z:\ ambedkar\vol-02\vol2-03.indd MK SJ+YS 21-9-2013/YS-8-11-2013 157
ON THE BOMBAY POLICE ACT AMENDMENT BILL 157
going to be the subject matter of judicial interpretation. The preamble merely contains a rule of guidance for the purpose for which we are to use this Act and I therefore submit that even though the word “mavali” has not been judicially interpreted, it is a term which is so well-known today to both the Honourable the Home Minister and the Commissioner of Police that I think there should be no difficulty about it
The Honourable the Speaker: The amendment is to be divided in two parts— one referring to habitual offenders, as the honourable member has stated, is the one which he is prepared, I understand, to drop.
Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: No, I am prepared to split it into one dealing with persons who are either dangerous characters or mavalis, and the other I submit is a direct reference to the amendment which gives the emergency powers.
The Honourable the Speaker: The other I can see. If divided into two parts, then about the first, I think that even the expression used “mavalis” will not ............
Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Then my amendment will be this : —
“ for dealing with persons who are dangerous characters”. I am prepared to take away the word “habitually”. The preamble is intended to make clear our intentions.
Mr. Jamnadas M. Mehta: I submit, Sir, that the learned Doctor’s amendment should be held perfectly in order, because it is now realised that the whole Bill has two intentions; one to deal with an emergency and the other to deal with characters which are described in the Act The preamble must express what the House has enacted ; otherwise the preamble will be incomplete and will not express what the object of the Bill is.
The Honourable the Speaker: I am not considering any technical objection. I am only considering how the phraseology would express what has been stated in the Bill and what has been passed by the House.
The Honourable Mr. B. G. Kher: May I suggest to the honourable member that the word “dangerous” is vague ? It must be “dangerous to society”, “danger to the city” or something to that effect. We are accustomed to receive telegrams “so and so dangerous, start immediately”. The word “dangerous” by itself is vague.
Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: I may suggest “for the purpose of dealing with persons who are a danger to the residents of the City of Bombay for preserving the peace and tranquillity during the riots”.
The Honourable Mr. K. M. Munshi: You have left out “factions and gangs” during riots. The words of the section are “between communities, factions and gangs”.
Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: We can put it this way : “for preventing disturbance of public peace and tranquillity by reason of conflicts between communities and sections thereof, and gangs and factions”.
The Honourable the Speaker: This is what I have taken down : “for the purpose of dealing with persons who are a danger to the City of Bombay and for preventing disturbance of public peace and tranquillity by reason