748 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES
Shri Kamath: Before you proceed further, Sir, may I request you to summon the Attorney General to be present here during the course of the debate, as important matters are being raised in the House ?
An hon. Member: He is in Australia.
Shri Kamath: Is not his Deputy here ?
Several Members : rose —
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Hon. Members who have already spoken need not rise. They have no right to speak just because the Law Minister has raised certain new points.
Dr. Pattabhi (Madras) : Several points which are neither in the Bill nor in the statement of Objects and Reasons have now been adduced by the Law Minister and the whole discussion assumes a de movo form, if you have followed it carefully. There was a reference in the Statement of Objects to part (c) under Article 3 of the Constitution. There is the statement of the Law Minister that the Bill has nothing to do with Article 3 of the Constitution. You must reconsider your decision, Sir, and allow a fresh discussion on the matter.
Dr. Ambedkar: Article 3 comes in only incidentlly, because the cession of territory cannot be carried out unless until the boundaries of Assam are adjusted. To that extent Article 3 is relevant. Otherwise Article 3 has no relevance.
Dr. Pattabhi: You were not present in the House yesterday when certain statements were made
Dr. Ambedkar: I am sorry I was not here. If somebody had told me I would have been here. ( Interruption ). Article
3 comes in only incidentally. The cession of the territory was the consequence of readjustment of the boundary of Assam. So far as there, there should be reference in Article 3......
Dr. Pattabhi : For which there is no provision in the Act— I mean for cession of territory.
Dr. Ambedkar: That is a difference in opinion. Entries
14 and 15 contain, if you want, the basis of action for the union territory.