PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES 343
remains the third category, namely friendly relations. We have at present on our statute book a law enacted in 1932 dealing with friendly relations with the foreign States. It is true that that law has not come for any adjudication before High Courts or the Supreme Court and it has so far not been declared to be ultra vires. But the fact remains that in view of rules of interpretation adopted by the Supreme court that nothing is within the capacity of Parliament unless that particular head of legislation is mentioned in clause (2) and as “friendly relations with foreign States” is not mentioned in clause (2) I do not think it requires an astrologer to predict that when that question comes before the judiciary they will follow the same line of interpretation.
Shri Kamath: Dr. Ambedkar is quite enough for the purpose.
Dr. Ambedkar: And it is for that reason that we have thought it necessary to include in the new heads this head of friendly relations with foreign states.
My friend Dr. Mookerjee asked whether there was any country where such a law prevailed. Well, I have searched for a precedent and I can tell him that I find no country which has not such a law. In the case of England it is a rule of Common law. No statutory law is necessary. The Common Law is operative not only in England but in all the Dominions. Therefore that same rule prevails there. In fact, the common Law rule has been amended and made more stringent by a statutory provision in Canada.
Pandit Kunzru (Uttar Pradesh) : Will my hon. Friend explain a little more the position in England ?
Dr. Ambedkar: Yes, I will. I do not know—I must leave some time for the Prime Minister.
Hon. Members: Take your own time.
Dr. Ambedkar: There is some confusion. I think, in the minds of the people…………….
Dr. S. P. Mookerjee: And the framers of the Bill.