792 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES
Meanwhile, some important things have taken place, namely, that the Constitution has been passed and a large number of Acts and sections have been declared to be ultra vires of the Constitution. The present Bill would seem to offend against certain definite provisions of the Constitution. We have enacted so many things in the Constitution that I was amazed to find that many relevant Acts are declared ultra vires There are two provisions in the Constitution : One is that legislation should not be discriminatory. This is enacted in article 15 ; clause (1) of that article says :
“The State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex . . . .”
I submit that the Bill is confined to Hindus. Within that expression ‘Hindus’, large number of classes who would not be ordinarily Hindus are attempted to be brought. Even apart from that, there are large classes who will be outside this Bill. I submit that there is discrimination between different castes and persons following different religions. The words ‘only of religion’ do not seem to make any difference. There is discrimination between different sections of our citizens on the ground of religion. The phrase ‘only of religion’ does not mean much, for I find there is no other reason why there is difference between the different religious sects, except on grounds of religion. That is one thing.
The second article which I would like to submit for the consideration of the house is . . . .
Shri Tyagi (Uttar Pradesh): May I point out, Sir, that last time when we adjourned, it was decided and all agreed,—he was also a party—that no dilatory motions will be made.
Mr. Speaker : Order, order. He is not making any motion. He is only raising a point of order, according to him.
Shri Naziruddin Ahmad : I shall be very brief, Sir.
Shri B. Das (Orissa) : But, he is making a long speech.
Shri Naziruddin Ahmad : The other article to which I would like to refer is 25(1). It says :
“Subject to public order, morality and health………” which do not mean . . . .
Shrimati Durgabai (Madras) : In the name of raising a point of order, is the hon. Member allowed to argue the question on the merits of the case ?