368 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES
then to the extent of the repugnancy and inconsistency the law of the State shall be void. There is in addition to that a further provision in clause (2) of that article that if such a law, which is inconsistant with the law made by Parliament on the subject, is reserved for the assent of the President and the President gives his assent, notwithstanding the repugnancy the law shall remain void so far as that State is concerned. So far as our experience in the Law Ministry goes almost every State has got the fear that their law may be declared to be inconsistent and hence void. In order to prevent this contingency the States have always taken the safest course to refer all these measures to the President for his consideration and assent and his assent has generally been given either in the form in which the Bill stands or with some modifications. Therefore my submission is that so far as the Constitution is concerned articles 200 and 254(2) contain enough safeguards to see that such measures do reach the President and receive his consideration and assent.
Shrimati Durgabai : Under what procedure ?
Dr. Ambedkar: I was just referring to it. Under article
254(2)…………..
Shrimati Durgabai : How ?
Dr. Ambedkar: I know some people have got a bee in their bonnet. On all these three counts I submit that all these amendments are quite unnecessary.
I propose to deal with some of the points raised by my friend Pandit Kunzru. So far as his amendment dealing with change of words is concerned, his words I suppose are merely poetical alliterations and I do not think there is any substance in them, whether you call it friendly relations or by some other words : the substance and the head of legislation remaining what it is. I am therefore not prepared to spend my time in dealing with them.
But he has been making a great deal of capital with regard to the American case which he can never forget namely Near versus Minnesota. It is true that the U. S. Supreme Court