1146 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES
Constitution. That power has, therefore, been given to the President. Similarly, by another article we have given to the President the power to amend temporarily this very Constitution for the purpose of removing difficulties. I, therefore, submit that there is nothing novel, there is nothing sinister in this article 373. On the other hand, it is a very necessary complementary article to prevent the break-down of any law relating to preventive detention.
Now, Sir, I come to article 34 which relates to martial Law. This article, too, has been subjected to some strong criticism. I am sorry to say that Members who spoke against article 34 did not quite realise what article 20, clause (1) and article 21 of the Constitution propose to do. Sir, I would like to read article 20, clause (A ) and also article
21,because without a proper realisation of the provisions contained in these two articles it would not be possible for any Members to realise the desirability of—I would even go further and say the necessity for—article 34.
Article 20, clause (1) says :
“No person shall be convicted of any offence except for violation of a law in force at the time of the commission of the act charged as an offence.”
Article 21 says :
“No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.”
Now, it is obvious that when there is a riot, insurrection or rebellion, or the overthrow of the authority of the State in any particular territory, martial law is introduced. The officer in charge of martial law does two things. He declares by his order that certain acts shall be offences against his authority, and, secondly, he prescribes his own procedure for the trial of persons who offend against the acts notified by him as offences. It is quite clear that any act notified by the military commander in charge of the disturbed area is not an offence enacted by law in force, because the Commander of the area is not a law-making person. He has no authority to declare that a certain act is an offence, and secondly the violation of any order made by him would not be an offence within the meaning of the phrase “law in force”, because “law in force”, can only mean law made by a law-making authority. Moreover, the procedure that the Commanderin-Chief or the military commander prescribes is also not procedure according to law, because he is not entitled to make a law. These are orders which he has made for the purpose of carrying out his functions, namely, of restoring law and order. Obviously, if article 20 clause (1) and article 21 remain as they are without any such qualification as is mentioned in article 34, martial law would be impossible in the