PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES 333
was that judgment was unsatisfactory from the point of view of what the Government proposed to do.
Dr. Ambedkar: The judgment does not appear to be in consonance with the articles of the Constitution. That is my point.
Mr. Speaker: I am afraid the Hon. Minister will not be in order to pass any such structures on any judgment expressed by the Supreme Court.
Dr. Ambedkar: I am very sorry.
Mr. Speaker: I was thinking whether what he expressed was not capable of a different interpretation viz. that the judgment was unsatisfactory from the point of view of what the Government proposed to do.
The Minister of Home Affairs (Shri Rajagopalachari):
Will the hon. Speaker forgive my intervention ? I think really what the Hon. Law Minister meant is that a doubt has arisen on account of the judgment.
Mr. Speaker : Let us now proceed.
Dr. Ambedkar : My view is that in article 29, clause (2), the most important word is ‘only’. No distinction shall be made on the ground only of race, religion or sex. The word ‘only’ is very important. It does not exclude any distinction being made on grounds other than those mentioned in this article and I respectfully submit that the word ‘only’ did not receive the same consideration which it ought to have received.
Then with regard to article 16, clause (4), my submission is this that it is really impossible to make any reservation which would not result in excluding somebody who has a caste. I think it has to be borne in mind and it is one of the fundamental principles which I believe is stated in Mulla’s last edition on the very first page that there is no Hindu who has not a caste. Every Hindu has a caste—he is either a Brahmin or a Mahratta or a Kunby or a Kumbhar or a carpenter. There is no Hindu—that is the fundamental proposition—who has not a caste. Consequently, if you make a reservation in favour of what are called backward classes