Sir, while considering a previous entry the honourable Member referred to entry 91. That is a residuary article. There it is stated- “Any other matter not enumerated in List II or List III including any tax not mentioned in either of those Lists“. But I submit it would not be a very safe thing to rely upon the curative virtues of entry 91. It is not meant, I submit most respectfully, to cure any specific omission of a certain subject in a specific part of a list. It is a well-known law of interpretation that where you make a specific mention of a subject, and omit certain specific subjects, then the general words in any other part would not cover that omission, and would not cure any defect or omission which might have been left in the specific items. I suppose the items introduced by the Honourable Dr. Ambedkar have been submitted to the House with careful thought and careful consideration. So it would be said that offences against the law of nations committed in this no-man’s area would be out of the jurisdiction of the Union Legislature. Therefore, I submit it will be better to leave out the explanatory portion altogether. That part is, in my humble judgment, absolutely unnecessary and may lead to some amount of quibbling. I know my fear are justified by some leading cases on this point. There are some very authoritative rulings to the effect that general words at the end of a list do not enlarge the powers already given or to supply the gaps which are definitely left in the body of the enumerated list. That is a well-known law of interpretation. But I believe probably that I am submitting my arguments to the Honourable Dr. Ambedkar without any effect, because he has not heard me and was engaged in conversation.
