On 29th April 1949 Mr. Nazeeruddin Ahmed [Bengal Muslim] spoke at the Constituent Assembly as follows;
“That in Amendment No. 1 of List I, in the proposed Entry 2 of List I, for the word “investigation” the words “Central Bureau of Investigation be substituted” The original entry was Central Intelligence Bureau. To redraft simply is “Central Bureau of Intelligence and Investigation.” The words and investigation seems to me to appear to give an ambiguous effect. I submit that the duty of the Union Government to be to maintain the Central Intelligence Bureau. That is alright. Then we have the words and “investigation” and we should not know what these words really implied. To these words and investigation means that the Bureau of Investigation was merely to carry out the investigation? They will mean entirely different things. If it is too enlarged the scope of the Central Intelligence Bureau as well as the Bureau of Investigation, that should have been a different matter but Dr. Ambedkar, in an answer to a question put by Mr. Mahaveer Tyagi, said that the Central Government may think if necessary to carry on investigation. Sir, I submit the effect of this Amendment, if that is the kind of interpretation to be given to it would be extremely difficult to accept. We know that investigation of crime is a provincial subject and we have already considered that. If we now allow the Central Government also to investigate, the result would be that for a single crime there must be two parallel investigation, one by the Union Government and the other by the State Government. The result of this would be that there will be a clash and nobody will know whose chargesheet are final report will be acceptable the Union Government may submit a final report and the Provincial Government may submit a Chargesheet and there may be a lot of conflict between these two concurrent authorities if it is to carry on investigation it would not be easy to accept it. It was these suspicion that induced me to submit this Amendment though without any hope being accepted at least to explain to the House by misgivings and these misgivings are really substantiated by Dr. Ambedkar himself — I oppose the Amendment of Dr. Ambedkar. I appeal to the House not to act on the spur of this moment, as it is easy for them to accept it to oppose it and entry does not seem to be what it look —“
Mr. President: We have already had an explanation given by Mr. Nazeeruddin Ahmed on his point of view. Dr. Ambedkar will explain his point of view and we can put the entry to vote —
Dr. Ambedkar: Sir, I am not in a position to accept any of the Amendments moved by my Friend, Mr. Nazeeruddin Ahmed. These Amendments seem to be the result of muddled head and President says; Dr. Ambedkar need not use strong language.
The Amendment was put to vote and the Amendment was negative.
On the same date i.e. 29th August 1949 Mr. Nazeeruddin Ahmed, he says “Sir in moving my next amendment I take great risk of disclosing a further muddled head. But I should however states a great respect to Dr. Ambedkar that though I have a muddled head I have not a guilty conscious the expression that Dr. Ambedkar has chosen to use in giving his explanation are considerably beneath the dignity of the house.”