PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES 941
sections 107, 108, 109 and 110, and they all enable the magistrate to demand security for good behaviour. I don’t understand why this Bill should not contain a provision to that effect. When for instance we find in Rajputana and other States the caste Hindus are agitating to harass the untouchables because they exercise civil and constitutional rights, why should you not take security for good behaviopur ?
Shri J. S. Bisht (Uttar Pradesh) : These are all the provisions in the Criminal Procedure Code.
Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : That is what exactly I am saying, that there is a precedent in the Criminal Procedure Code for taking security from persons who do not keep peace, for good behaviour, from persons disseminating seditious matter, from vagrants and from habitual offenders, for good behaviour. I am not certain that these provisions could be invoked for the purpose of taking security from persons offending against this law. It may be that specific provision dealing with the cases dealt with in this Bill has to be made, and that can only be made by a specific provision in this Bill.
Then, Sir, there is another provision which finds a place in the Indian Police Act. Section 15 of the Act, under which when some people in the village or the villagers as a whole disturb the peace, the Government can quarter upon them additional police and recover the cost of the additional police from the inhabitants of that village. That is a general provision. I am not sure again whether that provision could be invoked by the Government for the purpose of enforcing this Act. That Act is a general Act, disturbance of peace and so on and so forth. This is quite a different case and I should have thought that a specific clause on the lines of section 15 of the Police Act should have found a place in this Bill if outlawing of untouchability is intended to be an effective thing. But that again is not there.
Now, Sir, I come to another question about which I certainly feel a certain amount of doubt. Who is to administer this law, the Centre or the States ? And if the Centre is to administer the law, is it not better that this Bill should contain a clause to that effect, that it shall be administered by the Central