504 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES
there and the Muslim Provinces were there. They have no validity now. I cannot understand why the Muslims are repeating them. ( Interruption. )
Mr. Vice-President : Order, order.
The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : I was saying that there is no substance in the argument that we are departing from the provision contained in Sectiion 126 of the Government of India Act. As I said, that section was not based upon any principle at all.
In support of the proviso, I would like to say two things. First, there is ample precedent for the proposition enshrined so to say in this proviso. My honourable Friend Mr. T. T. Krishnamachari has dealt at some length with the position as it is found in various countries which have a federal Constitution. I shall not therefore labour that point again. But I would just like to make one reference to the Australian Constitution. In the Australian Constitution we have also what is called a concurrent field of legislation. Under the Australian Constitution it is open to the Commonwealth Parliament in making any law in the concurrent field to take upon itself the authority to administer. I shall just quote one short paragraph from a well known book called “Legislative and Executive Powers in Australia” by a great lawyer Mr. Wynes. This is what he says :
“Lastly, there are Commonwealth Statutes. Lefroy states that executive power is derived from legislative power unless there be some restraining enactment. This proposition is true, it seems, in Canada, where the double enumeration commits to each Government exclusive legislative powers, but is not applicable in Australia. Where the legislative power of the Commonwealth is exclusive—e.g., in the case of defence—the executive power in relation to the subject of the grant inheres in the Commonwealth, but in respect of concurrent powers, the executive function remains with the States until the Commonwealth legislative power is exercised.”
Which means that in the concurrent field, the executive authority remains with the States so long as the Commonwealth has not exercised the power of making laws which it had. The moment it does, the execution of that law is automatically transferred to the Commonwealth. Therefore, comparing the position as setout in the proviso with the position as it is found in Australia, I submit that we are not making