340 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES
Supreme Court has said that they will not recognise the doctrine of the “police power” which is prevalent in the United States. I do not wish to take the time of the House in reading the judgments of the Supreme Court, but those who are interested in it may find this matter dealt with in the case known as Chiranjit Lal Chowdhuri versus the Union of India otherwise known as the Sholapur Mills case. You find the judgment of Mr. Justice Mukherjee expressly rejecting this doctrine which in the text of the judgment which I have, occurs on page 15. They say they will not apply this doctrine. The reason why the Judges of the Supreme Court do not propose to adopt the doctrine of “police power” is this, so far as I am able to understand, that the Constitution has enumerated specifically the heads in clause (2) under which Parliament can lay restrictions on the Fundamental Right as to the freedom of speech and expression and that as Parliament has expressly laid down the heads under which these limitations should exist, they themselves now will not add to any of the heads which are mentioned in clause (2). That is in sum and substance, the construction that you will find in the case of Thaper’s judgment which was delivered by Mr. Justice Patanjali Sastri. He has said that they will not enlarge it and therefore as the Constitution itself does not authorise Parliament to make a law for purposes of public order “according to them Parliament has no capacity to do it and they will not invest Parliament with any such authority. In the case on the Press Emergency Laws also they have said the same thing—that in clause (2) there is no head permitting Parliament to make any limitations in the interests of preventing incitement to an offence. Since section 4 of the Press (Emergency Powers) Act provides for punishment for incitement to the commitment of any offence, Parliament has no authority to do it. That is the general line of argument which the Supreme Court Judges have adopted in interpreting the Constitution.
With regard to the doctrine of implied powers, they have also more or less taken the same view. Personally myself, I take the view that there is ample scope for recognising the