338 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES
It is next important to consider why the Supreme Court and the various State High Courts have come to this conclusion. Why is it that they say that Parliament has no
10-00 A.M. right to make a law in the interests of public order or in the interests of preventing incitement to offences ? That is a very very important question and it is a question about which I am personally considerably disturbed. For this purpose I must refer briefly to the rules of construction which have been adopted by the Supreme Court as well as by the various State High Courts, but before I go to that I would like to refer very briefly to the rules of construction which have been adopted by the Supreme Court of the United States—and I think it is very relevant because the House will remember that if there is any Constitution in the world of a country of any importance which contains Fundamental Rights it is the Constitution of the United States, and those of us who were entrusted with the task of framing our own Constitution had incessantly to refer to the Constitution of the United States in framing our own Fundamental Rights. There are many Members I know, who are familiar with the Constitution of the United States. How does the Constitution of the United States read ? I think hon. Members will realise that apparently there is one difference between the Constitution of India and the Constitution of the United States so far as the Fundamental Rights are concerned. The Fundamental Rights in the Constitution of the United States are stated in an absolute form; the Constitution does not lay down any limitation on the Fundamental Rights set out in the Constitution. Our Constitution, on the other hand, not only lays down the Fundamental Rights but it also enumerates the limitations on the Fundamental Rights, and yet what is the result ? It is an important question to consider. The result is this, that the Fundamental Rights in the United States, although in the text of the Constitution they appear as absolute, so far as judicial interpretations are concerned they are riddled with limitations of one sort or another. Nobody can in the United States claim that his Fundamental Rights are absolute and that the Congress has no power to limit them or to regulate them. In our country I find that