z:\ ambedkar\vol-02\vol2-08.indd MK SJ+YS 21-9-2013/YS-8-11-2013 642
642 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES
Dr. Ambedkar: I do not know what they would do ; but my submission is that the matter should not be left hanging in the air in this fashion. I was going to show Your Lordship, from certain extracts I have made, that judgments of the Supreme Court of the United States have been absolutely worthless by reason of the fact that they were obsessed by the fact that their judgments may not be executed but may be flouted. In one case, for instance, in the case of a Governor of Ohio State, they did make an order that a certain fugitive offender who had gone into the State of Ohio should be delivered by the Governor. The Governor refused to do so. Then the State of Kentucky asked for a writ of mandamus. The Court said : The Constitution does not give us power to execute our judgment; therefore we shall not give a writ of mandamus. That was so, although they had given a decision that the Governor was bound to deliver the fugitive. I could cite hundreds of cases in which the Supreme Court of the United States has refused to give relief simply because it was oppressed by the feeling that its judgments might not be enforced. Unless we have some sort of provision of this sort, I cannot see how the situation will be rendered safe.
Chairman: What sort of legislation ? Are you suggesting, for instance, that, if judgment was given against Bengal, you should put a bailiff into Bengal in some way ?
Dr. Ambedkar: I mean what I find in Section 78, that in the execution of civil decrees the Treasurer or the person who is in charge of the Treasury shall be bound to pay.
Chairman: Supposing he does not, what happens ?
Dr. Ambedkar: I suppose they will haul him up for contempt.
Sir Maneckjee Dadabhoy: Where will he be tried ?
Dr. Ambedkar: By the Federal Court, wherever it states.
Mr. Iyengur: Who is to execute the warrant of contempt ?
Dr. Ambedkar: The Federal Government by its own officers. I want the Federal Government to have that power. This was one of the implied powers in the United States ; and under Section 120 of the Australian Constitution, the Federal Government has the power to detain offenders against the federal law. Supposing a federal law was passed and a certain citizen of a State abrogated it and the Supreme Court passed judgment against him, and the feeling of the State was so great that they would not keep the man in jail, I suppose, under the power given in Section 120, the Federal Government would have its own prisons. If the Federal Government is to see that justice is done in all matters, it must have the power to see that judgments are executed. How it will do that is a matter beyond me to say now. All I say is that power should be given in the constitution to the Federal Government to see that judgments and decisions are made effective throughout India. It is not necessary for me to repeat that, if the remedy fails, the right also fails.
Mr. Jayakar: If a state of racial or communal warfare should prevail,