I was also of the same opinion as Sir AlladiKrishnaswamiAyyar, when in the party meeting I consented to the change of the present clause, but I find on reconsideration that the original clause might stand. I shall presently give the reasons. The reasons are these. Two points referred to in the clause are, one, traffic in human beings is prohibited, and, secondly, forced labour ought not to be allowed. Both these are already provided for in the Penal Code. Section 370 of the Indian Penal Code prohibits traffic in human beings, and section 374 makes it an offence to compel any person to labour against his will, but the word “unlawful” is used there. “Unlawful” means, it is lawful for any legislature to pass a law that for particular purposes labour may be enforced, as when a person is convicted of a crime and he is sentenced to penal servitude. Or in the interests of village administration when there are floods, the villagers may be obliged or forced to repair breaches in tanks, etc., it also allows compulsory military service. Now, that these two provisions which are already in the general law under sections 370 and 374 of the Indian Penal Code are raised to the status of fundamental rights, we have to be a little careful. When we are giving the status of fundamental rights, unless we add other explanations allowing the State to make an exception to these two fundamental rights which are now being given, it might appear, and courts may also interpret that by taking these out of the ordinary law and placing them in the Statute Book as fundamental rights–that the States jurisdiction to legislate for such purposes, for forced labour even under an emergency has been taken away. If Mr.Munshi who has moved this amendment has at the back of his mind that the State Ought not to be prevented from introducing conscription whenever or wherever necessary, let the matter be cleared here and now. I do not see any objection to having an Explanation or even having the original clause as it stands. There is no need to make the amendment. Let us be clear in our minds. Otherwise, it will mean that we have given up, irrespective of any considerations requiring conscription, or irrespective of other considerations requiring any local legislature or any particular unit to compel persons to come and help by way of forced labour-irrespective of all these considerations the fundamental right has been given, and that means that the right of the State has been abrogated once and for all. There is much force in the argument of Dr. Ambedkar, and I am not in favour of this amendment. The original clause as it stands may stand. Let us be clear in our minds whether we want conscription here and now or not. Let us not leave it to the judges to decide. Sir Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar said that it has been interpreted by the American Court. The American Law was framed so long ago, and therefore, it is necessary to interpret it from time to time to enlarge its scope. We know too well that the Justinian Code running into 150 volumes has been developed by interpretation of the Twelve Tables. People are not in favour of’ modifying the statute from time to time, but lawyers have introduced various things as interpretations and have been evolving new law out of that. Now, that we are making a statute, why should we rely upon the future interpretation and leave it to the judges to decide? I oppose the amendment and I am in favour of retaining the original clause.
