33. Constitution (First Amendment) Bill - Page 349

332 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

I will begin with clause 2 of the Bill. Clause 2 of the Bill proposes to amend article 15. The necessity for the amendment of article 15 has arisen on account of the judgments recently-delivered by the Supreme Court in two cases which came up before them from the Madras State. One case was Madras vs. Shrimati Champakam Dorairajan and the other was Venkatraman vs. the State of Madras. In the case of Venkataraman the article involved was article 16, clause (4) and in the case of Shrimati Champakam the article involved was article 29, clause (2). In the one case the question involved was the reservation for backward classes in public services and in the other case, the question involved was the reservation for backward classes in educational institutions. The question turned upon what is known in the Madras Presidency and elsewhere as the Communal G.O. The argument on which the Communal G.O. of the Madras Government was declared to be void and invalid was this. It was said by the Supreme Court that article 29, clause (2), did not have a saving clause like clause (4) attached to article 16. As the House will remember under clause (4) of article 16, a special provision is made that article 16 shall not stand in the way of the Government making a suitable provision for the representation of backward classes in the services. Such a provision of course is not to be found in article 29. With regard to article 16, clause (4), the Supreme Court came to the conclusion that it involved discrimination on the ground of caste and therefore it was invalid. I have carefully studied both these judgments of the Supreme Court and with all respect to the judges of the Supreme court I cannot help saying that I find this judgment to be utterly unsatisfactory.

Shri Naziruddin Ahmad (West Bengal) : Sir, on a point of order. Is it in order for any Member to express disrespect to the highest judiciary in the land ? It is the custom in Parliament not to speak disparagingly about the courts.

Dr. Ambedkar : There is no disparagement of the learned Judges at all.

Mr. Speaker: I myself felt that the word should not have been used but I think what the Hon. Law Minister meant