The subject of Mines, which has been included in the Provincial List of the late Constitution, should we think, be put in the Concurrent List. In respect of Education, which was a provincial subject in the late Constitution, we think it is necessary that the Central Government should have power to legislate within the limits indicated in the Indian Constitution (entries 64 to 66 of the Union List of the Indian Constitution). We would recommend for the Centre also the power to acquire or requisition property in the provinces for the purposes of the Central Government. Local Government has been in the Provincial List, exclusively, even from 1919 onwards and normally we would have given it the same place, but as the Basic Democracies scheme which deals with this subject is in its infancy and so far has been directed by the Centre, we consider it necessary to retain the Centre's power in this regard. We would, therefore, include this subject in the Concurrent List. As regards adulteration of foodstuffs and other goods which is in the Provincial List of the late Constitution, we consider that the Centre also should have power to legislate. We would, therefore, include this subject in the Concurrent List as has been done in the Indian Constitution. Under the late Constitution, the Centre was given the power of preventive detention for reasons connected with defense, foreign affairs or the security of Pakistan; and to the provinces power was given in respect of preventive detention for reasons connected with the maintenance of public order. We are of the opinion, that, as far as, preventive detention is concerned, the Centre should also have control. We would, therefore, prefer to follow the provision made in this regard in the Indian Constitution where preventive detention, for reasons other than those connected with defense, foreign affairs or the security of the country, is mentioned in the Concurrent List. The relevant entry runs as follows:
“Preventive detention for reasons connected with the security of a State, the maintenance of public order, or the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community; persons subjected to such detention.”
We would, therefore, omit the entry relating to preventive detention from the Provincial List of the late Constitution and include in the Concurrent List a provision to the same effect as the provision of the Indian Constitution quoted above. In this connection, there is another entry in the Concurrent List of the Indian Constitution relating to removal, from one state to another state, of prisoners, accused persons and persons subjected to preventive detention for reasons specified in the entry already quoted. In the late Constitution, there is no entry in any of the Lists about the removal of persons under preventive detention. On the other hand, the Provincial List contains an entry which relates to the removal of prisoners from one province to another. This would include an accused person who is confined in a prison and, from this point of view, prisoners' may include accused persons also, but it is doubtful if the same expression can be taken to refer to a person under preventive detention. We, therefore, consider that there should be a provision with regard to the removal from one wing to the other also of persons under preventive detention and, having regard to the fact that it will be an inter- provincial matter, we think that this subject as well as removal of prisoners should be mentioned in the Concurrent List. To mention removal of prisoners from one province to another in the Provincial List does not seem to us appropriate because legislation by one province that its prisoners will be sent to the other province will be practically one-
