Now, Sir, it will be conceded that requisitioning will in any case be necessary under conditions of emergency, whether war or otherwise, for defence purposes including purposes of training and manoeuvres. Now when we reach a stage when such a power has to be taken, the Federal Legislature should be clothed with authority for making that law. Now if that power could be inferred from item 1– I have already said that doubts have been expressed about it being inferred from item 43–if that power could be inferred from item 1, it may be that item 2 is altogether unnecessary; but we have got to reckon with the fact that, while a number of other items which we have mentioned in detail could be brought under item 1, we have still enumerated them in this list. Now what is the harm in adding requisitioning to the number of those detailed items when you concede that, requisitioning should come under the general power of defence? We shall have this power in the Federal list. Whether that power, should be used and whether a law should be made during peace for enabling requisitioning to be done is a matter for the future Federal Legislature. It might be that in the law which may be proposed for requisitioning we may insert conditions which would not allow requisitioning to be done unnecessarily or when the conditions do not warrant it; but that in certain circumstances requisitioning may, not be necessary in peace time is not a ground for our eliminating this item from the list altogether. And there is another point I want to mention. Assuming that the contrary view is taken and it is held that requisitioning of land does not fall within the purview of item 1 of this list, what will be the position? The position will be that it will be an item which is not to be found in any of the 3 lists and therefore will become a residuary item and the power of making a law for dealing with that item will be with the Centre. I quite appreciate the position that, in view of the distinction that we are making in respect of the quantum of residuary power and the allocation of powers between the provinces and the Centre, if this item becomes a residuary item, in the case of the States, the States might claim jurisdiction to legislate for this item. But what will be the effect of the amendment which has been moved by the representatives of the Indian States? Supposing it is removed, then the power is necessary for the federation under certain circumstances and in certain emergencies. Then, whatever arguments we may have from the Centre’s point of view will be concentrated on demonstrating that requisitioning is a very necessary item in the ‘general power of defence and therefore we would still, I think, have to legislate on them. Therefore I think the balance of considerations is in favour of leaving this item alone in the Federal list and, when any legislation is attempted on this particular item, then perhaps this House can take steps for ensuring that it is not used in circumstances which do not warrant it. I therefore suggest that this amendment may not be pressed.
