Constituent Assembly Of India -Volume IX

Dated: September 02, 1949

Mr. President: The question is:

"That entry 34 of List II be transferred to List Ill."

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. President: The question is:

"That entry No. 34 stand part of List II.'

The motion was adopted.

Entry, 34, was added to the State List.

Entry 35

Mr. President: I do not see any amendment to this entry.

Shri H. V. Kamath: On a point of clarification may I ask whether 'inns' include hotels and restaurants? 'there is no provision in the list for hotels and restaurants as such,

Shri T. T. Krishnamachari: That seems to be the idea. We have borrowed here an archaic expression and I quite agree that there is some force in the point raised by my honourable Friend, but I think it is comprehensive enough to ,cover the purpose that he has in mind.

Shri R. K. Sidhva: 'Inns' in the dictionary mean 'Dharmasalas'.

Shri T. T. Krishnamachari: They are not.

Mr. President: There is no amendment to this entry.

The question is:

"That entry 35 stand part of the List II."

The motion was adopted.

Entry 35 was added to the State List.

Entry 36

Shri T. T. Krishnamachari: Mr. President, Sir, I move:

"That for entry 36 of List II, the following entry be substituted:--

'36. Production, supply and distribution of goods subject to the provisions of entry 35-A of List III."'

'The words that have been added are

"Subject to the provisions of entry 35A of List III."

I have explained before that there.is a specific entry in List III in regard to production, supply and distribution of goods of industries that are subjects under Central control and therefore this addition has become necessary. Sir, I move:

Shri Brajeshwar Prasad: Sir, I beg to move:

"That in amendment No. 3619 of the List of Amendments, in the proposed entry 36 of List II, for the words and figure 'provisions of List I' the words 'superintendence, direction and control of the Union Government' be substituted."

Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena: I only move, amendment No. 310.

"That entry 36 of List II be transferred to List III"

Mr. President: The question is :

"That in amendment No. 3619 of the List of Amendments. in the proposed en" 36 of List II, for the words and figure 'provisions of List I' the words 'superintendence, direction and control of the Union Government' be substituted."

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. President: The question is :

"That entry 36 of List II be transferred to List III,"

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. President: The question is

"That for entry 36 of List II, the following entry be substituted:-

'36. Production, supply and distribution of goods to the provisions of entry 35-A of List III."'

The amendment was adopted.

Mr. President: The question is"

"That entry 36, as amended, stand part of the List II."

The motion was adopted.

Entry 36, as amended, was added to the State List.

Entry 37

Shri T. T. Krishnamachari : Mr, President, Sir, I move

"That for entry 37 of List II, tile following entry be substituted:-

'37. Industries, subject to the provisions of entry 64 of List-I."'

Shri Brajeshwar Prasad: Mr. President, Sir, I beg to move:

"That in amendment No. 3620 of the List of Amendments, in the proposed entry 37 of List II, for the words and figure 'provisions of List I' the words 'superintendence, direction and control of the Union Government' be substituted,"

Mr. President: The question is.:

"That in amendment No. 3620 of the List of Amendments, in the proposed entry 37 of List II, for the words and figure 'provisions of List I' the words 'superintendence, direction and control of the Union Government' be substituted."

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. President: The question is:

That for entry 37 of List II, the following entry be substituted:-

'37. Industries, subject to the provisions of entry 64 of List I."'

The amendment was adopted,

Mr. President: The question is:

"That entry 37, as amended, stand part of List II."

The motion was adopted.

Entry 37, as amended, was added to the State List.

Entry 38

Shri Brajeshwar Prasad: Mr. President, Sir, I beg to move:

"That in amendment No. 3621 of the List of Amendments, for the word 'deleted' the words and figure 'transferred to List III' be substituted."

Shri H. V. Kamath: Mr. President, Sir, on a point of order. Amendment No. 3621 has not been moved and therefore I do not see how this amendment will arise, when that has not been moved.

Mr. President: His amendment only seeks to substitute the words 'transferred to List II" instead of "deleted." Deletion is not transfer. We do not want propositions for deleting an entry to be moved. We take them as moved, because they are of a negative character.

Shri Brajeshwar Prasad : Sir, adulteration of foodstuffs and other goods have assumed scandalous proportions in this country. It is not a problem that is confined only to one province. Therefore, it must be- tackled on an All-India basis. There is not one single food commodity that we get which is,not adulterated. When we purchase milk there is more water than milk. In fact there is hardly any commodity that has not been adulterated. Now, Sir, the evil has assumed an AllIndia proportion. It is therefore in the fitness of things that this Government of India which proclaim to be the servants of the people must serve the people in this vital affair.

Pandit Lakshmi Kanta Maitra (West Bengal: General) : Mr. President Sir, I beg to move:

"That entry 38 of List II be transferred to List III."Entry 38 relates to adulteration of foodstuffs and other goods. It has been included' in the State List. My suggestion is that it should be transferred to the Concurrent List so that not only the Provincial Governments, the State Governments but the Government at the Centre also may have power to legislate with regard to this.

Sir, I can assure you at the very beginning that I have not the least desire to take the time of the House when it is hard pressed for it unless I feel absolutely convinced of the importance of this subject. I will therefore beseech you to bear with me for a few minutes if I make a few hurried remarks with regard to the background against which I want this amendment to be considered.

The Government of India in 1937 brought into being a body called the Central Advisory Board of Health which had been functioning till the formation ,of the last Interim Cabinet before the final transfer of power. I happened to be an elected member of the Central Advisory Board of Health from its very inception. This Central Advisory Board of Health was composed not only of the provincial ministers and State Ministers of Health, but also of important persons concerned with the medical profession and public health. Year after year. the Board were confronted with the problem of tackling this question of adulteration of foodstuffs. It was a very embarrassing situation for any Government to tackle. Each one of the provincial Governments had almost its own set of standards. The result was nothing short of confusion. What complied with the requirements of a particular province failed to comply with those of another. So, in this state of flux and uncertainty, the Government of India appointed a technical Committee, an expert Committee to go into the whole aspect of food adulteration in India. It was a purely Technical Committee. But, unfortunately or fortunately, I happened to be one of the members of that Technical Committee and I hail to devote a considerable amount of study to the subject. We produced an unanimous report. 'this report indicated that certain provincial, inter-state circulation could not legislation alone. Take for ;instance ghee, particularly referring to ghee. Ghee used most important item in the dietary of this ghee has practically left the land, thanks to types of foodstuffs which had inter be effectively dealt with by any State or any of the milk.products. I am to constitute until before the, war a country. Today, we do not get ghee; the advent of the hydrogenated edible oil, the Dalda Banaspati. at was felt at that time was that articles like ghee, mustard oil, cocoanut-oil-because cocoanut-oil and til oil are used for edible purposes in several places-milk and milk products-all these circulated freely throughout this country and therefore the places of their sale are not the only places where the mischief should be combated. The Expert Committee found that there were certain indispensable tests. With regard to ghee, there is, for instance, the Butyro-refracto-meter test, the Reicherst Wolny value test, the saponification value test, the iodine value test, the phytesterol Acetate test, the specific gravity test and others. These are technical matters; I do not want to weary the House with all these details. The rock-bottom fact is that the expert Committee, which was also composed of experts brought from outside, found that with regard to these tests, there should be one denominating factor which should govern all species of ghee. For instance, ghee is manufactured in Kathiawar. They have got one set of tests. Guntur is another manufacturing- area; it has got,to comply with another set of tests. Khurja in the U.P. has mother set of tests. The consuming provinces like ours, Bihar, Bengal, Orissa, Assam who mainly consume these products imported from outside their own areas, are in a in a helpless condition. They cannot effectively tackle this problem with their individual provincial measures. All that they can do is, if milk is sold in a particular town in a particular province, they have got the lactometer test under the Food Adulteration Act of the province which simply deals with the percentage of water. Today it has been found and amply demonstrated that this test is an absolute fraud and that we can by some artificial means. by some addition of sucrose content, we can get the prescribed standard with adulterated stuff.

Therefore, the Government of India felt the need to pass an, all-India Food Adulteration Act. A model Act was drafted by us in consultation with all the provinces. Now, before that Act could be brought before the legislature, the transfer of power took place. The findings of the Expert Committee are there and the Government of India was absolutely convinced that without such a piece of legislation emanating from the Centre, it would be a hopeless task to tackle with this problem of food adulteration. My honourable Friend Mr. Brajeshwar Prasad rightly pointed out that it has assumed the proportions of a scandal.

Sir, the country appreciates with a deep sense of gratitude the stand that you have taken with regard to these hydrogenated edible oils. If other eminent persons also set their feet against this, I think this problem of food adulteration could be effectively checked. This cannot be done if it is left simply to the,provincial legislature. Take for instance the scandal about mustard oil that we see in Bengal today. The Public Health Department of the Calcutta Corporation has announced that the city and the rural areas also have been passing through an epidemic of dropsy, call it beri-beri or whatever you like,in a very acute form. They say you may drop down dead at any moment without even a moment's notice because of your consumption of the poison of mustard oil. They say that the mustard oil which is largely used in Bengal, Bihar, Orissa for edible purposes, is mixed with a sort of thing called argemon seed, which is dangerous for human health. Now, the poor fellow who sells the mustard oil in Patna-, Bhagalpur or Calcutta, has to import the whole stuff from another province. e.g., the U.P. You can at best get hold of him, put the article to some tests and then you can straightaway punish him. That fellow will say, and with good reason " what have I done'? I have purchased these fifty or sixty or two hundred tins from such and such place in U.P.; it is our main source of supply". The provincial Government of the place where it is retailed has not got the power to deal with the Supplies from a different province. All they can do is to ,get hold of these pedlars, retail dealers and deal with them.

This is a matter of serious import. You must go to the root of the matter, The evil must be tackled at the very source. It is rather unfortunate that this matter has come before the House when its attendance is thin and the members are also inattentive. But, let me tell the House, that as a member of that Committee, or perhaps the only surviving member in this House of the Central Advisoy Board of Health, I can say with an amount of emphasis which is peculiarly mine, as it is born of my conviction that if this country is determined to stamp out this evil of food adulteration, it cannot be done in this kind of halfhearted manner by placing this matter in the provincial field. I know my honourable Friend Mr. T. T. Krishnamachari of the Drafting Committee will get up and say we have got provision for that in entry 66-A in the Union List, disation of goods". Let me tell him frankly that this will not meet the situation. You can put "standardisation of goods" in the Union List; but in the State List entry 38, you definitely say "adulteration of foodstuff,-," belongs to the provincial sphere. Whenever the Centre will seek to legislate on foodstuffs and prescribe standards therefore the provincial Governments will at once raise the hue and cry "You are entrenching on our field because food adulteration is specifically provided for in entry 38 in the State List".I have only referred to one or two matters. I can speak for hours. This matter took us full two years and I now find that with all the great amount of labour on the part of representatives of Health Ministers from the different provinces and experts from outside, and the tremendous expenditure of money, their findings could not be given effect to because of the sudden change in the political set-up. Now that we are going to enact a Constitution, I beseech the members of the Drafting Committee to consider this aspect. I want the provinces as well as the Centre to get seisin of the matter, so that even now we can give effect to the findings of the Central Advisory Board of Health, now defunct. I wish the Honourable the Minister for Health had been here. I am sure if the Director General of Medical Services were here, he would have supported me. It is my misfortune that I happen to be the only surviving member in this House of the Central Advisory. Board and there is no body else to support me,. The Government representatives of the Public Health Department also are not here.

I therefore suggest in all seriousness that nothing would be lost if it is, transferred to the Concurrent List. I am not the type of a member who moves amendments for nothing. Unless I am morally convinced, I do not move amendments or make speeches. Today food adulteration has assumed proportions which, unless you check it now, will kill the whole nation. Recently I have been interested in the movement which. was very kindly inaugurated by you. Mr. President, with regard to Dalda. Mahatma Gandhi with his characteristic insight rightly started this In six different institutions researches are now being carried on with regard to the hydrogenated oils. I have seen reports of one or two important research institutes. I bad a prolonged discussion with some of the eminent scientists about a month ago about the results they had achieved regarding this. The results are conflicting. 'There is perhaps no vice as such in the process of hydrogenation; but what matters most is the basic oil pressed out of diseased seeds and mixture with other varieties of injurious stuff with the result that the product of hydrogenation assumes deleterious properties which bring on disease. I am awaiting the results of the researches of the other five institutions. You, Mr. President, rightly sounded the note of warning. Unless these matters are tackled both from the Centre as well as from the provinces this great social vice cannot be stamped out or effectively checked. I commend this amendment to the consideration of the House, as I feel that it is essential in the interest of the national health of this country.

(Amendment No. 105 was not moved.)

Dr. P. S. Deshmukh: (C. P. & Berar: General): Mr. President, I strongly support the amendment that has been moved by Shri Brajeshwar Prasad. When I moved a similar amendment some time ago it fell on deaf cars so far as the members of the Drafting Committee and the learned Dr. Ambedkar were concerned; but probably I should have been prepared to bear this without complaint as they were not prepared to accept my amendment regarding the prevention of adulteration of articles of food whether imported, proposed to be exported or otherwise, arrangement for analysis, control and regulation of all such articles, as an entry in List I. It is very necessary that I should speak here because I have given notice of a similar amendment to List III; but if this amendment is put to vote and rejected I would be precluded from moving that amendment or even speaking on that occasion because you may give a ruling that the subject had been discussed and decided.

So I would beg your permission to support the amendment that has been moved by Mr. Brajeshwar Prasad and to urge that the amendment of whichI had given notice so far as the Union List was concerned and of which I have given, fresh notice, which is amendment 295, by which I seek the entry so far as adulteration of foodstuffs to be altered as follows :-

"Prevention of adulteration of articles of food whether imported, proposed to be exported or intended for domestic use, arrangements for analysis, control and regulation of all such articles."

The importance of this question has already been amply brought home to all the honourable Members of this House by my Friend Pandit Maitra who has just spoken and although he may be the last surviving member of that Commission which he referred to I hope the whole House is alive to the need of stopping adulteration of foodstuffs. It is a disgrace that should be put down at the earliest possible opportunity. It is really curious that for two years all sorts of adulteration of foodstuffs has gone on and the evil is showing no signs of diminishing yet and in spite of the fact that we are passing hundreds of laws and ordinances and rushing through dozens of Bills in a couple of minutes each, the Government has not come forward with a Bill dealing with this important matter and so as to stop this evil which is affecting the health as well as the prosperity of the whole nation. It is likely to affect the country much more seriously than any other single thing. We know that this adulteration is going on on such a scale that people have not left anything undone. in this respect. I may mention here a highly interesting case which came to light in my province. A certain merchant was, throughout the war, i.e. for nearly six years melting tons of gur in big pans. After melting it, he mixed it with near about twenty per cent of mud, earth taken from the old "gadhies" of which we have many in the C.P. and from which we get very find earth. This earth was consistently mixed with gur to the extent of 20 per cent and the adulterated gur was sold to all sorts of people, for all those years. The case came to the court only because the potter who applied the large quantity of earth on the backs of his donkeys was not paid the money due to him, by the avaricious merchant and he had to bring the matter to the court. That was how the Government came to know of this dastardly offence. There are even worse cases than this.

Hence I claim that there is absolute necessity for putting this matte at least in the Concurrent List, if it is not possible to leave it to the exclusive powers of the Union. It is essential that there should be legislation which will prevent this kind of cases. What I propose is done in any and every agricultural country. In Canada as early as 1920, there are provisions for the proper grading of all sorts of agricultural products, and for the punishment of offences of adulteration. Even the irresponsible British Government was alive to the issue and that is why it appointed a Commission to go into this question. But our independent national government has not realised the importance of this question, and this amendment among other things seeks to bring this important question to the attention of the Central as well as the Provincial Governments. It seeks more to focus the attention of the Centre on this question, as the Provincial Governments are liable to prove ineffective.

Moreover, it is absolutely impossible for one State to check the evil because other States also are equally vitally concerned. There are also ports from which the adulterated stuffs are sent round the whole country. Therefore it is necessary to have all-India legislation. There should be not only the prevention of adulteration, but there should also be arrangements for government analysts who will be able to detect what sort and extent of adulteration there has been and thus bring home the offences to the people who have committed them. I therefore, think that the amendment moved by my Friend is quite proper and this subject should not be left only to the States. By placing it in the Concurrent List, we do not deprive the States of their power of legislation in respect of this subject, but so far as may be necessary, the Centre will have the power to interfere. I know the Drafting Committee has been criticised on various occasions. I do not wish to indulge in such criticism over again; but I do feel that some of the things said about the Committee are justified, that it need not be obstinate enough not to take into account the reasonable suggestions which have not occurred to them or appealed to them previously. I think this is none of them, and I do hope even at this late stage, that they will agree to the amendment proposed, and transfer this entry to List III.

Mr. President: I do not think it is necessary to have many speeches. We have had the point clearly put before us.

Shri T.T. Krishnamachari: Mr. President, Sir, I must confess that I have a great deal of sympathy with the objects which my honourable Friend Pandit Maitra wants to serve, by transferring this entry from List II to List III, and I do not for one moment even contemplate refuting the various arguments that have been put forward by previous speakers in regard to the necessity for prevention of adulteration of foodstuffs. These arguments, I admit, are sound. I do admit that adulteration exists and that it ought to be prevented. The dispute really is, which is the agency to prevent it? Is it to be the Centre or is it to be the State? I am afraid, Sir, that our technical advisers who happen to be the Ministry of Health in this particular instance, have not even suggested that we should transfer this entry from List II to List III.

Shri T.T. Krishnamachari: My honourable Friend will please bear with me for a minute. The whole matter has been referred to the various ministers according as their interests lay, and actually, I might mention that in regard to public health legislation, the Health Ministry wanted to take it over, and make it a Concurrent subject. As has been explained on a previous occasion......

Shri T.T. Krishnamachari: As was previously explained by Dr. Ambedkar, there was a lot of resistance from the Provinces and the Health Ministry did not suggest that this item should be transferred to the Concurrent List. I agree with my honourable Friend Dr. Deshmukh that the Health Ministry is not the last word on the subject; nor are we, the Drafting Committee, the last word on the subject. Ultimately the last word on the subject happens to be the wishes of this House. Well, this is a difficult question-the question of appointment of the legislative powers between the Centre and the Provinces. It has to be considered carefully. The safest thing is to maintain the status quo. But if there is to be a change, the change should be made after full and careful scrutiny, after full investigation and after obtaining the full consent of the authorities who are in charge of the administration. That is the only safe way of determining where the legislative powers ought to be vested and the responsibilities of the Centre and the States determined in so far as the Scheduled is concerned. And I would submit that the Drafting Committee has followed that line. It has not merely forwarded all these various entries to the Ministries concerned, at the Centre, but every opportunity was taken to get into correspondence with the Ministries in the Provinces frequent conferences were held, opposing views were mentioned there and the lists and the amendments as we now propose them, are the result of those conferences and the result......

Shri T.T. Krishnamachari: I would willingly admit to the honourable member that every change that we make in the fifty-ninth minute and in the fifty-ninth second is a change that is based on a certain amount of consultation and some investigation. It is not an ad hoc change introduced by the Drafting Committee, because the Drafting Committee does not take the initiative in any of these matters.

Dr. P.S. Deshmukh: Does the honourable Member hold to this opinion even after what has been said in the House?

Shri T.T. Krishnamachari: Will the honourable Member please allow me to finish my speech?

Shri T.T. Krishnamachari: I leave it to the discretion of the honourable Member to believe whomsoever he likes. But so far as I am concerned, I feel perfectly safe in mentioning that everyone of these items in the List were gone through and the decisions to make changes or not to make them are the results of such discussions.

Under this, I suggest there is ample power for the Centre to prevent adulterated foodstuff from going from one State to the other, and there will be enough power under this legislative entry for the Centre to impose penalties on those merchants who export adulterated foodstuffs from one State to another, and the purpose that my honourable Friend has in mind can be served. What, then, is the object of transferring it to the Concurrent List or to List I, I do not understand.

Pandit Lakshmi Kanta Maitra: May I explain? The object is to save the Government from the odium that the Centre does not want to face the responsibility and so wants to pass it on to the Provincial Governments. We want to help the Central Government and to restore public confidence in it.

Shri T.T. Krishnamachari: The honourable Member is an old friend and colleague to mine, and I know he feels strongly on any point that he exercises his mind on. But I think he will understand that in this fairly important matter, we cannot take ad hoc decision here, because some people feel strongly on the subject. The interested parties are the Health Ministry here and the Provincial Ministries, and after full discussions we have come to the conclusion that such and such provisions should be there and punitive measures can be taken by the provinces. We have left it to the provincial governments to se that these provisions are observed. And I think if circumstances are such that we cannot.....(Interruptions by Pandit Lakshmi Kanta Maitra and Dr. P.S. Deshmukh). There is no use interrupting me. I must finish my arguments. If the Central Government feels, and if the Provincial Governments also feel that the powers vested in the provincial governments under entry 38 of List II and under entry 61A of List I are not adequate for the purpose, even then, we are not entirely without power.

Dr. P.S. Deshmukh: This finding has already been reached by a Commission.

Shri T.T. Krishnamachari: I say, even then we are not entirely without resources. Action can be taken under article 226 or 229. If it is found necessary, a Central Act can be passed under article 229. Such an Act was passed in the past in order to control the drug trade, which was entirely a provincial subject, and it was because of that Act that we have e now put it in the Central List, because co-ordination is necessary. We are not, therefore, entirely without resources. The position is undoubtedly serious, but it need not be unduly magnified by reason of the fact that the powers are put in the State List and not in the Concurrent List. Some honourable Members seem to think that the great Central Government of the future will have so many arms with which it can clutch at any offender at any particular place. We must on the other hand, place the responsibility squarely on the shoulders of the provincial Governments. I think that is the only way in which the purpose of my honourable Friend can be served. The Provincial Governments are on the spot and they are the persons to take action. If the Provincial Governments do not take any action for carrying out the necessary punitive measures for the purpose of seeking that the co-ordinating measures are not infringed upon, then 61-A gives enough power in the hands of the Centre to act. I do feel that although there is a lot of sentiment in this matter, and there is a lot of truth that there is adulteration of foodstuffs, the remedy can not be sought by merely putting the entry into the Concurrent List or List I. Provincial Governments must accept the responsibility and face it squarely and if there is need we have enough powers under 61-A of the Act. But I feel that, much as I sympathise with my friend, I am unable to accept the suggestion.

Dr. P.S. Deshmukh: Why not wait till Dr. Ambedkar is there and consult him.

Pandit Lakshmi Kanta Maitra: I think at least they can ask the Health Ministry. On several occasions statements have been made on the strength that Provincial Ministers have agreed. But I have often been told by Provincial Ministers that they have not been consulted. This is our experience. This being an important matter, the Health Minister can be contacted, the Director-General of Medical Services could be contacted, and the Director of Health, Delhi, could also be contacted before any decision is taken. It will be a great national calamity if the Centre does not tackle it.

Mr. President: It is not usual for me to take part or sides.

Pandit Lakshmi Kanta Maitra: Quite true. I am appealing to my friend to be considerate.

Shri T.T. Krishnamachari: It could be held over. The point is that I cannot see how the Provincial Government can be consulted in the matter, and quick decision taken.

Mr. President: You can consult them.

Mr. President: It is not so much from the Chair. Built I see that there is considerable feeling in the house and I must confess that I have my sympathies with that feeling. It is not really from the Chair but from the House.

Mr. President: Yes, we may do that.

Entry 39

Mr. President: Since there are no amendments to entry 39 I shall put it to the House:

Entry 39 was added to the State List.

Entry 40

Shri T.T. Krishnamachari: Sir, I move:

"That for entry 40 of State List II, the following entry be substituted:-

'40 Intoxicating liquors, that is to say, the production, manufacture, possession transport, purchase and sale of intoxicating liquors."

This amendment is necessary because we have shifted poisons and drugs to the Concurrent List and opium happens to be in the Central List. This entry, therefore, will suffice for the purposes of State Governments. Sir, I move.

Shri H.V. Kamath: What is the distinction between production and manufacture? Is there any fine distinction?

Mr. President: Between production and manufacture?

Mr. President: I think that is the explanation. So I shall put the amendment to the House. The question is:

"That for entry 40 of State List II, the following entry be substituted:-

'40 Intoxicating liquors, that is to say, the production, manufacture, possession, transport, purchase and sale of intoxicating liquors."

The amendment was adopted.

Mr. President: The question is:

"That entry 40, as amended be added to List II."

The motion was adopted.

Entry 40, as amended, was added to the State List.

Entry 41

Shri T.T. Krishnamachari: Sir, I move:

That in amendment No.107 of List I (Sixth Week) for the proposed entry 41 of List II, the following entry be substituted:-

41 Relief of the disabled and unemployable."

The original entry read:

"Relief of the poor: unemployment".

We are taking "unemployment" to the Concurrent List. Therefore what remains is only relief of the poor. It was felt by many Members of this House that it is offensive to sentiment for the word "poor" to be there. Actually the relief that is contemplated is not relief of the poor but only relief of those people who are needy, of the disabled and unemployable. That is why these words have been substituted. I hope the House will accept the amendment.

Dr. P.S. Deshmukh: I would like to move only a part of my amendment, Sir, I move:

"That in amendment No.107 of List 1 (Sixth Week) for the proposed entry 41 of List II, the following entry be substituted:-

'41-A. Relief of the poor, control of begging, poor houses, training and employment of young persons."

My only point in moving this amendment is to provide for the control of begging. There has been some discussion yesterday on this point and the question is whether it will not be necessary to put specifically the control of begging as one of the items for legislation in this list.

Mr. President: Which amendment are you moving?

Dr. P.S. Deshmukh: Amendment 41-A. I am not moving the rest.

(Amendment 245 was not moved)

Shri H.V. Kamath: Sir, I find from the Concurrent List that there is a new article, entry 27-employment and unemployment. They are very comprehensive terms. I want to know from my honourable Friend Mr. T.T. Krishnamachari what exactly is connoted by the word "unemployable" here, apart from the word "disabled" already used. A man is unemployable-is something else meant than by saying that he is disabled and therefore unemployable: or does it mean that there is a category of persons for whom the State cannot provide work, though according to the Directive Principles of State Policy, we have laid down that the State must secure the right to work for every person. Does it mean people for whom Government cannot obtain employment, or those people who for some reasons other than being disabled, cannot secure employment? If that is so, what is that category? I would like my Friend to throw some light on this point.

Shri T.T. Krishnamachari: I would at once confess that I have not had the opportunity that my honourable Friend Mr. Kamath has had of education in England and therefore I am unable to appreciate the point raised by him.

Shri H.V. Kamath: I am sorry, Sir, to interrupt, but I was not educated in England.

Shri T.T. Krishnamachari: The suggestion came from persons for whom most of us have very great respect. Obviously the idea seems to be to indicate those that are disabled and for some reason or other cannot undertake any employment.

Mr. P.S. Deshmukh: Though I am not satisfied with the explanation of Mr. T.T. Krishnamachari I beg to withdraw my amendment.

The motion was by leave of the Assembly, withdrawn.

Mr. President: The question is:

"That in amendment No.107 of List I (Sixth Week), for the proposed entry 41 of List II, the following entry be substituted:-

41. Relief of the disabled and unemployable."

The amendment was adopted.

Mr. President: The question is:

"That entry, 41, as amended, stand part of List II."

The motion was adopted.

Entry 41, as amended, was added to the State List.

Entry 42

Entry 42 was added to List II.

Entry 43

Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava: Sir, I move:

"That with reference to amendment No.3626 of the List of Amendments, entry 43 in List II be transferred to List III as entry 9-A."

In regard to this entry it is clear that religious endowments, etc., etc., have provincial as well as inter-State importance. There are many institutions which may be said to be of more than provincial importance. For instance there is the Gandhi National Memorial, the Kasturba Trust, the Kamala Nehru Hospital, the Begum Azad Hospital, etc. As regards religious institutions we have a very large number in this country, especially in big towns. There are the Somnath Temple, the Badrinath, Jagannath, Rameshwaram, Dwaraka, Vishwanath, Madura, Srirangam and many other temples which are held in veneration and people go for worship from all parts of India.

Similarly we have very big Mutts and Akharas. For instance there are the Ramakrishna and Vivekananda Missions, the Gurudwaras, Dharamshalas etc. The income from some of them are sufficient to run even universities. The beneficiaries consist of crores of people and therefore in regard to such charitable institutions it is very necessary that the Centre should also be invested with power to legislate in addition to the States. In regard to such institutions which are of provincial or local importance the State alone may have the right to legislate. I have, therefore, suggested that so far as these other institutions are concerned both the States and the Centre will have the power to legislate. The line of demarcation between them is not very distinct and therefore it may happen that it will be difficult to decide which is of local and which of more than local importance. But as it is a matter in which both the Centre and the provinces are equally interested and there is no chance of any clash of interest whatsoever.

(a) regulating or restricting any economic, financial, political or other secular activity which may be associated with religious practice;

(b) for social welfare and reform or for throwing open Hindus religious institutions of a public character to any class or section of Hindus."

When we consider this aspect of the question it becomes all the more necessary that the Centre should have the right to legislate. Therefore my submission is that this entry be transferred from the States List to the Concurrent List.

Sardar Hukam Singh (East Punjab:Sikh): Sir, I have come to lend wholehearted support to the amendment moved by my Friend Pandit Bhargava. Ordinarily no support is necessary to an amendment like this nor is one permitted, but I felt myself bound because I had certain fears. In this connection I support the grounds as well, mentioned by Pandit Bhargava.

Concurrent List and I sent a notice of that amendment. Now, that Pandit Bhargava has moved this amendment that this entry should be transferred to the Concurrent List there is no need for me to move my amendment and I wholeheartedly support Pandit Bhargava's amendment.'

The Honourable Dr. B.R. Ambedkar: Sir, I am prepared to accept this amendment.

Mr. President: The question is:

"That with reference to amendment No.3626 of the List of Amendment, entry 43 in List II be transferred to List III as entry 9-A."

The motion was adopted.

Entry 43 of List II was transferred to the Concurrent List.

Shri T.T. Krishnamachari: Sir, I move:

"That for entry 44 of List II, the following entry be substituted:-

'44. Theatres, dramatic, performances, cinemas, sports, entertainments and amusements, but not including the sanctioning of cinematograph films for exhibition."

With your permission, I move also amendment No. 287 standing in my name, viz.

"That in amendment No. 111 of List I (Sixth Week), in the proposed entry 4 of List II, for the words 'not including' the words 'subject to the provisions of List I with respect to' be substituted."

The amended amendment will read thus:

'44. Theatres, dramatic, performances, cinemas, sports, entertainments and amusements, subject to the provisions of List I with respect to the sanctioning of cinematograph films for exhibition."

The idea that the sanctioning of cinematograph films for exhibition should be transferred to the Centre has been accepted. There is no further variation here except that 'sports, amusements and entertainments' have been added to the original entry in the Draft Constitution.

Mr. President: Dr. P.S. Deshmukh and Shri Raj Bahadur are not moving their amendments

Shri H.V. Kamath: Sir, I move:

"That in amendment No.111 of List I (Sixth Week), in the proposed entry 44 of List II, for the words 'entertainments and amusements', the words 'playgrounds, gymnasia and stadia' be substituted."

Shri T.T. Krishnamachari: It comes in as entry 45 in the List.

Shri H.V. Kamath: It comes under the term 'Entertainments and amusements.' I do not want that entertainments and amusements should be subject to any kind of governmental interference. Already in modern times Governments are taking so much power that it seems that the sky is the limi to their greed for power. With the sky as the limit the Government are tiring to encroach upon each and every field. I do not see any reason why entertainments as such should be mentioned in any of the lists here. I have mentioned specifically, 'playgrounds, gymnasia and stadia,' because in recent times, in Russia as well as in Germany and Italy, during the third decade of this century, it was governmental action which brought into existence amphitheatres, vast playgrounds and what are called parks of culture and rest. Government might move in these matter and organise these things for millions of citizens. But this is something different from legislating with regard to entertainments and amusements. We have the old Sanskrit saying:

'Kavya Shastra vinodena kalo gcchati dhimatam.'

Any Government if it is so disposed might regard vinoda, innocent entertainment as coming within the ambit of this provision.

Just as you cannot beat people into conformity, just as you cannot shoot people into loyalty or obedience, so too you cannot legislate people into moral beings. If crimes against humanity are committee, then the State should intervene and punish the offender. But it is one thing to punish crimes against humanity, and quite another to create conditions for the commission of offences. That is what you are doing here. Government are trying to legislate with regard to certain amusements and entertainments. One does not know which amusements will fall within this entry and which not. I am really unable to understand why this entry should have been modified in this regard--The old draft entry 44 might have been left as it was. I do not know why this change has been made. I would be happy if the words 'entertainments and amusements' are deleted , even if my amendments to insert "playgrounds, etc." is not accepted. But the words 'Entertainments and amusements' must go.

Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena: Sir, I beg to move:

"That in amendment No.111 of List I (Sixth Week), the proposed entry 44 of List II be transferred to List III."

My only reason for moving this amendment is that I consider theatres, cinemas and dramatic performances to be very important modern means of promoting adult education. In our country, if we want to bring literacy to every body, this entry should go to List III so that there can be co-ordination and regulation of the production and use of the films for educational purposes of the whole nation. By putting this in List III we would not be taking away anybody's powers.

Shri Brajeshwar Prasad: Sir, I rise to support the new entry moved by Shri T.T. Krishnamachari. I am opposed to what all was said by Mr. Kamath on this occasion. I hold that entertainments and amusements if they are to be available to the poor, the provincial Governments must have power. The entertainments today are available only to the rich. The poor are deprived of these amenities of life. The record of the Soviet Union in this sphere is simply admirable. I support the amendment moved by Shri T.T. Krishnamachari.

Shri T.T. Krishnamachari: Sir, I appreciate what my honourable Friend Mr. Kamath has said in regard to undue interference by the State in the activities of private persons in Clubs and other places, but I do not think that this entry relates to that matter at all. What it really relates to is a certain amount of control which the States should have over places of public resort for purposes of health, morality and public order. These three matters of the State will have to safeguard in places of public resort. What my friend contemplates to do should be done under the powers conferred by the next item 45. The recent order of the Bombay Government is to stop the play of rummy because of the stakes involved. The people that play this game for such high stakes that it takes the form gambling, and it is for that reason that under the powers that the Bombay Government have under entry 45 they have sought to prohibit the playing of rummy for money. I do not think that this particular entry under discussion will be abused by any State Government to unduly restrict any pleasures or diversions that people have. The purpose of this entry is entirely different.

Mr. President: Then I will put Mr. T.T. Krishnamachari's amendment to the vote No.287.

Shri T.T. Krishnamachari: No.287 and 111 form part of one whole.

Mr. President: The question is:

"That in amendment No.111 of List I (Sixth Week), in the proposed entry 44 of List II, for the words 'not including' the words 'subject to the provisions of List I with respect to be substituted."

The motion was adopted.

Mr. President: Then amendment No.111 as amended by amendment No.287. The question is:

"That for entry 44 of List II, the following entry be substituted:-

'44. Theatres, dramatic performances, cinemas, sports, entertainments and amusements, but subject to the provisions of List I with respect to the sanctioning of cinematograph films for exhibition."

The amendment was adopted.

Mr. President: The question is:

'That in amendment No.111 of List I (Sixth Week), in the proposed entry 44 of List II, for the words 'entertainments and amusements', the words 'playgrounds, gymnasia and stadia' be substituted."

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. President: The question is:

"That in amendment No.111 of List I (Sixth Week) the proposed entry 44 of List II be transferred to List III."

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. President: The question is:

"That entry 44, as amended, stand part of List II."

The motion was adopted.

Entry 44, as amended, was added to the State List.

Entry 45

Mr. President: Amendment No.313 is for deletion of the entry. It is not an amendment but Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena can speak on it.

Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena: Sir, betting and gambling are being legalised by this entry in the Schedule. I thought that gambling was a crime and so I am surprised to see that gambling and betting are provided for as a legitimate field of activity under this Schedule. In fact, I was sorry that entry No.78 in List I was passed without any opposition,

"Lotteries organised by the Government of India or the Government of any State."

I think that this is against the principles to which we are committed. Gambling and betting should be banned. Sir, I strongly oppose this entry.

Shri Lakshminarayan Sahu: *[Mr. President, I am opposing this for the reason that when we are going to build the entire structure of our State on the foundations of truth and non-violence, when we are guided by the lofty ideals of Mahatma Gandhi, there should be no mention at all of betting and gambling in the Constitution we are to frame. The very mention of these words would indicate that our National Government favours the idea of encouraging betting and gambling and seeks to have its own control on them. Have we forgotten the lessons of the Mahabharat? Taxation on such items does not appear proper. The clause relating to lottery laid down in the Constitution, is also not proper.

Sardar Hukam Singh: Does the honourable Member want that there should be no betting and gambling?

Shri Lakshminarayan Sahu: The Constitution Assembly which is making the rules now, should prohibit it. *[Therefore, Mr. President, I oppose it]

The Honourable Dr. B.R. Ambedkar: Sir, I am very much afraid that both my friends, Mr. Shibban Lal and Mr. Sahu, have entirely misunderstood the purport of this entry 45 and they are further under a great misapprehension that if this entry was omitted, there would be no betting or gambling in the country at all. I should like to submit to them that if this entry was omitted, there would be absolutely no control of betting and gambling at all, because if entry 45 was there it may either be used for the purpose of permitting betting and gambling or it may be used for the purpose of prohibiting them. If this entry is not there, the provincial governments would be absolutely helpless in the matter.

I hope that they will realise what they are doing. If this entry was omitted, the other consequence would be that this subject will automatically transferred to List I under entry 91. The result will be the same, viz. the Central Government may either permit gambling or prohibit gambling. The question therefore that arises is this whether this entry should remain here or should be omitted here and go specifically as a specified item in List I or be deemed to be included in entry 91. If my friends are keen that there should be no betting and gambling, then the proper thing would be to introduce an article in the Constitution itself making betting and gambling a crime, not to be tolerated by the State. As it is, it is a preventive thing and the State will have full power to prohibit gambling. I hope that with this explanation they will withdraw their objection to this entry.