel and the amendment of Mr. Munshi, should be taken up for
\nconsideration now and the House should come to a decision in the matter. It
\nseems that there is a move to refer clauses like this back to the Advisory
\nCommittee and it has become a little too catching and therefore we are not in
\na position to do anything here but refer back to the Advisory Committee. Let
\nus not forget that before these clauses passed through the Committee, they had
\npassed through two other Committees, viz., the Minorities Rights Sub-Committee
\nand the Fundamental Rights Sub-Committee. Clause 18 which we are now
\nconsidering is so very simple and innocuous that it really needs no referring
\nback to the Advisory Committee again. Three sub-clauses are attached to it,
\none is that the language, script and culture should be preserved and no laws
\nor regulation may be enacted that may operate oppressively or prejudicially in
\nthis respect. If we are going to have one script in India as was suggested by
\nMr. Datta, it may create difficulties and any unit which wants to have a
\ncommon script for the whole unit will have difficulties if this sub-clause is
\nkept.\n<\/p>\n
Well, my contention is that the sub-clause should be retained as it is, just
\nbecause, if today we raise the question of wiping out languages or scripts
\nwhen we are framing our first independent constitution, there may be any
\nnumber of complications and difficulties and misunderstandings and at a time
\nwhen we are having a lot of other difficulties we should not invite any more
\nnow. Therefore. we ought,to keep the first sub-clause as it has been kept in
\nthe original. Then sub-clause (3) (a) reads :\n<\/p>\n
“All minorities whether based on religion community or language, shall be
\nfree in any Unit to establish and administer<\/p>\n
educational institutions of their choice.”‘<\/p>\n
This is a right, Sir, which I think no country can take away and ought to take
\naway and all constitutions should concede this right to the minorities. It is
\nsuch a simple thing that it needs no reference back to the Advisory Committee
\nagain. Now, sub-clause (3) (b) reads:\n<\/p>\n
The State shall not, while providing State aid to schools discriminate against
\nschools under the management of minorities whether based on religion,
\ncommunity or language.”\n<\/p>\n
This again is such a simple question. If any minority wants to start a school
\nof its own in any unit or in any part of the Union, certainly you are not
\ngoing to forbid them from doing so, or pass laws whereby they cannot have this
\nordinary right. If you are going to do that,, all your claim to give
\nprotection to the minorities will be reduced to a farce. Therefore, I do not
\nsee why this simple clause, namely clause.18,’ with all its sub-clauses should
\nbe referred back to the Advisory Committee. Of course, a point has been raised
\nby one of the members that the consideration of matters relating to minorities
\nshould be put off till we know the mind of the Pakistanists in the matter and
\nthe rights they are going to consede to the minorities in their areas. Well,
\nSir, if, knowing fully well that those who oppose India’s independence today
\nlike the Muslim League are adopting dilatory tactics to delay our freedom we
\nput off our business till Doomsday or wait till they have made some decisions,
\nwe shall have to wait indefinitely. If, say for instance, they go beyond June
\n1948 to reach a decision with regard to these matters, are we to postpone our
\ndecisions on matters so simple and ordinary. I think, Sir, that it will be
\nfoolish on our part to delay decisions on matters like these, and therefore
\nclause 18 as moved by Sardar Patel and amended by Mr. Munshi should be adopted
\nby the House.\n<\/p>\n
Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Mr. President, Sir, I confess that I am considerably
\nsurprised at these amendments-both by Mr. Munshi as well as Mr. Tyagi, They
\nhave, I submit, given no reason why this clause 18 should be referred back to
\nthe Committee. The only reason in support of this proposal-one can sense-is
\nthat the rights of minorities should be relative, that is to say, we must wait
\nand see what rights the minorities are given by the Pakistan Assembly before
\nwe determine the rights we want to give to the minorities in the Hindustan
\narea. Now, Sir, with all deference. I must deprecate any such idea. Rights of
\nminorities should be absolute rights. They should not be subject to any
\nconsideration as to what another party may like to do to minorities within its
\njurisdiction. If we find that certain minorities in which we are interested
\nand which are within the jurisdiction of another State have not got the same
\nrights which we have given to minorities in our territory, it would be open,
\nfor the State to take up the matter in a diplomatic manner and see that the
\nwrongs are rectified. But no matter what others do, I think we ought to do
\nwhat is right in our own judgment and personally I think that the rights which
\nare indicated in clause 18 are rights which every minority, irrespective of
\nany other consideration is entitled to claim. The first right that we have
\ngiven is the right to use their language, their script and their culture. We
\nhave stated that “there shall be no discrimination on the ground of
\nreligion, language, etc.” in the matter of admission into State
\neducational institutions. We have said that “no minority shall be
\nprecluded from establishing any educational institution which such minority
\nmay wish to establish”. It is also stated there that whenever a State
\ndecides to provide aid to schools or other educational institutions maintained
\nby the minority, they shall not discriminate in the matter of giving grant on
\nthe basis of religion, community or language. Sir, I cannot understand how
\nthere can be any objection to these rights which have been indicated in clause\n<\/p>\n
18. At any rate, nobody who has supported the motion<\/p>\n
that this may be referred back to the Committee has advanced any argument that
\neither these rights are in excess of what a minority ought to have or are such
\nthat a minority ought not to have them. Therefore, it seems to me a great pity
\nthat the labours of three Committees which have evolved these provisions
\nshould be so brusquely set aside simply because for some reasons people want
\nthat this matter should be referred back to the Committee. I do not know what
\nobjection my friend Mr. Munshi has to sub-clause (2) as it stands, but if it
\nis necessary that this sub-clause may be referred back to the Committee I
\ncertainly would raise no objection. That sub-clause may be referred back
\nbecause I understand that we have limited this matter to State educational
\ninstitutions and we have said nothing about those which are only State-aided.
\nIf that point needs to be further clarified the matter may be referred back,
\nbut, because there may be something to be said in favour of the reference back
\nof sub-clause (2) I do not see that the same logic could be extended to the
\nwhole of the clause. I submit therefore that the clause as it stands, should
\nbe passed, barring sub-clause (2) which may, if necessary, be referred back to
\nthe Committee for consideration.\n<\/p>\n
Shri Lakshminarayan Sahu: Mr. President, Sir, while I was speaking some time
\nbefore, I was just telling that I welcomed this clause 18 in the Fundamental
\nRights, because this is the first time that minorities will feel happy that
\nthey have got some definite rights. I was referring to the question of who
\nshould be called a minority about which I have my doubts. But I hope they will
\nbe cleared by further discussions. But as it is, I welcome this clause. I want
\nto show that in Midnapore district the population of Oriyas has been mutilated
\nto a very great extent so much so that today we do not find in the census
\nfigures any Oriya as such. In 1891 the census number of Oriyas was 6 lakhs. In
\n1901 it was reduced to 3 lakhs and in 1911 it was reduced to less than 2
\nlakhs. In 1921 it was 1,40,000 and in 1931 the figure is only 45,000.\n<\/p>\n
Now, the same thing has happened in the southern portion of Orissa. The Utkal
\nUnion Conference for over 40 years agitated to get a separate province for
\nOrissa only in order to get their minority rights, because as minorities they
\nwere not safe in any of the provinces, and when they got a separate province
\nthey were very happy. Now the question has come about the language. Referring
\nto ‘only one district there, out of the six districts of Orissa,-to
\nGanjam,-there is great language difficulty there. The Vizagapatnam, District
\nGazetteer of 1906 writes:\n<\/p>\n
“The language of the district forms a veritable bable. In Gunjam 940 out
\na 1,000 speak Telugu in their houses, 14 talk Oriya, 9 Khond. 7 Gadaba, 5
\nHindusthani. But among the same number in the Agency, 451 speak Orya, 204
\nKhond, 180 Telugu, 56 Savara, 30 Poroja. 23 Gadaba, 11 Koya 3 Hindustani, 3
\nGondi and 5 other vernaculars such as Labadi, Bastari, Hindi, Chhatiskari,
\netc.\n<\/p>\n
This difficulty about language has been felt in our province because a section
\nof the people are Andhras and they are claiming that their children should be
\neducated right up to the college stage through the medium of their own
\nmother-tongue. And this should be decided clearly. I hope that by a clause
\nlike this these difficulties will be removed and our culture will be intact in
\nthose places where the Oriyas will be left outside their province; and so also
\nthe culture of other people who will be left in the province of Orissa will be
\nproperly safeguarded., But I would like to know what should be the language of
\nthe province and also the language of the different aboriginal people who are
\nin the province of Orissa. As I have already said, there are any number of
\naboriginals speaking any number of different languages. Some of the aboriginal
\nworkers who are coming up claim that their language must be respected. In
\nOrissa, if we respect every language it will be very difficult for the
\nprovincial<\/p>\n
Government to run the administration.\n<\/p>\n
Quite apart from all the above difficulties which may be solved by the Units,
\nI welcome this clause 18 which safeguards our cultural and educational rights.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. President: We have two amendments. One is from Mr. Mohanlal Saksena.\n<\/p>\n
Shri Mohanlal Saksena: Sir, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.\n<\/p>\n
The amendment was, by leave of the Assembly, withdrawn.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. President: Then the other is from Mr. Munshi to refer back subclause (2)
\nto the Committee.\n<\/p>\n
The Hon’ble Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel: I accept it.\n<\/p>\n
The amendment of Mr. Munshi was adopted.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. President: Then I put the amended clause to the House now leaving out
\nsub-clause (2) and retaining sub-clause (1) and sub-clause (3) (a) and (b)
\nClause 18, as amended, was, accepted.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. President: I think we have just come nearly to 12-30. So we shall stop
\nto-day and take up the work again at 9 o’clock tomorrow.\n<\/p>\n
The Assembly then adjourned till Nine of the Clock on Friday, the 2nd May,
\n1947.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Constituent Assembly Debates Constituent Assembly Debates On 1 May, 1947 CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY OF INDIA–VOLUME-III Thursday, the 1st May, 1947 The Constituent Assembly of India met in the Constitution Hall, New Delhi, at Nine of the Clock, Mr. President (The Hon’ble Dr. Rajendra Prasad) in the Chair. INTERIM REPORT ON FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS-contd. Mr. President- We shall […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-257639","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-judgements"],"yoast_head":"\nConstituent Assembly Debates On 1 May, 1947 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/constituent-assembly-debates-on-1-may-1947\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Constituent Assembly Debates On 1 May, 1947 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/constituent-assembly-debates-on-1-may-1947\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1947-04-30T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-08-26T11:38:48+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"101 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/constituent-assembly-debates-on-1-may-1947#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/constituent-assembly-debates-on-1-may-1947\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Constituent Assembly Debates On 1 May, 1947\",\"datePublished\":\"1947-04-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-26T11:38:48+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/constituent-assembly-debates-on-1-may-1947\"},\"wordCount\":19934,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Judgements\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/constituent-assembly-debates-on-1-may-1947#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/constituent-assembly-debates-on-1-may-1947\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/constituent-assembly-debates-on-1-may-1947\",\"name\":\"Constituent Assembly Debates On 1 May, 1947 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1947-04-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-26T11:38:48+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/constituent-assembly-debates-on-1-may-1947#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/constituent-assembly-debates-on-1-may-1947\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/constituent-assembly-debates-on-1-may-1947#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Constituent Assembly Debates On 1 May, 1947\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Constituent Assembly Debates On 1 May, 1947 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/constituent-assembly-debates-on-1-may-1947","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Constituent Assembly Debates On 1 May, 1947 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/constituent-assembly-debates-on-1-may-1947","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1947-04-30T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-08-26T11:38:48+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"101 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/constituent-assembly-debates-on-1-may-1947#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/constituent-assembly-debates-on-1-may-1947"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Constituent Assembly Debates On 1 May, 1947","datePublished":"1947-04-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-26T11:38:48+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/constituent-assembly-debates-on-1-may-1947"},"wordCount":19934,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Judgements"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/constituent-assembly-debates-on-1-may-1947#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/constituent-assembly-debates-on-1-may-1947","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/constituent-assembly-debates-on-1-may-1947","name":"Constituent Assembly Debates On 1 May, 1947 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1947-04-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-26T11:38:48+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/constituent-assembly-debates-on-1-may-1947#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/constituent-assembly-debates-on-1-may-1947"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/constituent-assembly-debates-on-1-may-1947#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Constituent Assembly Debates On 1 May, 1947"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/257639","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=257639"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/257639\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=257639"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=257639"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=257639"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}