Constituent Assembly Of India -Volume IX

Dated: August 31, 1949

The Constituent Assembly of India met in the- Constitution Hall, New Delhi, at Nine of the Clock Mr. President (The Honourable Dr. Rajendra Prasad) in the Chair.

List I : Entry 53

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar (Bombay: General): Sir I move:

"That in Entry 53 of List I, the words and the figure except the States for the being specified in Part III of the First Schedule' be omitted.

This is because we propose to make no distinction between a State in Part I .and Part III.

Shri B. V. Kamth (C.P. & Berar: General): There is a little amendment ,of mine, No. 198. Sir, I move:

That with reference to amendment No. 25 of List I (Sixth Week), in entry 53 of List I, for the words 'and exclusion of the jurisdiction of any such High Court from', the words .and exclusion from the jurisdiction of any such High Court of' be substituted.'

This is only an interposition of words, I know, but it changes the meaning slightly land brings out what is intended in the entry,. I believe ,that this entry has reference to exclusion from the jurisdiction of any High Court of certain areas. It is therefore not correct to say "exclusion of the jurisdiction of any such High Court". You exclude something from the jurisdiction: you ,cannot exclude jurisdiction from. You can say that you do not extent jurisdiction to some other area. But to say that you exclude the jurisdiction of a Court from something is not correct English. What is intended is that you exclude certain areas from the jurisdiction of a particular Court, and the entry as it stands does not bring out the meaning which it is intended to convey. I am sure Dr. Ambedkar will agree that the entry intends to exclude certain areas from the jurisdiction of the High Court. If that is so, the wording should be "exclude from the jurisdiction of a Court certain areas". The Court has jurisdiction : not, in this context, a State or any other area. dare say this will be quite proper, and I commend this. little amendment of mine to the House for its consideration.

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Sir, Mr. Kamath's amendment is wholly unnecessary because the object of my amendment is to delete altogether hat portion of entry No. 53 beginning from "except" to the end. If I was etaining any part of the entry then of course the question might arise whether he phraseology used in the entry is better than the one suggested by Mr. Kamath or vice versa.

Shri H. V. Kamath: My amendment has reference to the entry itself not to he amendment.

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: I think that cannot arise because I am omitting the whole thing. The second point is that the language used in entry 53 has to be in keeping with the language employed in article 207.

Shri H. V. Kamath: If this is accepted the language in the other article which has already been passed will have to be amended-at the third reading.

Mr. President: I find that Dr. Ambedkar's amendment refers only to a part of this entry.

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: I am taking out the last part "except the States for the time being specified in Part III of the First Schedule". The entry as amended would stand :

"Extension of the jurisdiction of a High Court having its principal seat in any State within the territory of India to, and exclusion of the jurisdiction of any such High Court from any area outside that State."

The entry merely provides for the extension or the exclusion of the jurisdiction.

Shri H. V. Kamath: My amendment refers to the second part, "exclusion of the jurisdiction of any such High Court from any area outside that State".

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: I am not accepting your quibbling.

Shri H. V. Kamath: It is no quibble. It is a question of correct English.

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: If it is a matter of mere English we can take it up at the next stage.

Mr. President: Then I shall put Mr. Kamath's amendment to vote.

The question is:

"That with reference to amendment No. 25 of List I (Sixth Week), in entry 53 of List I, for the words 'and exclusion of the jurisdiction of any such High Court from,' the words 'and exclusion from the jurisdiction of any such High Court of' be substituted."

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. President: I shall now put Dr. Ambedkar's amendment to vote.

The question is:

"That in entry 53 of List 1, the words and figures 'except the States for the time being specified in Part III of the First Schedule' be omitted."

The amendment was adopted.

Mr. President: The question is:

"That entry 53, as amended, be adopted."

The motion Was adopted. Entry 53, as amended, was added to the Union List.

Entry 54

Entry 54, was added to the Union List.

Entry 55

Entry- 55. was added to the Union List.

Entry 56

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: I move:

That for entry 56 of List I the following entry be substituted:-

56. Inquiries, surveys and statistics for the purpose of any of the matters in this List'

There is hardly any difference. We have merely made it "for the purpose of any of the matters in this List".

Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad (West Bengal: Muslim): Though my amendment No. 167 will improve the text, I do not want to move it.

(Amendment No. 254 was not moved.)

Shri Phool Singh (United Provinces: General): Mr. President, Sir, the amendment suggested by Dr. Ambedkar will limit the scope of this entry. Under the original entry the Government is free to collect statistics regarding any matter, but if the proposed amendment is accepted that scope would be limited only to the matters entered in this List. For example, there is the case of fixing the price of sugar. In order to fix the price of sugar the Government of India has to find out the cost of manufacture of sugar. That is not a thing entered in this List. Unless the Union Government is in a position to legislate on that point the factories may withhold the information. So, I suggest that the amendment may not be accepted and that the original entry, namely "Inquiries, surveys, and statistics for' the purposes of the Union" may be kept intact. For that will enable the Government to make enquiries, bold surveys and collect statistics for purposes even other than those entered in this List. With these few words I request Dr. Ambedkar to reconsider the situation.

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Sir, I think the fear expressed by my friend is somewhat groundless and arises from the fact that he has not adverted to the fact that all other inquiries and so on relating to the States, and other matters, are now put in the Concurrent List. So there is no absence of any such purpose that he wants.

Mr. President: The question is:

"That for entry 56 of List I the following entry be substituted.

'56. Inquiries, surveys and statistics for the purpose of any of the matters in this List."

The amendment was adopted. Entry 56, as amended, was added to the Union List.

Entry 57

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar. Sir, I move:

"That for entry 57 of List I the following be substituted:

'57. Union agencies and Union institutes for the following purposes, that is to say, for research, for professional, vocational or technical training. for scientific or technical assistance in the investigation or detection of crime, for the training of police officers, or for the promotion of special studies'."

The entry is somewhat enlarged by the introduction of the words 'vocational training" and "investigation or detection of crime, for the training of police officers" and so on.

Mr. President: Now we will take up-the amendments.

(Amendment No. 168, was not moved.)

Shri H. V. Kamath: Mr. President, I move, Sir, amendments Nos. .199 and 200 of List III of Week VI. Amendment No. 199 reads as follows:-

"That in amendment No. 27 of list I (Sixth Week).

that is to say, the amendment just now moved by Dr. Ambedkar,-

'.... in the proposed entry 57 of List I, for the word 'research' the words 'historical scientific and spiritual research' be substituted'."

Amendment No. 200 is to the effect ......The Honourable Shri K. Santhanam (Madras : General) : Mr. President, yesterday I think the honourable Member protested against Government interference in such matters.

Mr. President: He has a right to be inconsistent.

Shri H. V.Kamath: I am sorry, Sir, Mr. Santhanam has not cared to follow. I think he is very busy with his Railway and Transport portfolio and does not follow the proceedings-at least not what I said in the House yesterday. When I make my point clear here, I believe he too will change his view.

Amendment No. 200 is to the effect that-

"That in amendment No. 27 of List I (Sixth Week), in the proposed entry 57 of List I. for the word 'police' the words administrative and police' be substituted."

Taking the first amendment first, let me try in my own humble manner to dispose of the objection raised by my honourable Friend Mr. Santhanam. He chose to remark that yesterday I had pleaded against governmental interference........

An Honourable Member.- By the Centre.

Shri H. V. Kamath: Any way, interference by the Centre or governmental interference in yogic matters. I suppose he referred to the observations I made with regard to the yogic institutes in India. What I had pointed out yesterday--I am sorry my Friend Mr. Santhanam did not understand it-was that there are certain institutes today run by private agencies which are doing splendid work in yoga and yogic research. They should not be interfered with so long as they-are running very efficiently and to the advantage of the people at large. But today the point I am making out is about Union institutes the word used in this entry has reference to Union agencies and institutes of the Union. These are different from private institutes run by private agencies, and I hope my Friend Mr. Santhanam will understand the distinction that has been made between this entry and my remarks made yesterday.

As regards the point of my amendment No. 199, I wish to state that we should make the word "research" very clear here. Yesterday Dr. Ambedkar, moving the amendment with regard to surveys in India, expanded the term "zoological" so as to bring in or to include the word "anthropological" as well. His intentions were excellent. It was to make the meaning quite clear and unambiguous. So also, here, following- in his own estimable footsteps, I want to make the word "research" absolutely unambiguous and clear. There are various kinds of research. There is historical research, conducted in various institutes; one of the well-known institutes in Poona, the Bhandarkar Institute has been doing very good work for many years. Then scientific research institutes there are so many. But institutes of the third kind, those which are doing spiritual research have so far been few in number. There have been yogic ashram as but they are different from institutes which carry on research in the spiritual field. The only institute which has been doing this work, to my knowledge, in a scientific manner, in the spiritual field, is the Kaivalyadhama Institute of Lonavla; and Government, during the last Budget session or soon after that, recognised 'his Institute and sanctioned a grant of Rs. 20,000 for advancing or promoting scientific research in yoga. I am speaking on very reliable authority. The head of the Institute applied for a grant to carry on scientific research in yoga, and Government granted to the Institute Rs.20,000, for conducting and promoting scientific research in yoga.

With the advent of freedom and the dawn of Indian renaissance, I have no doubt in my own mind that our spiritual culture, our ancient culture, must be revived not in one direction only but in all possible directions. One objection that is levelled against spiritual culture -yogic culture especially-is that it is unscientific. Today the pioneer of scientific research in yoga, Swami Kuvalayananda, at Lonavla is doing splendid wok in this field. I am sure that as we grow in stature, as India's freedom grows, there will be many more institutes of this kind which will promote research in the spiritual field. It is very necessary. As Mahayogi Aurobindo Said recently, the West is turning to the East for some light and guidance, and if the East fails the West today then the world is doomed. He further exhorted us saying that India should not run after the materialistic baubles of the West. It is all right to increase the standard of living, but to become merely materialistic is not all in life. The world craves something else and the world is looking towards India. It is high time we did something in this direction and showed the light to an expectant world.

I hope the Union will promote agencies under its aegis to promote not merely historical and scientific research but also research in yoga and the spiritual field on a really scientific basis, science understood in the largest and most comprehensive sense, not in the very narrow sense of having a little laboratory, test tubes, flasks, pipettes and burettes, but the real scientific outlook of experiment, the outlook of a man seeking knowledge-scio "to know".

As regards my second amendment, I think through an oversight the word "administrative" has been omitted from this new proposed entry 57. The training of policy officers has been referred to. As far as I am aware, in the olden days the members of the I.P.S. and also the I.C.S. had to undergo a period or probation first in England and then on their arrival here complete that training departmentally. During World War II, owing to unsettled conditions in England, the training of the members of the I.C.S. was conducted here at Dehra Dun. That training was an integral part of the general instruction given to members of the I.C.S. Till they passed this training course and the other departmental tests they were regarded as probationers not eligible for confirmation or to draw increments in their pay.

I understand that, after August 1947, a school for the training of administrative officers has been started in old Delhi at Metcalffe House which housed part of the old Secretariat or the Delhi University. The principal of the school is a member of the old I.C.S. Training is being imparted there to the members of the new I.A.S. which has replaced the I.C.S. If it is considered that the police officers should have this training it is all the more important that the members of the new I.A.S. should have this training too. They have replaced the old I.C.S. and hence they should have the same kind of training. I see no reason why the training of members of the I.A.S. should not be included along with the training of the police officers unless of course Dr. Ambedkar in his profound wisdom can give some reason to the contrary. I suggest that the item "training of police of officers" should be omitted. But if that cannot be done. I see no reason why the members of the I.A.S. should not be included. I commend my amendments 199 and 200 for the consideration of the House.

Mr. President: There is an amendment to this-entry 57, standing in the name of Mr. Karimuddin (No. 3544). As it is not being moved, Dr. Ambedkar may reply.

The Honourable Dr. B.R. Ambedkar: Mr. President, I have compared the amendments moved by my honourable Friend Mr. Kamath with the entry as proposed by me. I think except for one matter, it will be quite open to central Government to carry out the purpose which my honourable Friend Mr. Kamath has in mind. The only thing which the Central Government will not be able to effectuate under entry 57 is spiritual research. I do not think that this House, knowing full well the various problems with which the Central Government has to carry on these days, would like to burden it with any such agency as spiritual research. The rest of the objects of the amendment will be covered by entry 57.

Shri H.V. Kamath: How do you say that the administrative service officers are covered by the entry as proposed?

The Honourable Dr. B.R. Ambedkar: I think so because the training is not only for officers. The language used is "research, for professional, vocational or technical training". Anything can be brought in under the above.

Mr. President: The question is:

"That in amendment No. 27 of List I (Sixth Week), in the proposed entry 57 of List I, for the word 'research' the words 'historical, scientific and spiritual research' be substituted."

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. President: The question:

"That in amendment No. 27 of List I (Sixth Week), in the proposed entry 57 of List I, for the world 'research' the words 'administrative and police' be substituted".

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. President: I will now put the entry as moved by Dr. Ambedkar in the amended form. The question is:

That for entry 57 of List I, the following entry be substituted:

'57 Union agencies and Union institutes for the following purposes, that is to say, for research, for professional, vocational or technical training for scientific or technical assistance in the investigation or detection of crime, for the training of police officers, or for the promotion of special studies'."

The amendment was adopted.

Entry 57, as amended, was added to the Union List.

New Entry 57 (A)

The Honourable Dr. B.R. Ambedkar: Sir, I move:

"That after entry 57 of List I, the following new entry be inserted:-

'57(A) Co-ordination and maintenance of standards in institutions for higher education, scientific and technical institutions and institutions for research'."

This entry is merely complementary to the earlier entry, No. 57. In dealing with institutions maintained by the provinces, entry 57A proposes to give power to the Centre to the limited extent of coordinating the research institutions and of maintaining the standards in those institutions to prevent their being lowered.

Sir, I also move:

"That in amendment No. 28 of List I (Sixth Week) in the proposed new entry 57A of List I, for the word 'maintenance' the word 'determination be substituted."

Mr. President: Amendments Nos. 201 and 255 are only for deletion. Dr. Deshmukh and Mr. Sarwate may speak on them if they want to do so, but the amendments need not be moved.

Shri V.S. Sarwate (Madhya Bharat): I have an alternative amendment also. I will move it with your permission.

Sir, my alternative amendment runs thus:

"That in amendment No. 28 of List I (Sixth Week), in the proposed new entry 57A of List I, for the words, 'Co-ordination and maintenance' the words 'Promotion by financial assistance or otherwise' be substituted."

The amended entry will read thus:

"Promotion by financial assistance or otherwise of standards in institutions for higher education, scientific and technical institutions and institutions for research"

My object in moving this amendment is that if the entry as proposed by Dr. Ambedkar is to stand it would be unnecessary interference with the provincial sphere of education.

Yesterday, there were two propositions made casually or otherwise in the course of speeches. One was that education should be a Central subject. The reason given was that it was of national importance. Another was a remark casually made by an eminent educational scholar that education in universities should be entrusted to the Centre. The reason he assigned was that the provinces had not sufficient resources. To me both these reasons are neither proper nor sufficient. If the provinces have not got sufficient resources for advancing education, the alternative should be not to transfer resources available to them to carry on their function of imparting education. Fortunately for us, in the new Constitution provisions have been made suitably. The Finance Commission is immediately to make recommendations for grants-in-aid to provinces. Further, in making these recommendations for grants-in-aid, the Finance Commission is expected to see what are the necessary items of expenditure which the provinces have to make for education and for social services.

The other point that was made was that because education is of national importance, therefore it should be transferred to the Centre. If this argument is to be taken to its logical sequence, then practically every sphere of activity at present entrusted to the provinces would have to be transferred to the Centre. Medicine is of national importance, hygienic is of national importance, and practically all social services which are at present in the domain of the provinces will have to be transferred to the Centre. Now I think this is not the test for fixing the functions of the Centre and the provinces. To me it appears that the best should be that the subject besides being a subject of national importance, it should satisfy either of the three things which I shall just mention. Firstly, it should have a direct and immediate bearing on defence. Secondly, it should be of such a nature that it can best be managed only by the Centre. For instance, geological survey of the whole country can be best undertaken only by the Centre. Thirdly, it should be of such a nature that uniformity is the desideratum and is necessary in the interests of the nation. For instance, standards of weights and measures should be laid down by the Centre because it is in the national interest to do so. If in any sphere uniformity is not necessary but on the other hand there should be diversity and variety, it is the sphere of education.

The modern trend in education is that education should be adapted to each individual so that the personality of each individual might be developed to its fullest extent, of course consistently with the personalities of other individuals. If this is the desideratum in education, then there must be full scope for variety. There should not be any uniformity in education as uniformity would kill the growth of the individual. Nobody can say that there should be a standard of intellectual weights and measures for human beings. Therefore I think that education should be left entirely to the provinces.

I feel that the entry as it stands, "Co-ordination and maintenance of standards" in the educational sphere would come in the way of experiments in the educational field, in the research field. If education is to be adapted to the national needs of the country, if an individual's capacity is to be developed fully, there must be variety and there must be freedom for experiment. Therefore, my contention is that it should be entirely left to the provinces. Now, the Centre has already sufficient authority which it can exercise to bring the institutions in the provinces up to the standard as far as research is concerned. There is already a provision in item No. 57 for control by the Centre of Union agencies for research and through these Union agencies the Centre can lay down standards, which it should be the business of the provinces to follow and emulate. So there is no necessity for giving power to the Centre to fix standards so far as research is concerned.

As far as higher education is concerned, the policy which has been adopted in all federal countries is that the Centre does not take power to lay down standards. They give the fullest freedom to the provinces in this sphere. But what they do is that the Centre declares that if such and such an experiment is carried out, such and such grants would be made. The same thing was done by President Roosevelt and the other Presidents of the United States and is being done in Australia and Canada. The same method should be followed by the Centre here. If the Centre wants that any particular standard should be maintained, it should do it in the universities which they control or in their Union agencies for research, or they can provide for making grants to such universities as maintain the stand it wants. There is also another way of controlling this. The university graduates, as circumstances stand today, go mostly to the services, and the Government can lay down rules so that only those who satisfy certain standards would be eligible to enter the services. In this indirect way they can make the universities adopt the standards which the Centre desires. There should be no direct laying down of standards by the Centre.

Already there is sufficiency of State control in education. Anybody who has the interests of education at heart would note with sorrow that there is not sufficient private effort in the field of education. The State should encourage private enterprise and promote private schools which can make experiments and find out new methods, new system of education. That is the desideratum and not uniformity in this way. Diversity and variety being the aim of education, there should be no direct attempt by the Centre to lay down standards. I have in my amendment followed the way which the federal counters are following. Therefore, I have said-"Promotion by financial assistance or otherwise of institutions for higher education, scientific and technical institutions and institutions for research".

[At this stage, Mr. President vacated the Chair, which was then occupied by Mr. Vice-President, Shri T.T. Krishnamachari.]

One word more, Sir. I think that it will be difficult for Parliament or the Central Government to fix standards of higher education, for example in higher medical education. Would it be possible for the Parliament to find out what are the standards for medical education?

Shri T.T. Krishnamachari (Madras: General): They can have an Expert Committee to advise them.

Shri V.S. Sarwate: Why appoint a Committee when the Universities in their very nature and incorporation are expert Committee meant for this purpose? Moreover, the more the administrative burden on the Centre, the less efficient will it grow. I find that the whole trend is to take more and more functions for the Centre and I am afraid that the result of this will be that the Centre would encumbered with so many functions that its own standards of efficiency would deteriorate. It is to avoid this that I have sought to move my amendment. Sir, I move.

Dr. P.S. Deshmukh (C.P. & Berar: General): Mr. Vice-President, Sir, I think it is necessary to remind the honourable Dr. Ambedkar that we are discussing and deciding upon a list of items on which the Union will have exclusive power to legislate and if we look at this entry from the point of view, I would like to ask whether the Parliament is going to lay down by law the standards for the various institutions, of whatever status, of whatever nature so far as higher education, scientific and technical institutions etc., are concerned. I think many of the Members including some of the members, at any rate, of the Drafting Committee, are repeatedly falling into the error as if this Schedule is meant to determine and define the powers of the Union. This is not the purpose of this List and I think it would be well if the Drafting Committee Members would kindly look at this entry from that very important stand-point. I submit it was a learned speech which was just delivered by my honourable Friend Mr. Sarwate but it was probably not audible to many Members. Of course there are only a few Members who are to listen to any speeches other than their own and there are few Members who have not mortgaged their intelligence with the Drafting Committee and with that of Dr. Ambedkar. That is the reason, Sir, why in the country a feeling is growing that very few Members take this House seriously and the country is gradually learning to take the House much less seriously than it should. I do not think that this is a happy situation either for us or the country. I do not wish to take any credit for discovering this. It is a writing on the wall which anyone who runs can read and satisfy himself.

For the present I would like to say to Dr. Ambedkar that there is no necessity so far as this entry is concerned.

Shri Raj Bahadur (United States of Matsya): May I point out to the honourable Member that perhaps the remarks which he has chosen to make are not intended for the majority of the Members of this House. I suggest that he should not indulge in such generalizations.

Dr. P.S. Deshmukh: I am glad there is at least one honourable Member who is prepared to protest and probably his protest so far as he as an individual is concerned is correct. Many Members feel Sir, that University education may probably be taken over by the Centre. We have not decided to take it and university education as a whole is still left with the provinces.

Shri H.V. Kamath: Is Dr. Ambedkar listening, Sir, or is he engaged in private conversation? There is no point in Dr. Deshmukh proceeding with his speech when he is not listening.

Dr. P.S. Deshmukh: I have reconciled myself to that behaviour. My honourable Friend has yet to cultivate that virtue and I hope in time to come he will cultivate it. We do our duty and lay before this House or such parts of it as are prepared to listen and the nation outside to the extent the newspapers are prepared to give us publicity whatever we feel irrespective of what view others take or what attention Dr. Ambedkate is prepared to pay. I have given up from the beginning............

Mr. Vice-President (Shri V.T. Krishnamachari): Will Dr. Deshmukh go along with his speech?

Dr. P.S. Deshmukh: All right, Sir. As I said there were many Members who felt that higher education and especially University education should be the concern of the Union. We have neither accepted nor acted on that principle. We have not taken that step. In view of that, how are we going to co-ordinate and determine the standards? Are we going to alter the University Acts passed by the various provinces so as to interfere with their standards? I do not think so. Even if we take this power here, it will not be possible by any means to interfere with the autonomous powers which have been given unless you are prepared to put down University education as a subject of and for Central legislation. There is another thing which is objectionable and that is that merely sitting in judgement on the University bodies and other learned organizations and dictating from here as to what should be the proper standard and what shall not be, is not at all desirable. That should be based on something which the Centre is prepared to give. If donations or financial assistance is not given to any of the universities or institutes, then the Centre has no right to interfere in their autonomy, and if the Centre is in a position, if the Parliament wishes to spend more and more on higher education, if it is in a position to give block grants, and regular 'grants-in-aid then it will not be necessary to legislate for this purpose. It will be sufficient if the advice is given from the Centre, by the Union experts to rest of the universities and learned bodies and I am sure they will always be prepared to change their standards.

So it is not at all necessary to have the power of legislation which will mean compelling these several bodies by Parliamentary legislation to accept certain propositions or to accept certain standards. If you are not going to give any financial assistance, this power to legislate will be unjustifiable interference on the part of the Centre. If you give financial assistance, I am sure nobody nor any institution will be foolish enough or will be bold enough or would be careless enough in its own interests to defy the Centre's advice because of the financial assistance that it received from the Centre.

So from all these points of view, this item is hopelessly ill-conceived and I hope the honourable Dr. Ambedkar, even if he has not listened so far, will listen to my concluding remarks that this is an infructuous brain-wave resulting probably from the heavy work that the Drafting Committee members are required to do. I think this slip is due to their being over-burdened, being overwhelmed, and over-strained energies and I hope it will be corrected in time. There is no justification for this entry, and it is not going to help anybody; it is going to irritate the university bodies if we are going to have recourse to legislation to determine their standards. In view of these considerations and in view of what has been already urged by my friend Mr. Sarwate I hope that the entry will be withdrawn and not pressed.

Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad: Mr. Vice-President, Sir, I have a few short comments to make. I submit that the amendment of Mr. Sarwate will really make Central interference a bearable and an agreeable one. The amendment of Dr. Ambedkar seeks power in the Centre to meddle with educational affairs but unless it takes the shape of monetary help, such meddling with educational affairs would amount to advice gratis under the high sounding name of "co-ordination and maintenance of standards". The entry proposed is of the vaguest character. I submit that Mr. Sarwate's amendment discloses a considerable sense of humour. He says that the Centre should interfere by promotion of education only by financial assistance. Finance is the essence of the matter. In fact if the Centre should interfere in education, which is essentially provincial, it should be by financial assistance, not merely by advice gratis or by criticism or comments. I think Dr. Ambedkar should accept the humour of the situation and accept the amendment which would reduce interference to financial assistance to the Provinces which would really be a desirable interference.

Shri Basanta Kumar Das (West Bengal: General); I have an amendment- No. 29.

Mr. Vice-President: I thought they were new articles. Dr. Ambedkar, would you prefer that to be moved before you speak?

The Honourable Dr. B.R. Ambedkar: Yes.

Mr. Vice-President: Mr. Das, you may move No. 29.

Shri Basanta Kumar Das: Sir, I move:

"That with reference to amendments Nos. 3544 and 3545 of the List of Amendments, after entry 57 in List I, the following new entries be inserted:-

'57A. Promotion of scientific researches and of higher technical and technological education.

57B. Co-ordination of educational activities of the States for the purpose of maintaining a uniform national educational policy.

57C. Provision of adequate financial assistance to the States for proper development of education and maintenance of uniform standard of education throughout the Union.'"

The amendment of Dr. Ambedkar states that co-ordination is required only in a limited sphere viz., the sphere of higher education but the object of my amendment is that education should be taken as an integrated whole and it should not be viewed piece-meal. Therefore, I want that there should be co-ordination in the activities of the States to maintain a uniform national educational policy. The State should have a uniform national policy. This House accepted article 36 which states-

"The State shall endeavour to provide within a period of ten years from the commencement of this Constitution for free and compulsory education for all children until they complete the age of fourteen years."

Again in 31 (vi) it is said -

"That childhood and youth are protected against exploitation and against moral material abandonment."

In order to fulfil these provisions I think there should be a uniform national policy of education and that policy is to be implemented by co-ordination by the Centre. If there be no adequate financial provision the States will not be able to maintain a uniform standard of education throughout the Union. Education is a subject which must be given priority even after food. We should take care that all the States reach a certain standard within a limited time otherwise the provisions already accepted by the House cannot be implemented. There is a tendency in every State to go their own way. I do not deny that they have a right to do so. Education being a provincial subject there ought to be varieties according to the varying needs of provinces, but still there must be a national policy and that national policy must be implemented with the help of the Centre. My first point has been to a certain extent covered by entry 57 just now accepted but in 57(b) land (c) I want to make out that the Centre should have enough power to go with a uniform policy of education and to give financial assistance to the States so that a uniform standard may be reached within a specified period.

Shrimati Renuka Ray (West Bengal): Mr. Vice-President, Sir, I should like to support the amendment that has been moved by Mr. Basanta Kumar Das. It is a very wholesome amendment. As he has pointed out the first part of his amendment has already been accepted but 57(b) and (c) are also extremely important. The co-ordination of educational policy and, in particular, the maintaining of a uniform national minimum standard of education throughout the country is essential. Education is the very basis of our progress and advancement; and unless the Centre is able to co-ordinate education and to see that no part of the country falls behind a minimum standard of education, it is really impossible for us to advance. Any State or any area in this country which remains behind a minimum standard will be a drag on the rest of the country. Therefore I feel that this is extremely essential. At the same time it is not possible to provinces or States to maintain a minimum standard of education unless they have sufficient finances to do so. At the present moment perhaps due to the many transitional difficulties we have faced and may be for other reasons up to now we have not been able to focus sufficient attention on these very essential nation-building services. Those services that were neglected and treated in a step-motherly manner in the past, under the old regime, have yet to get that help that they need in order that the country may progress. I would say that at least 25 to 30 per cent of our national income should be set aside immediately for the nation-building services. I do claim that in every province at least 15 if not 20 per cent. of our national income should be set aside immediately for the national building ser-a vicious circle in this country that unless we can produce more we cannot increase our national income. It has been pointed out that unless we increase our national income how is it possible to find the money for these essential services? We have to break that vicious circle somewhere. It is not possible for our country to progress or produce more unless the efficiency of the worker is increased. Unless the worker is given the basic opportunities, how can efficiency be increased. This implies that there must be minimum standards for education and health. Unless the men and women who are the builders of society have a minimum standard of education and of health, it is not possible for us really to have any increase in efficiency, and unless we have increase in efficiency it is no use talking about producing more. I think it is at this end that we must tackle this problem.

If we are to do so, this particular amendment of Mr. Das will help towards this end. Both the points that he raised that the Centre must have power to co-ordinate and be able to see that no state remains behind a minimum standard and the fact that the States must be given sufficient financial assistance to be able to develop education are most important. I do not say that the Centre should have any power to interfere with any State going ahead of the minimum standard. That is not a power that is implied in this resolution. The power that is implied in this is that no state should remain behind the minimum standard and I do hope that Dr. Ambedkar and the Drafting Committee would consider this and will accept this amendment.

Shri Lakshminarayan Sahu (Orissa: General): *[Mr. Vice-President, I disagree with the new amendment that has been moved here because, education being a State or Provincial subject, it would not be proper to give such extensive powers to the Centre in regards to it. It should at least, be kept in the Concurrent List. Moreover, another article lays down that: "Parliament has exclusive power to make laws with respect to any of the matter enumerated in List 1 of the Seventh Schedule". It would not be proper in view of this that we should take away the powers of Parliament. My contention is that, education having been accepted a State subject, Universities should have all powers in regard to this subject, and the Centre should have no power. Unless Universities have full freedom in this respect, education cannot be imparted to the people properly. I may point out that of all the universities in India, the Calcutta University enjoyed the highest autonomy. Even at present it functions more freely than other Universities and we find that because of the freedom it enjoys its products have been very useful to the Nation. I oppose the amendment because it seeks to curtail the powers of the Universities. I would like to point out one thing more in this connection and it is that we must be told as to what is meant by higher education. We do not know if the term "higher education" stands for university education or for Secondary education. The term "higher education" should be clearly defined. If this term refers to college education, the Centre should give all possible aid to the Universities. But if this term is meant for Secondary education, well it is extremely lamentable. I want that every province must have complete freedom in regard to secondary education and the Central Government should have no power in this matter. We have seen that during the British regime, when the Central Government was all powerful, education was a centrally controlled subject and any one who wanted education to be imparted on a new line was not able to work on his lines. Even at present people hold different views about education and some want it to be imparted on one line and others on some other line. But unless this autonomy is provided to the provinces and so long as we continue to control educational activities from the Centre we shall be producing persons without any initiative. I, therefore, submit that Universities should have complete freedom in regard to education and Centre should provide all possible financial help to them. With these words I oppose the amendment.]

Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena (United Provinces: General): Sir, shall I move my amendment 256?

[At this stage Mr. President resumed the Chair.]

Mr. President: That is an addition of a new entry.

Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena: Sir, just now you allowed 259.

Mr. President: Do you want to move it as an amendment to this?

Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena: They are connected subjects.

Mr. President: That is a new entry you want. Mr. Phool Singh.

Shri Phool Singh: Mr. President, Sir, while I rise to support amendment 57(b) I am afraid it is not possible for me to agree to amendment 57(c). A uniform national educational policy is necessary because some of the Universities have made their degrees so cheap that those passing out of those Universities are looked down upon by the authorities entitled to make appointments. Some of the Universities have made their degrees so cheap that the boys who could not otherwise have passed have been able to pass through very easily in those Universities. This has created a lot of confusion and a uniform national policy therefore is necessary. But while I agree with this, I am afraid it may be putting too great a strain upon the Centre to ask the Centre to give adequate financial assistance to the States, because unless we increase the income of the Centre it may not be possible for the Centre to finance all these activities. Therefore, I support 57(b) and oppose 57(c).

The Honourable Dr. B.R. Ambedkar: Mr. President Sir, I think there is a certain amount of admixture made by my friends who have spoken on this entry 57A. So far as I have been able to gather, their contention is that this entry 57A should be allowed only if there was some grant made by the Central Government to the Provinces. It seems to me quite unnecessary to mix up the two matters. The question of grants from the Centre to the Provinces has been dealt with in two separate articles-255 and 262. Article 255 provides for grants to be made by the Centre to the Provinces for assistance-

"Such sums, as Parliament may by law provide, shall be charged on the Consolidated Fund of India in each year as grants-in-aid of the Consolidated Fund of such States as Parliament may determine to be in need of assistance....."

Therefore, the provision for supporting the States by way of financial help is already there in article 255. I should also like to draw the attention of the Members of the House to another important article, which is article 262, which is much wider in scope. It says-

"The Union or a State may make any grants for any public purpose, notwithstanding that the purpose is not one with respect to which Parliament or the Legislature of the State, as the case may be, may make laws."

As the House will see, it has a much wider scope. It says that although a subject may not be within List I, nonetheless, Parliament would be free to make a grant. Therefore, this question having been dealt with separately, I think there is no necessity to mix it up with entry 57A.

Entry 57A merely deals with the maintenance of certain standards in certain classes of institutions, namely, institutions imparting higher education, scientific and technical institutions, institutions for research, etc. You may ask, "why this entry?' I shall show why it is necessary. Take for instance the B.A. Degree examination which is conducted by the different Universities in India. Now, most provinces and the Centre, when advertising for candidates, merely say that the candidate should be a graduate of a university. Now, suppose the Madras University says that a candidate at the B.A. Examination, if he obtained 15 per cent. of the total marks shall be deemed to have passed that examination; and suppose the Bihar University says that a candidate who has obtained 20 per cent. of marks shall be deemed to have passed the B.A. Degree examination; and some other university fixes some other standard, then it would be quite a chaotic condition, and the expression that is usually used, that the candidate should be a graduate, I think, would be meaningless. Similarly, there are certain research institutes, on the results of which so many activities of the Central and Provincial Governments depend. Obviously you cannot permit the results of these technical and scientific institutes to deteriorate from the normal standard and yet allow them to be recognized either for the Central purposes, for all-India purposes or the purposes of the State.

Consequently, apart from the question of financial aid, it is absolutely essential both in the interest of the Centre as well as in the interests of the Province that the standards ought to be maintained on an all-India basis. That is the purpose of this entry, and in my judgement it is a very important and salute provision, in view of the fact that there are many provinces who are in a hurry to establish research institutes or establish universities or lightly to lower the standards in order to give the impression to the world at large that they are producing much better results than they did before.

Dr. P.S. Deshmukh: Is it the Government intention to fix the percentages and marks for passes?

The Honourable Dr. B.R. Ambedkar: They may do so. It is up to Government to maintain the standard by any means which they think proper. I cannot say what a Government may do.

Mr. President: I will now put the amendments to the vote. The first set are the three new entries proposed by Shri Basanta Kumar Das, namely, 57A, 57B and 57C.

Shri Basanta Kumar Das: I beg leave of the House to withdraw them.

The amendments were, by leave of the Assembly, withdrawn.

Mr. President: The question is:

"That in amendment No. 23 of List I (Sixth Week), in the proposed new entry 57A of List I, for the words 'Co-ordination and maintenance' the words 'Promotion by financial assistance or otherwise' be substituted."

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. President: The question is:

"That after entry 57 of List I, the following new entry be inserted:-

'57A. Co-ordination and determination of standards in institutions for higher education scientific and technical institutions and institutions for research'."

The motion was adopted.

Entry 57-A was added to the Union List.

Mr. President: There is a new entry proposed by Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena is amendment No. 256. After all this discussion, which we have had about university education and the power of provinces with regard to education, does the honourable Member think it worth while moving this amendment?

Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena: If you suggest, I will not.

Mr. President: Very well. We will drop it.

Entry 58

The Honourable Dr. B.R. Ambedkar: Sir, I move:

"That for entry 58 of List I, the following entry be substituted:-

'58. Union Public Services, All-India Services: Union Public Service Commission.'"

(Amendment No. 169 was not moved)

Dr. P.S. Deshmukh: Sir, I move:

"That in amendment No. 30 of List I (Sixth Week), in the proposed entry 58 of List I, the words 'All-India Services:' be deleted."

The wording of the entry now proposed will stand as:

"Union Public Services, All India Services, Union Public Commission."

I fail to understand why the wording "All India Services" is necessary. 'Union Public Service', in my opinion includes the all India Services, because the Union covers the whole of India and is "All India". and I do not think the word "public" is going to make any difference. I, therefore, think that the addition of the words 'All India Services' is superfluous. But if there is any specific purpose to be served, I would not press the amendment. If the wording "Union Public services" is restricted to particular services and All-India services are not included in it, then the name of the Commission will also have to be altered so as to cover the All-India Services will not be referable to that Commission, at any rate ordinarily, since the Services Commission is called the Union Public Services Commission. So the All-India Services will have no place so far as this Commission is concerned. This is an unnecessary addition. But all that I seek is more information.

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

"That in amendment No. 30 of List I (Sixth Week), in the proposed entry 58 of List I, the words 'and Joint Commission' be added at the end."

The entry then would read as follows:

"Entry 58. Union Public Services, All-India Services, Union Public Services Commission and Joint Commission."

The House will recollect that a few days ago we adopted articles 284, 285, 285A, 285B, 285C, 286, 287 etc., etc., providing for the creation of Public Service Commissions which were in three different classes; firstly, the Union Commission: secondly, the State Commission: and thirdly, the Joint Commission for two or more States who have agreed to set up such a Commission for the purposes of those two or more States. Unfortunately this matter of the Joint Commission has been overlooked by the drafting Committee because the House will see that article 284 invests Parliament with the power to provide by law for the appointment of Joint Public Services Commission to serve the needs of two or more States who have agreed to set up a Joint Commission as among themselves. Article 285 also vests power in the President to appoint the Chairman and other Members of a Joint Commission, and this and succeeding articles also confer power on the President or the Parliament in regard to the Constitution and organization of the Joint Commission. In any case, I do not find that this matter of the Joint Commission has been provided for in other Lists-Lists 2 and 3-and even if they are provided for I do not think they fall within the purview of these two lists. The right place for the Joint Commission is in List I, within the jurisdiction and purview of the Union authorities. Accordingly I suggest that this addition be made by accepting my amendment seeking to include the Joint Commission in this proposed entry 58. I move amendment No. 204 and commend it to the House for its consideration and acceptance.

The Honourable Dr. B.R. Ambedkar: With regard to the amendment of my Friend Dr. Punjabrao Deshmukh requiring the deletion of all-India services, it is not possible to accept that for the simple reason that heretofore the all-India services and the regulation thereof did not figure in the Government of India Act because that was a matter which was kept exclusively in the hands of the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State having disappeared, it is necessary to provide for the regulation of the all-India services, somewhere by some agency in the Constitution and the most appropriate agency therefor is the Centre. List I deals with matters which are within the purview of the Centre. The natural place for all-India services is therefore in List I. That is one argument.

The second argument is this that there are already two sorts of all-India services at present in existence. There are the remnants of the old I.C.S. still continuing to serve the Government of India. Secondly, there have been instituted during the course of the last two years what are called the All-India Administrative Service and the All-India Police Service. Whether the Centre continue to recruit civil servants on the basis of the All-India Administrative Service or the All-India Police Service is a matter which has to be determined in the course of a subsequent article with which we will be concerned. But there is no doubt about it that these services have been brought into existence with the consent of the Provinces. Secondly, they being there it is necessary to make provision for their regulation. And I submit that the Union List is the proper list where this provision can be made.

With regard to my Friend Mr. Kamath's suggestion that the Joint Commission should be mentioned in this entry, my submission is that on a deeper consideration that would create complications. The Joint Commission, so far as its constitution, the appointment of its members and their removal are concerned-and only in these three respects-is an all-India subject, and provision for these three matters is already made in article 284. In all other respects it is really a State Public Service Commission: say, for instance, for the purpose of excluding certain services or consulting them in certain matters, it will still be a State Public Service Commission. And it is not desirable to oust the jurisdiction of the States in these matters as would be the consequence if the Joint Commission was also mentioned in entry 58. It is for that purpose that I object to Mr. Kamath's proposal.

Shri H.V. Kamath: May I know if this will go to the Concurrent List?

The Honourable Dr. B.R. Ambedkar: No.

Shri H.V. Kamath: Where will it go?

The Honourable Dr. B.R. Ambedkar: It can be the Centre only in certain respects: for instance, if the States jointly say that a Joint Public Service Commission should be constituted, then as a result of the resolution the Centre gets jurisdiction and not otherwise. In all fundamental matters, it is distributively, if I may say so, a State Public Service Commission.

Dr. P.S. Deshmukh: I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

The amendment was, by leave of the Assembly, withdrawn.

Mr. President: I shall put Mr. Kamath's amendment to vote. The question is:

"That in amendment No. 30 of List I (Sixth Week), in the proposed entry 58 of List I, the words 'and Joint Commission' be added at the end."

The amendment was adopted.

Mr. President: The question is:

"That for entry 58 of List I, the following entry be substituted:-

'58. Union Public Services, All-India Services; Union Public Service Commission."

The amendment was adopted.

Entry 58, as amended, was added to the Union List.

Entry 58A

The Honourable Dr. B.R. Ambedkar: I move:

"That after entry 58 of List I, the following entry be inserted:

'58A. Union pensions, that is to say, pensions payable by the Government of India or out of the Consolidated Fund of India'."

This entry did not exist in the draft. We felt it necessary to have such an entry as a measure of caution.

(Amendment No.170 was not moved).

Dr. P.S. Deshmukh: Sir, I move:

"that in amendment No. 31 of List I (Sixth Week), for the proposed new entry 58A of List I, the following be substituted:-

'58-A. Pensions payable out of the Consolidated Fund of India or otherwise by the Government of India.'"

My amendment seeks to omit the word "Union" and for this important reason namely, so long as the pensions are payable or made payable out of the consolidated Fund of India, I am sure no other pension except those with which the Union is concerned would be included in that. I have not been able to understand if there are any pensions which can be paid out of something which is not part of the Consolidated Fund of India. I thought the total revenues of India were going to be designated as the Consolidated Fund of India. Therefore I am unable to understand where the other source of payment of these pensions can be sought out. But I have not altered even this, I have merely put it in a more appropriate form, according to me at any rate, and I think the wording that I have suggested should be acceptable, that is, without any reference to the Union. So long as they are payable out of the Consolidated Fund of India, they will be only Union pensions and the word is therefore superfluous.

The Honourable Dr. B.R. Ambedkar: I do not think that the amendment suggested by my Friend Dr. Deshmukh is any improvement or has any substantial difference from the amendment as I have moved. The difference that is sought to be made is this that there may be certain pensions which may be payable out of the Consolidated Fund of India, which means out of the proceeds of taxes. It may be perfectly possible for the Government of India to institute pensions which are of a contributory character in which case the burden may not be on the Consolidated Fund but on the person who has already contributed to a Fund. That is the distinction. And that is why the entry has been worded in the way I have worded it.

Dr. P.S. Deshmukh: I would like to withdraw my amendment.

The amendment was, by leave of the Assembly, withdrawn.

Mr. President: The question is:

"That after entry 58 of List I, the following entry be inserted:-

'58A. Union pensions, that is to say pensions payable by the Government of India or out of the Consolidated Fund of India.'".

The motion was adopted.

Entry 58A was added to the Union List.

Entry 59

Entry 59 was added to the Union List.

Entry 60

The Honourable Dr. B.R. Ambedkar: Sir, I move:

"That for entry 60 of List I, the following entry be substituted:-

'60. Ancient and historical Monuments and Records declared by Parliament by law to be of national importance.'"

 The rest of the entry as it originally stood, namely, "archaeological sites and remains" is proposed to be transferred to the Concurrent List.

Shri H.V. Kamath: Mr. President, I move, Sir, amendment No. 206 of List III (Sixth Week). It runs as follows:-

"That in amendment No. 32 of List I (Sixth Week), in the proposed entry 60 of List I, for the words 'Ancient and Historical Monuments and Records' the words 'Monuments places and objects of artistic or historic interest be substituted."

Let me at the outset make it clear that I am not excessively fastidious about the wording or the phraseology of any entry or article so long as it brings out the meaning of the article completely. I am not also opposed to anybody changing his views or the language he might have used on a previous occasion, nor am I opposed to any inconsistencies on anybody's part, so long as any valid, cogent reason is shown for a change of view or a change of language and so long as it appears at least plausible. Even Mahatma Gandhi used to say that he was always prepared to change his view so long as he was convinced of the need for the change, so long as he had valid reasons for doing so.

I would invite the attention of the House to article 39, Part IV, Directive Principles of State Policy Article 39 which this House adopted many months ago reads a follows:-

"It shall be the obligation of the State to protect every monument or place or object of artistic or historical interest, declared by Parliament by law to be of national importance, from spoilation, destruction, removal etc. etc."

Now, in the Union List, so far as I can understand, we have included the subject matter of article 39 and I see no reason why we should change the language in which we clothed article 39. Here the proposed entry is as regards ancient and historical monuments and records. Records-I do not know how that word has crept it. In addition to monuments if we mention places ad objects of historical interests, it is enough; records are of course one of the objects which you can protect from spoilation, destruction, etc. Why not therefore say, the other "objects" of historical interests besides monuments? Why not places, not merely of historic but of artistic interest, to which this House after mature deliberation provided for in article 39 in one of the Directive Principles of State Policy? I think Dr. Ambedkar has advanced no cogent reasons for changing the language of article 39 which is sought to be embodied now in this entry. I therefore move amendment No. 206 and commend it to the House for its acceptance.

(Amendment Nos. 207 and 208 were not moved).

Mr. President: Would you like to say anything on amendment No. 206?

The Honourable Dr. B.R. Ambedkar: No. Sir, it is quite unnecessary to say anything on this subject.

Mr. President: Then I will put the amendment moved by Mr. Kamath to vote. The question is:

"That in amendment No. 32 of List I (Sixth Week), in the proposed entry 60 of List I for the words 'Ancient and Historical Monuments and Records' the words 'Monuments, places and objects of artistic or historical interest' be substituted."

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. President: The question is:

"That proposed entry 60 stand part of List I".

The motion was adopted.

Entry 60, as amended, was added to the Union List.

Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena: Sir, may I be permitted to move my amendments?

Mr. President: You were here when I called them out. I am sorry it is too late now.

Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena: they are very important amendments, Sir, and I think they are independent also.

The Honourable Dr. B.R. Ambedkar: You have no equity in your favour.

Mr. President: Let me finish the List and then we shall see. Now, entry No. 61. There is an amendment in the Printed List, of which notice is given by Dr. Ambedkar No. 3548.

The Honourable Dr. B.R. Ambedkar: Sir, I am not moving that.

Mr. President: Then there are two amendments in the name of Mr. Santhanam.

The Honourable Shri K. Santhanam: I am not moving them.

Mr. President: Then I put entry No. 61 to vote.

Entry 61 was added to the Union List.

Entry 61-A

The Honourable Dr. B.R. Ambedkar: I move:

"That after entry 61 of List I, the following entry be inserted:-

'61-A. Establishment of standards of quality for goods to be exported across customs, frontier or transported from one State to another."

We have already got entry 61 which deals with standard of rights and measures and it is felt that there ought to be a provision for establishment of standards of quality for goods.

Mr. President: There are two amendments to this. Amendment No. 209, Dr. Deshmukh.

Dr. P.S. Deshmukh: Mr. President, I welcome the proposed addition of entry 61A, but I think it is not comprehensive enough and I therefore move these two amendments of mine so as to make it fully comprehensive and cover all sides of the question. My amendment No. 209 reads as follows:-

"That in amendment No. 33 of List I (Sixth Week), for the proposed new entry 61A of List I, the following be substituted:-

'61A. Grading and standardization of quality of agricultural produce or goods intended to be consumed in the country or exported outside India or transported from one State to another'."

The next amendment, No. 210, is:-

"That after the proposed new entry 61A of List I, the following new entry be added:-

"61B Prevention of adulteration of articles of food, whether imported, proposed to be exported or otherwise, arrangements for analysis, control and regulation of all such articles'."

Sir, the amendment is in fact clear enough. I seek to add the grading of agricultural produce. Anybody who is familiar with the importance of our export trade as well as the fact that there is a very real absence of grading would find that it causes much loss to the agriculturist. This is one of the things with which the Ministry of Agriculture is also seriously concerned. I have no doubt that all the Provinces will agree that some Central legislation is necessary as well as the determination of a definite policy so that the standards of production will rise, there would be proper grading of all articles that are produced and our export market will also improve. So, this is a highly important thing which was probably not pressed upon the attention of any of the Members of the Drafting Committee, and as none of them was probably so familiar with the Ministry of Agriculture or the difficulties of agriculturists or their needs, this omission has occurred. I therefore propose that this wording which covers all that is proposed by the learned Doctor to be included in 61A adds to it certain things which are also absolutely essential and it does not necessarily limit it only to the exported goods or to goods transported from one State to another only; it also refers to agricultural produce as well as goods intended to be consumed in the country. So far as the second suggestion, with regard to the addition of 61B is concerned, I shall particularly refer to the vicious habits of our merchants of adulterant foodstuffs and food-grains. This generally occurs not at the stage at which the agriculturists produce and sell the articles but at the stage at which they are offered for sale by the merchants and traders. This evil has been so rampant that I make bold to say that it is very difficult to get anything in a pure form from any shopkeeper. Their greed for lucre is so great that they are not content with their legitimate profit and they very freely adulterate sugar, flour, oil, etc., with all the unimaginable things. Sometimes they mix even cement with flour and this is consumed by our unfortunate brethren. I have also suggested a consequential provision for analysis, control and regulation of such articles. I think both these amendments are very necessary. I hope Dr. Ambedkar will agree that it is necessary that the union should have this power.

Sir, it may be said that this matter may be left to the provinces. I think it will not be proper to do so, because it would really be funny that we should legislate and decide upon the quality of the articles for maintaining standards for the markets etc., and not take the other necessary step of maintaining the same standard throughout the Union. I trust that my amendments will be accepted.

Mr. President: Amendment No. 260 in terms refers to entry 61, but it is covered by the amendment moved by Dr. Deshmukh. So it is not necessary to move it.

The Honourable Dr. B.R. Ambedkar: Sir, the point raised by my Friend Dr. Deshmukh might well be raised when we discuss the entries in List II. They are matters within the jurisdiction of the States. We are dealing here only with List I, which is intended to circumscribe the power of the Centre so as not to interfere with the internal affairs of the States. Consequently, the entry has been worded in a very cautious manner. As my Friend will see, the entry speaks of standards of goods to be transported from one State to another. In regard to these it is not intended to give the Centre power to interfere with the administration of the States. If he wants to raise this question he may do so when we discuss the State List.

Dr. P.S. Deshmukh: May I suggest that this entry might be held over and the Agricultural Ministry consulted before we finalize this List?

The Honourable Dr. B.R. Ambedkar: when we come to List II, we can discuss the matter.

Mr. President: I will put the amendments to vote. The question is:

"That in amendment No. 33 of List I (Sixth Week), for the proposed new entry 61A of List I, the following be substituted:-

'61A, Grading and standardization of quality of agricultural produce or goods intended to be consumed in the country or exported outside India or transported from one State to another'."

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. President: The question is:

"That after the proposed new entry 61A of List I, the following new entry be added:-

'61B. 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'.".

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. President: I shall now put the new entry 61A to vote. The question is:

"That after entry 61 of List I, the following new entry be inserted:-

'61A. establishment of standards of quality for goods to be exported across customs frontier or transported from one State to another'."

Shri V.S. Sarwate: I would like to know from Dr. Ambedkar what the meaning of the term 'exported across customs frontier' is?

Mr. President: I am afraid the questions comes too late, after the voting has taken place.

The Honourable Dr. B.R. Ambedkar: I will explain it to the honourable Member if he will come to me afterwards.

Mr. President: The question has been put.

The motion was adopted.

Entry 61A was added to the Union List.

Entry 62

Mr. President: Entry 62. Does Sardar Hukam Singh move his amendment to this entry?

Sardar Hukam Singh (East Punjab: Sikh): I am not moving it.

Entry 62 was added to the Union List.

Mr. President: I May just point out to Members that the progress today is rather slow. I want to finish consideration of the three Lists tomorrow. So I suggest that we should proceed a little faster.

Dr. P.S. Deshmukh: We are going sufficiently fast, I think.

Entry 63

Mr. President: Not today. We may now take up entry 63.

The Honourable Dr. B.R. Ambedkar: Mr. President, I am not moving amendment No. 3551 to the original entry. In regard to amendment 34 which I am moving I shall in doing so incorporate in it amendment No. 212 also. Sir, I move:

"That for entry 63 of List I, the following entry be substituted:-

'63. Regulation and development of oilfields and mineral oil resources; petroleum and petroleum products; other liquids and substances declared by Parliament by law to be dangerously inflammable'."

Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena: Sir, I move:

"That in amendment No. 34 of List I (Sixth Week), in the proposed entry 63 of List I, the words 'Prospecting for and' be inserted in the beginning."

Then, Sir, the entry would read thus:-

"Prospecting for and regulation and development of oilfields and mineral oil resources; petroleum and petroleum products; other liquids and substances declared by Parliament by law to be dangerously inflammable."

The entry as it stands provides for regulation and development of oilfields and mineral oil resources. Prospecting for oilfields and oil resources is not provided for. My amendment therefore says "Prospecting for and regulation and development, etc." It means that the amendment will give the Central Government power to prospect for oil. You know, Sir, that prospecting in rocks and mountains has to be done in order to find oil resources. Huge sums of money have to be spent on geological surveys of sites which are supposed to be rich in oil. The latest inventions of science are taken advantage of in the discovery of oilfields. I therefore think that general regulation and development of existing oilfields will not do. We must have power to prospect for the discovery of oilfields and oil resources. My amendment only completes the amendment which has been moved by the Drafting Committee. Surely they do not want to confine India to the resources of a few oilfields in Assam. They would certainly want that we must find out oilfields in other parts of India, and it will not be possible to do this under the entry as it is, since it does not give power for prospecting. The States cannot do it for want of the required funds and therefore the prospecting for oil should be the function of the Central Government. I hope Dr. Ambedkar will accept this amendment.

Shri Raj Bahadur: Mr. President, Sir, I move:

"That in amendment No. 34 of List I (Sixth Week), in the proposed entry 63 of List I after the words 'dangerously inflammable' the words 'corrosive or explosive' be inserted".

*[ ]translation of Hindustani speech.