Then comes the expression “crimes committed on the high seas or in the air“. I should leave it untouched. But when we come to the words “offences against the law of nations” and then there is an unnecessary explanation-“committed on land, or the high seas or in the air.” The addition of those last words, I think, is first of all absolutely unnecessary. If we leave it at “offences against the law of nations,” it includes offences committed anywhere. As the honourable Member Dr. Ambedkar has just now explained, in dealing, with another article, we should be elaborate when dealing with a subject in an article, but in specifying a certain subject in the legislative list, it is enough to mention the subject, and the question as to in what direction the legislature will act, that is a matter for the legislature alone. We need not try to elaborate the jurisdiction of the legislature in that respect. In this case, I humbly suggest that the words-“committed on land, or the high seas or in the air” have the effect-if they have any effect at all- of curtailing the jurisdiction of the Union Legislature, and quite unnecessarily too, and without perhaps appreciating the curtailment effected. I submit that if we leave the expression “offences against the law of nations” that will imply offences committed anywhere. By saying that the offences must be committed on “land, the high seas or in the air,” we are needlessly elaborate. I also submit that the very mention of the expression “high seas” would leave out offences against the law of nations committed in the low seas or within the limits of the territorial waters. If any offence against the law of nations is committed between the land and the high seas, then I think entry 22 as it is now drafted, would preclude it from the jurisdiction of the Union Legislature. Therefore I submit it is better to omit the words “committed on land, or the high seas or in the air“.
