One other point, and it is this. Is there really any need for this article specifically relating to article 13 of Part III? I urge my honourable colleagues here to study carefully article 13. Article 13 is already laden with five provisos. Everyone of these provisos provides that in no event, in no contingency, in no emergency, in no case shall the security of the State, or public order or public interest be jeopardised. This article, as was remarked in the course of the debate thereon in this House, as a matter of fact, confers rights, and then abridges them, if not abrogates them, at one and the same time. In view of this consideration that the article as it stands, as we have adopted it, has got safeguards in the interests of the safety of the State, in the interests of public order, safeguards against the exercise of the fundamental rights comprised in, the sub-clauses (a) to (g) of clause (I), I feel that there is absolutely no necessity whatever for incorporating article 279 here. Because, article 279 has got relation to the situation where the security of the State, the security of the country or any part thereof is endangered and we have already made provision for that through the provisos (2) to (6) suffixed to article 13. All these provisos have one meaning; though they may be couched in different language they all beat the same significance, that is, in the exercise of the fundamental rights guaranteed by this article, public order, public peace and the safety of the State shall not be jeopardised. If that stands in danger, this article lays down specifically that nothing shall affect the operation of any existing law in so far as it relates to, or,-this is important, in view of the article that we are now considering-prevent the State from making any law, so on and so forth with regard to the different rights comprised in the article. What do we find here in article 279? “Nothing shall restrict the power of the State as defined in that Part to make any law or to take any executive action which the State would otherwise be competent to make or to take.” This is already provided for in article 13 and this would be merely an overlapping, if not a cumbersome repetition of what we have already adopted in article 13.
