The effect of it will be not only to include submarine regions in this entry but also to oppose the amendment of Dr. Ambedkar seeking to delete the word “oil fields“. The point of my amendment is this. Dr. Ambedkar rightly pointed out that this matter of oil fields has been comprised in entry 63. But as the House will see, entry 63 which we have adopted a few minutes ago is to regulate and develop oil fields and mineral oil resources. Entry 65 which we have already passed refers to regulation of labour and safety in mines and oil fields. This is a matter different from the matter included in 63. So also I feel that this 66 refers to a subject which is not comprised in 63, because the qualifying clause is to the effect “to the extent to which such regulation and development under the control of the Union is declared by Parliament by law to be expedient in the public interest“. I do not know whether the retention of the words “mineral development” and omission of the word “oil fields” would be in consonance with entry 63 which the House has adopted. That entry refers to mineral oil resources. And here we have got mineral development. “Mineral development” refers to mineral resources in general. If there are adequate, valid and cogent reasons for retaining the words “mineral development” in entry 66 I see no reason why the word “oil fields” also should not be retained, because the particular term “oils” is only a part of the general term “minerals“, scientifically speaking.
