Then I come to my amendment No. 66. This I submit, raises some important questions of principle and also some serious questions of drafting. This amendment says that in clause (3) of the proposed article 284, the words “or ruler” be deleted. These two words “or Ruler” have been introduced in the proposed new article 284. It is said that the Public Service Commission for the Union, if requested to do so, by the Governor, or Ruler of a State, may agree to serve the needs of the State. Sir, I submit that the introduction of these two innocent-looking words “or Ruler” would altogether change the entire situation. By the introduction of these two words, the, Indian States will all come in; or it is attempted to bring them in. But I think this will only lead to confusion and also lead to unnecessary complications. This article appears in Part XII of the Draft Constitution. In article 281 we have defined the word “State” and said that in this Part, unless the context otherwise requires, the expression “State” means a State for, the time being specified in Part I of the First Schedule, that is to say, the Provinces. I submit that on a careful consideration of Part XII, it will be clear that this Part provided only for the purpose of the Provinces. The conception of their Rulers being included in this Part is absolutely foreign to the article. I submit that if we introduce the words “or Ruler” it will lead to confusion. The word, “State” clearly means “Province“, not the Indian States. Even the introduction of the saving clause- (……. unless the context otherwise requires) will not improve the situation. These are ordinary words of precaution. They do not extend the idea of the article. if we are to include the Rulers also, the entire structure of the article will have to be changed. This- also shows the danger of the tendency to improve matters day by day, by introducing new things into the scheme. If we introduce the conception of an Indian State here, then it will be extremely difficult to find out whether the word “State” occurring in other places in this Part has been used as including the Indian States. It will be difficult for even trained lawyers or experienced Judges to say whether in every case the word “State” also includes a State in Part III of the Schedule. The words “or Ruler” have been introduced only in a few stray articles. The question would be whether the word “State” throughout Part XII also includes the Indian States. That difficulty cannot be’ solved in this way, and as I said, it will lead to a great deal of confusion. If the Indian States are to be included in the scheme of things, then the whole Chapter should be re-drafted so as to serve that Purpose. It cannot be achieved by stray interpolations of the words “or Ruler” into the body of only some of the articles.
