1022 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES
The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : I find that Mr. Ramnarayan Singh is somewhat disaffected with the provincial government to which he belongs.
As I was saying, I think this provision ought to do :
After clause (3) of article 15A, the following clause be inserted :
“ (3a) Where an order is made in respect of any person under sub-clause (b) of clause (3) of this article the authority making an order shall as soon as may be communicate to him the grounds on which the order has been passed and afford him the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order.
(b) Nothing in clause (3a) of this article, shall require the authority making any order under sub-clause (b) of clause (3) of this article to disclose the facts which that authority considers to be against the public interest to disclose.”
These are the exact words in some of the Acts of the provinces and I do not see any reason why they should not be introduced here, so that this ground of criticism that we arc detaining a person merely because his case comes under preventive detention, without even informing him of the grounds on which we detain him. Now that is met by the amendment which I have proposed.
The other question is...*
The Honourable Shri K. Santhanam (Madras : General) : Is it in addition to the provision in clause (1) ? There is already a provision that no person shall be detained in custody without being informed.
The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : It does not deal with persons arrested for preventive detention.
The Honourable Shri K. Santhanam : Does it not include a person who is arrested for preventive purposes ? I thought clause (1) includes every kind of detention.
The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : No. That is not our understanding anyhow. The cases are divided into two categories.
Shri Mahavir Tyagi : He is a lawyer.
The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : That is in a court of law, not here.
Mr. President : He is not a lawyer.
The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : I think it would be much better to say : Nothing in clauses (1) and (2) shall apply to clause (3). That is the intention. So I have met that part of their criticism.
Now I come to the question of three months’ detention without enquiry or trial. Some Members have said that it should not be more than 15 days and others have suggested some other period and so on. I would like to tell the House why exactly we thought that three months was a tolerable
*Dots indicate interruption.