Mr. Vice-President, the amendment of Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad, I think, creates some difficulty which it is necessary to clear up. His amendment was intended to remove what he called an absurdity of the position which is created by the Draft as it stands. His argument, if I have understood it correctly, means this, that in the definition of law we have included custom, and having included custom, we also speak of the State not having the power to make any law. According to him, it means that the State would have the power to make custom, because according to our definition, law includes custom. I should have thought that construction was not possible, for the simple reason that sub-clause (3) of article 8 applies to the whole of the article 8, and does not merely apply to sub-clause (2) of article 8. That being so, the only proper construction that one can put or it is possible to put would be to read the word ‘Law’ distributively, so that so far as article 8, sub-clause (1)was concerned, Law would include custom, while so-far as sub-clause (2) was concerned, ‘Law’ would not include custom. That would be, in my judgment, the proper reading, and if it was read that way, the absurdity to which my Friend referred would not arise.
