1126 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES
- Mr. President : Would you like to reply, Dr. Ambedkar ?
The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Sir, this article is to be read along with article 8.
Article 8 says—
“All laws in force immediately before the commencement of this Constitution in the teritory of India, in so far as they are inconsistent with the provisions of this Part, shall, to the extent of such inconsistency be void.”
And all that this article says is this, that all laws which relate to libels, slander, defamation or any other matter which offends against decency or morality or undermines the security of the State shall not be affected by article 8. That is to say, they shall continue to operate. If the words “contempt of court” were not there, then to any law relating to contempt of court article 8 would apply, and it would stand abrogated. It is prevent that kind of situation that the words “contempt of court” are introduced, and there is, therefore, no difficulty in this amendment being accepted.
Now with regard to the point made by my Friend Mr. Santhanam, it is quite true that so far as fundamental rights are concerned, the word “State” is used in a double sense, including the Centre as well as the Provinces. But I think he will bear in mind that notwithstanding this fact, a State may make a law as well as the Centre may make a law; some of the heads mentioned here such as libel, slander, defamation, security of State, etc., are matters placed in the Concurrent List so that if there was any very great variation among the laws made, relating to these subjects, it will be open to the Centre to enter upon the field and introduce such unformity as the Centre thinks it necessary for this purpose.
The Honourable Shri K. Santhanam : But contempt of court is not included in the Concurrent List or any other list.
The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Well, that may be brought in.
Mr. President : Then I will put these two amendments to vote. As a matter of fact. Pandit Thakur Das Bhargavas’s amendment is not an amendment to Mr. Krishnamachari’s amendment, it is independent altogether I will put them separately. First I put Mr. Krishnamachari’s amendment to vote.
The question as :
“That in clause (2) of article 13, after the word ‘defamation’ the words ‘contempt of court’, be inserted”
*CAD, Vol. X, 17th October 1949, p. 402.