Mr. President, apart from the technical objection which I took, I have another objection, namely, that it is again another instance of an insidious attempt to encroach upon the provincial field. I shall point out only one such instance in this article. This article indirectly gives power to the Parliament to vary the definition of the expression ‘agricultural income.’ I suppose it is well known that agriculture and agricultural income is a Provincial subject. It has been a Provincial subject for a long time since the Act of 1935 came into force. It is also the scheme of the present Draft Constitution that agricultural income and agricultural subjects should be Provincial subjects. Again, coming to article 303 clause (1), sub-clause (a), “agricultural income means agricultural income as defined for the purposes of the enactments relating to India Income-tax.” This was the definition which was accepted also in the Government of India Act of 1935. That the definition of agricultural income as given in the Income-tax Act was taken as the basis showed the limit of the Centre and the provinces. The Government of India Act actually adopted this definition in the Indian Income-tax Act and crystallised it for ever so far as that Constitution was concerned as to what agricultural income meant. If we now try to vary the meaning of agricultural income, the result would be that agricultural income which is a provincial matter, and which is a provincial subject will be seriously encroached upon. Parliament may easily encroach upon the definition and might easily say “agricultural income is an income which does not arise from agriculture.” There is nothing to prevent Parliament from doing so. Parliament would have been prevented under the existing state of things as in the Draft Constitution. This new article tries to improve upon this and make a change. Agricultural income might now mean anything or nothing. It will mean exactly what Parliament might desire. This is another way, another-instance of however encroaching upon the Provisions. I have already dealt with the disastrous consequences of this attempt. We have already in the last article seen a tendency and we have encroached upon the allocation of jute and other taxes. In fact, jute under the original Draft article was to be given over to the provinces, where they were grown in proportion. But, now the whole conception has been changed; this is also another change. I submit, Sir, if we pass this article as it is, including an inherent right to Parliament to change and modify the meaning of the expression ‘agricultural income,’ we will be forced to secure your permission to change the definition of agricultural income. If you begin in a non-scientific manner in an aggressive manner to collect all powers in the hands of the Centre, there will be no limit to this attempt. I find this insidious attempt everywhere visible in all these articles.
