CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY OF INDIA - VOLUME X



Thursday, the 13th October, 1949

I therefore wish to appeal to the Honourable the Deputy Prime Minister and to the House to take a chivalrous and generous view of this matter and not to make the limes of these few unfortunate ladies miserable for such short periods as are still left to them before they pass away. In some of the States. Sir, the position of these unfortunate ladies is already very unhappy. Their relations with their sons are strained. If their allowances are reduced substantially, the-, cannot expect any help from the present rulers. Their lot therefore will be extremely hard. I hope the House will take this into consideration in granting exemption at least to the widows in respect of income-tax and other taxes.

Mr. President : Mr. Gokul Lal Asawa.

Shri T. T. Krishnamachari : (Madras : (General) : The question may now be put.

Mr. President : I have already called him.

Shri Gokul Lal Asawa (United State of Rajasthan) : Mr. President, Sir, I wish to make one or two observations on this historic occasion destined to open a new chapter in the history of the people of the Indian States. After the frank, lucid and comprehensive statement of Sardar Saheb, I do not think there need be any difficulty or hesitation on our part in accepting the amendments put forward, particularly article 306B. I must confess here that I was one of those who opposed the incorporation of such a provision being made in the Covenant of the United State of Rajasthan, but today looking to the ways-and should I say irresponsible ways, to put it mildly in which the Governments of some of the Unions are behaving or working, finding that we arc passing through a critical transitional period, realising that we are still not out of the woods-who can say definitely that there are no troublous times ahead? And above all keeping in mind the observations of Sardar Saheb with regard to the meaning and purpose of article 306B, I see no justification for us to oppose the introduction of such a provision in the Constitution. Further, while the provision in the Covenant requires that both the Rajpramukh and his Council of Ministers shall, in the exercise of their functions, be under the general control of the Government of India, here under the present article we find that only the Governments of the States are to remain under general control. Now, this to my mind marks an improvement in the position.

One observation more and I have done. If I understand a right the feelings of some of us inside this House or outside, I may be allowed to say that what worried us most in the past and what worries us today somewhat is not so much the introduction of this principle of general control but rather its application, the working thereof: the mechanism and the technique for the exercise of general control, I mean the method, the manner and the range thereof. I hope those responsible for the exercise of general control, etc., will bear this important fact in mind. Shri T. T. Krishnamachari : Sir, I move that the question be now put. Mr. President : I do not think there is any other speaker. Mr. Munshi, will you reply?

Shri K. M. Munshi (Bombay : General) : Mr. President, Sir, after the exhaustive and brilliant survey of the whole question by Sardar there is no need for any detailed reply. I would only mention one or two matters. In the first ins tance, I shall beg the permission of the House to keep back 274DD. Some technical flaw is suggested and the Drafting Committee would like to re-examine it. Then, as regards the amendments, I am quite prepared to accept the two amendments moved by my honourable Friend Mr. Santhanam, Nos. 276 and 278. Except these two amendmens I oppose the other amendments that have been moved. Explanations have been given about them and there is no need for this House to entertain those amendments.

There are one or two matters which I should like to mention. As Professor Asawa said just now, article 306B is a very useful measure and I am sure even those Members of the

House who may have any compunctions about it will have been satisfied. The policy with regard to 306B has been authoritatively laid down in the statement of Sardar and I do not think that anything more need be said. It has 'already been stated in the statement and I am free to submit my personal opinion that so far as Mysore and the Union of Travancore-Cochin are concerned, whose affairs I know personally, I see no reason why they should attract article 306B, unless they fall from that steady and stable administration which they have inherited from the Dewans of the past, and I am glad to say that the present set-up there promises to maintain the tradition.

Only two remarks from my Friend Mr. Jainarain Vyas, I should like to refer to. One of his points was that feudalism in the States should be controlled. It cannot be controlled by mere authority. It cannot be controlled by rooting them out either by law or by force. So far as their power and prestige are concerned, they have shrunk on account of the democratic set-up that has been introduced in those States but you cannot eliminate those elements--people must learn to make them-the feudal elements-stable elements in the society. Before this change there was some point in saying, "Oh, the feudal elements should be eliminated", but those elements which have survived this revolution are as much ,citizens of the Republic as anybody else and it must be the duty of the other people, and particularly of the administration, to enforce the rule of law in such a manner that all the vestiges of feudalism disappear. It cannot be done at a stroke any attempt to do so will only recoil upon the infant democracies in those States.

A second point which he made was that the Princes should be denied the right of citizenship. We must realise once for all that every person born in India is a citizen of India. In making what Sardar called the 'bloodless revo lution', we did not propose to produce outlaws. In view of what the Princes have done in the past and what they did in bringing about the bloodless revolution, this kind of attitude will, I am afraid, come in the way of a satisfactory solution rather than accelerate it. The set-up in the Indian States now has been completely changed and the masses on the one side and those who have been rulers in the past have to adjust themselves in the new atmosphere. It is only in that way that we can make this revolution a complete success.

Sir, I agree with my Friend Mr. Govinda Menon that this is an historic occasion and it makes me as happy as it makes him. I remember the early days in 1947 when my Friend Mr. Govinda Menon was the only man representing the States in this House who was insistent that the whole thing should go and the States should be integrated. I can easily realise the joy that he feels in seeing that what he aimed at is now attained successfully.

This is no doubt a historic occasion. Thanks to the genius of Sardar and his statesmanship we have integrated the whole of India. (Hear, hear). We have now an India which, even without Pakistan, is as large and much more integrated and harmonious and unified than ever before in history, and it is now for us, particularly the future Parliament and the future Government of India, so to consolidate all the different parts of the country that India may emerge a strong and compact nation. I feel happy also that the nightmare of the Indian States which have been a survival from Moghul and the British days is all gone and the sovereign people of India can now march forward from strength to strength and attain the cherished ideals which they have placed before the country in the Preamble to our Constitution.

Shri R. K. Sidhva : Sir, may I know what Mr. Munshi has to say about my amendment No. 246 about the armed forces to be merged in the Union?

1 Mr. President : Do you accept that amendment?

Shri K. M. Munshi : I do not accept that amendment. I said I would not accept any amendment other than those two moved by Mr. Santhanam.

Shri R. K. Sidhva : Cannot the armed forces

of the States be merged in the Union Forces?

Shri K. M. Munshi : The section itself makes it clear that whatever forces are left in the States are part of the Union Forces. If honourable Members will see the Union List of the old Government of India Act of 1935, they will find that there was a separate heading called "The Armed Forces of the State" That entry has been omitted. There can only be one army now in India and that is the Army of the Union. By this article 246 these few contingents which are left in the States become integrated as part of the Union Army. But it will take some time to absorb them completely for organisational and other purposes. Till that time the whole thing has to be regulated by the President. At the same time, the article gives power to the Parliament to complete this process as early as Parliament thinks proper. Under the present conditions they could not be absorbed all at once and it must take time before they could be harmonised in every respect. That is the reason why article 246 has been drafted in this particular manner.

Mr. President : I will now put the various amendments that have been moved. The procedure which I propose to follow is this : I will take each amendment which has been moved by Dr. Ambedkar, take the vote on each separately and dispose it of. Then I shall put the whole part together.

Now, as regards amendment 217 article 211 A-there are several amendments. The first two are No. 237 and No. 238. These are the two amendments moved by Mr. Naziruddin Ahmed. They are more or less of a drafting nature, I wonder whether he wishes to have them put to vote. He is not here, so I will put them to vote.

1 Mr. President : The question is:

"That in amendment No. 217 of List VII (Second Week), in the proposed Now article 211A, for the word 'modifications' the words 'adaptations, modifications' be substituted".

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. President : The question is :

"That in amendment No. 217 of List VII (Second Week),-

(i) in item (3) of the proposed article 211 A, for the words 'shall be omitted' the words shall not apply to this part' be substituted;

(ii)in item (4) of the proposed article 211A in paragraph (a), after the words 'in clause (1)' the words 'for the time being specified in the First Schedule' be omitted and be inserted. "

The amendment was negatived.

The Honourable Shri K. Santhanam (Madras : General) : In regard to my amendment No. 276 it has been suggested to me, Sir, that the words "Principal seat of Government" would be preferable to "Capital".

Shri K. M. Munshi : It is a verbal amendment which I am prepared to accept.

Mr. President : There is one slight change which has now been suggested that in place of the word "capital" we should use the word "principal seat of Government". I do not suppose there can be any objection to that. It is merely a verbal change. No. 276 has been accepted by Mr. Munshi.

The question is :

"That in amendment No. 217 of List VII (Second Week), in item (4) of the proposed article 211 A for paragraph (b) the following be substituted :-

"(b) for clause (3) following clause shall be substituted, namely: -

'(3) Unless he has his own residence in the principal seat of Government of his State the Rajpramukh shall be entitled to the use of an official residence without payment of rent and there shall be paid to the Rajparamukh such allowances as the President may, by general or special order, determine." The amendment was adopted. Mr. President : We now come to the amendment No. 287 moved by Mr Guruv Reddy.

Shri H. R. Guruv Reddy : I do not want to press it, Sir. The amendment was by leave of the Assembly, withdrawn.

Mr. President : We now come to No. 292.

Kaka Bhagwant Roy (Patiala & Fast Punjab States Union) : I would like to withdraw that amendment of mine, Sir.

The amendment was, by leave of the Assembly, withdrawn.

Mr. President : The question is:

"That in amendment No. 217 of List VII (second Week), in paragraph (a) of item (10) of the proposed article 21 A.

for the words 'the President by general or special order', the words Parliament by law' be substituted."

The amendment was negatived. Mr. President : In regard to amendment No. 278 there is an amendment No. 293) moved by Professor Saksena. I shall first put that to vote.

The question is:

"That in amendment No. 278 of List X (Second Week), in clause (1) of the proposed article 197, for the words 'President after Consultation with the Rajpramukh the words Parliament by law be substituted." The amendment was negatived.

Mr. President : No. 278 has been accepted by Mr. Munshi.

The question is: "That in amendment No. 217 of List VII (Second Week), in item (13) of the proposed article 211 A, for article 197, the following be substituted:- 197." Salaries," etc., of judges. (1) there shall be paid to the judges of each High Court such salaries as may be determined by the President after consultation with the rajpramukh:

(2)Every judge shall be entitled to such allowances and to such rights in respect of leave of absence and pension as may from time to time be determined by or under law made by Parliament and, until so determined, to such allowances and rights as may be deter mined by the President in consultation with the Rajpramukh :

Provided that neither neither the allowances of a judge nor his rights in respect of leave of absence or pension shall be varied to his disadvantage after his appointment". The amendment was adopted. Mr. President : The question is :

"That in amendment No. 220 of List VII (Second Week), in clause (1) of the proposed new article 235A, for the Words "until Parliament by law otherwise provides the the words "until the President by order otherwise provider' be substituted." The amendment was negatived.

Mr. President : The question is:

" That in amendment No. 217 of List VII (Second Week), in item (13) of the proposed article 211A the words `after consultation with the Rajpramukh be deleted from article 197".

The amendment was negatived.

Shri R. K. Sidhva : I beg to withdraw my amendment No. 246.

The amendment was by leave of the Assembly, withdrawn.

Mr. President : The question is:

"That in amendments No. 220 of List VII (Second Week), in clause (2) of the proposed new article 235A, the words 'and the Union shall bear the expenses thereof' be added at the end.',

The amendment was negatived. Mr. President. The question is

"That article 237 be deleted." The motion was adopted.

Article 237 was deleted from the Constitution. Mr. President : The question is:

"That in amendments No. 223 of List VII (Second Week), in the proviso to the proposed new article 274DDD, for the words 'President may by order' the words Parliament may by law' be substituted."

The amendment was negatived.

Shri T. T. Krishnamachari : Article 274 DD may be held over, Sir, to a subsequent day.

Mr. President : I shall put now article 302A to vote. The question is:
 

    "That after article 302, the following new article be inserted, namely:-
    '302A. In the exercise of the power of Parliament or of the Legislature of a State to make laws or in the exercise of the executive power of the Union or of a State, due regard shall be had to the guarantee or assurance given under any such covenant or agreement as is referred to in article 267A of this Constitution with respect to the personal rights, privileges and dignities of the Ruler of an Indian State."
 
 
The motion was adopted.
Article 302A was added to the Constitution.
 
    Mr. President: I shall now put the amendments to article 306-B. Part (ii) of No.251 is disallowed as being out of order.
    The question is:
    "That in amendment No.225 of List VII (Second Week), in the proposed new article 306B,--
    the words "during a period of ten years from the commencement thereof, or during such longer or shorter period as parliament may by law provide in respect of any State", be deleted.
 
 
The amendment was negatived.
 
    Shri R.K.Sidhva: I would like to withdraw my amendment No.252.
 
The amendment was, by leave of the Assembly, withdrawn.
 
    Mr. President: The question is:
    "That in amendment No.225 of List VII (Second Week), in the proviso to the proposed new article 306B, for the words 'President may by order' the words 'Parliament may by law' be substituted."
 
The amendment was negatived.
    Mr. President: There are some amendments to amendment No.299. I shall put the first amendment by Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena.
    The question is:
    "That in amendment No.299 of List XIII (Second Week), at the end of the proposed clause (1) of article 258, the following words be added:-
    'after that agreement has been approved by Parliament".
 
The amendment was negatived.

 
    Mr. President: I shall put the second amendment of Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena, which, I think, is the same as amendment No.300 by Shri V.T. Krishnamachari.
    The question is:
    "That in amendment No.229 of List XIII (Second Week), Sub-clauses (a), (b) and (c) of the proposed clause (1) of article 258, be relettered as sub-clauses (b), (c) and (d) of that clause and the following be inserted as sub-clause (a):-
    '(a) questions arising from or connected with the vesting in the Union of assets and liabilities of such States related to any of the matters enumerated in the Union List,"
The amendment was negatives.

 
    Mr. President: There are two amendments by Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena to the proposed new article 267-A. I shall put the first one to vote- it is really not an amendment but a deletion.
    The question is:
    "That in amendment No.301 of List XIII (Second Week), sub-clause (b) of clause (1) of the proposed new article 267A be deleted."
The amendment was negatived.

      Mr. President: I shall put the second one.
    The question is:
    "That in amendment No.301 of List XIII (Second Week), in clause (2) of the proposed new article 267A, for the words 'by order of the President' the words by 'Parliament by law' be substituted."
 
The amendment was negatived.

 
    Mr. President: I shall now put the amendments of Mr. B. Das.
    The question is:
    "That in amendment No.301 of List XIII (Second Week), after clause (2) of the proposed new article 267A, the following new clause be added:-
    (3) Where any sums are guaranteed or assured to any Ruler's family members or relations,         such sums be treated as part of privy purse and as free of tax."
 
The amendment was negatived.
    Mr. President: The question is:
    "That in amendment No.301 of List XIII (Second Week), in clause (1) of the proposed new article 267A, after the words 'to any Ruler' the words 'or his family relations' be inserted."
 
 
The amendment was negatived.
    Mr. President: I shall now put the amendment of Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena to the proposed new article 270-A.
    The question is
    "That in amendment No.302 of List XIII (Second Week), in clause (1) of the proposed new article 270A, the words 'and approved by Parliament' be added at the end."
 
The amendment was negatived.
    Mr. President: I shall now put Part VI A as amended by the two amendments which have been accepted, namely Nos. 276 and 278.
    The question is:
    "That proposed Part VIA, as amended, stand part of the Constitution."
 
The motion was adopted.
Part VIA, as amended, was added to the Constitution.
_________
 
    Mr. President: I will put new article 235-A to vote.
    The question is:
    "That after article 235, the following new article be inserted, namely:-
    '235A. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Constitution, a State for the time being
Armed forces in States         specified in Part III of the First Schedule having any armed force immediately
in Part III of  the                     before the commencement of this Constitution may, until Parliament by law
First Schedule.                        otherwise provides, continue to maintain the said force after such     
                                                   commencement   subject to such general or special orders as the  President
 may from time to time issue in this behalf.
    (2) Any such armed force as is referred to in clause (1) of this article shall form part of the forces of the Union."
 
 
The motion was adopted.
Article 235-A was added to the Constitution.
_________
 
    Mr. President: The question is:
    "That article 236, as amended, stand part of the Constitution."
 
 
The motion was adopted.
Article 236, as amended was added to the Constitution.

    Mr. President: The question is:
    "That new article 274DDD stand part of the Constitution."
 
 
The motion was adopted.
Article 274DDD was added to the Constitution.
 
    Mr. President: I shall now put article 360-B.
    The question is:
    "That after article 306, the following new article be inserted:-
    '306B. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Constitution, during a period of ten years from the commencement thereof, or during such longer or shorter period as parliament may by law provide in respect of any State, the Government of every State for the time being specified in Part III of the First Schedule shall be under the general control of, and comply with such particular directions, if any, as may from time to time be given by the President, and any failure to comply with such directions shall be deemed to be a failure to carry out the Government of the State in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution. Provided that the President may by order direct that the provisions of this article shall not apply to any State specified in the order."
 
The motion was adopted.
Article 360-B was added to the Constitution.
    Mr. President: I shall put article 258 to vote.
    The question is:
    "That for clause (1) of article 258, the following clause be substituted:-
    (1) Not withstanding anything contained in this Chapter, the Government of India may, subject to the provisions of clause (2) of this article, enter into an agreement with the Government of a State for the time being specified in Part III of the First Schedule with respect to-
    (a) the levy and collection of any tax or duty leviable by the Government of India
in such State and for the distribution of the proceeds thereof otherwise than in
accordance with the provisions of this Chapter;
    (b) the grant of any financial assistance by the Government of India to such State in consequence of the loss of any revenue which that State used to derive from any tax or duty leviable under this Constitution by the Government of India or from any other sources;
    (c) the contribution by such State in respect of any payment made by the Government of India under clause 91) of article 267-A of this Constitution, and, when an agreement is so entered into, the provisions of this Chapter shall in relation to such State have effect subject to the terms of such agreement."
 
 
The motion was adopted.
Article 258 was added to the Constitution.

      Mr. President: I shall put article 267-A.
    The question is:
    "That in Chapter I of Part IX, after article 267, the following new article shall be inserted, namely:-
    '267A. (1) Where under any covenant or agreement entered into by the Ruler of any Indian Privy Purse sums of Rulers        State before the commencement of this Constitution, the payment of any sums, free of tax, has been guaranteed or assured by the Government of the Dominion of India to any Ruler of such State as Privy Purse-
    (a) such sums shall be charged on, and paid out of, the Consolidated Fund of India; and
    (b) the sums so paid to any Ruler shall be exempt for all taxes on income.
    (2) Where the territories of any such Indian State as aforesaid are comprised within a State specified in Part I or Part III of the First Schedule there shall be charged on, and paid out of, the Consolidated Fund of that State such contribution, if any, in respect of the payments made by the Government of India under clause (1) of this article and for such period as may, subject to any agreement entered into in that behalf under clause (1) of article 258 of this Constitution, be determined by order of the President".
 
 
The motion was adopted.
Article 267-A was added to the Constitution.
    Mr. President: I shall put article 270-A.
    The question is:
    "That after article 270, the following new article be inserted:-
    '270A. (1) As from the commencement of this Constitution-
    (a) all assets relating to any of the matters enumerated in the Union List vested immediately Succession to property, assets liabilities     before such commencement in any Indian State corresponding and obligations of Indian States.             to any State for the time being specified in Part III of the First Schedule shall be vested in the Government of India, and
    (b) all liabilities relating to any of the said matters of the Government of any Indian State corresponding to any State for the time being specified in Part III of the First Schedule shall be the liabilities of the Government of India, subject to any agreement entered into in that behalf by the Government of India with the Government of that State.
    (2) As from the commencement of this Constitution the Government of each State for the time being specified in Part II of the First Schedule shall be the successor of the Government of the corresponding Indian State as regards all property, assets, liabilities and obligations other than the assets and liabilities referred to in clause (1) of this article."
 
 
The motion was adopted.
Article 2790-A was added to the Constitution.
 
    The Assembly then adjourned for Lunch till Four of the Clock.
    Assembly re-assembled after Lunch at Four of the Clock, Mr. President (the Honourable Dr. Rajendra Prasad) in the Chair.
 
--------
ARTICLE 3 (reopened)
    Mr. President : We shall now take up those consequential amendments No. 226 etc.
    The Honourable Dr. B.R. Ambedkar : I would ask Mr. T.T. Krishnamachari to move the amendments on my behalf.
    Mr. President : These are consequential amendments which arise out of the amendments which we have accepted today, but as these relate to articles which have already been passed, the sanction of the House is required for reopening those articles. Do I take it that the House gives leave to do so?
    Honourable Members : Yes.
    Shri T.T. Krishnamachari : Mr. President, Sir, I move the following consequential amendments to certain provisions of the Draft Constitution already agreed to by the Constituent Assembly. I move :
    "That for clauses (a) and (b) of the proviso to article 3, the following be substituted:-
'Where the proposal contained in the Bill affects the boundaries of any State or States for the time being specified in Part I or Part III of the First Schedule, or the name or names of any such State of States, the views of the Legislature of the State or, as the case may be, of each of the States both with respect to the proposal to introduce the Bill and with respect to the provisions thereof have been ascertained by the President.'"
    Amendment No.227.
    Mr. President : Shall we not take them one by one? There are three amendments to it.
 
 
(Amendment No. 253 was not moved)
    Shri H.R. Guruv Reddy : In view of the statement already made by the Honourable Sardar Patel, I do not move amendment No. 290.
    Mr. President : Mr. Pataskar : amendment No. 291
    Shri H.V. Pataskar (Bombay : General) : Sir, I would like to make it clear in the beginning that the amendment which I propose to move does not relate exactly to the matter which has been just now proposed to be introduced by the amendment just now moved. It is with respect to the whole article as it has been re-opened. I hope, as the article has been reopened, this amendment may be taken to be in order.
    The Honourable Shri K. Santhanam : On a point of order, Sir, I think this is inconsistent with the provisions which we have made. A law will be passed by a majority of the House. There is no procedure for taking the votes of a small section of the House. This amendment is out of order.
    Shri H.V. Pataskar : I do not admit it is out of order on that ground, because it is open to us to make a provision of the nature which I propose to make. The only point which struck me was that it is certainly beyond the scope of the official amendment which has been introduced just now. It will open to the House to amend the provision in the Article as it has been re-opened. It cannot be said to be out of order on that ground. As the whole article is re-opened, I would be entitle to put forward my amendment.
    The Honourable Shri K. Santhanam : Some states may be clubbed together for representation in the House of the People. We may not be able to identify which member is representing which State. I would not be possible to operate this clause even if it is passed.
    Shri H.V. Pataskar : That I would explain while moving my amendment, and give my reasons for it. I have made a provision that the subject matter of the Bill shall be decided by a majority of the votes of the persons representing those areas in the House of the People that are affected by the provision of the Bill. There is no objection on that ground.
    Mr. President : Would it not be a very novel thing?
    Shri H.V. Pataskar : Novel it would be.
    Mr. President : Any kind of provision we can make in the Constitution to say that a particular question will be decided......
    Shri H.V. Pataskar :  I would like to make my submissions before I move my amendment. I think that is necessary.
    Mr. President : You will state your case.
    Shri H.V. Pataskar : So far as the amendment of the honourable Member just introduced is concerned, it is good so far as it goes. As article 3 originally stood, it was to be with the consent of the States in Part III of the First Schedule. That is omitted. We had made provision in article 3 that no bill was to be introduced in either House of Parliament except on the recommendation of the President and unless previously thereto the President has ascertained the views of the legislatures of the States in Part I, and obtained the consent of the States in Part III if any of those States were to be affected. Now by the proposed official amendment we dispense with consent of States in Part III and bring them on a level with States in Part I and in both cases only the views of these States are to be ascertained by the President. Now, Sir, this is good as far as it goes. But, my fear is that so far as the actual wording of the article and its object being successfully carried out is concerned, it is likely to be dead letter more or less in the Constitution. That is the view that I take. It is for this reason that I have proposed this amendment.
    If we look to the history of a provision of this nature, you will first turn to the Government of India Act of 1919. There, for the first time, even a foreign Government realised that it was necessary to make certain adjustments in the boundaries of the Provinces and to regrant them and therefore a similar provision was made in the Act of 1919 for the purpose. Even then it was found that no action was taken between 1919 and 1935 for the simple reason that all these re-adjustments require some sort of interference with the day-to-day administration of Government with no Government of the day likes. Therefore, though there was this provision from 1919 to 1935 and there were not as many difficulties in the way of re-grouping as there would be now, and hereafter still more, they did way of re-grouping as there would be now, and hereafter still more, they did not take any action because naturally the administration for the time being was engrossed with the day-to-day administration and they did not want to take this additional burden. Because, even if in a district some places were to be transferred from one district to another, there is always an amount of commotion and nobody in charge of the administration wants that there should be even this little interference with the day-to-day administration. It was for this reason that though there was such a provision in the Act of 1919, nothing was done.
    Then came the Act of 1935. Probably realising that the same difficulties will arise even if a provision of this nature is merely made in the constitution when they wanted to remove the anomalies of Sind being linked with Bombay and Orissa being linked with Bihar, they naturally introduced two sections for the purpose in the Government of India Act 1935, and made provision for their being framed prior to the introduction of the Government of India Act of 1935. This is clear enough to my mind, that even hereafter merely by making a provision of this nature, nothing is going to happen. The present section lays down that Parliament may by lay make such a change. It is only a minor portion of the whole country which is going to be affected by taking action as is contemplated in paragraph (1) of article 3. The rest will be represented by the majority of the representatives who are not likely to be interested in the matter. Therefore, unless the Government of day, in spite of the fact that it would increase the problems of day to day administration, think it necessary that this should be done this article would be a dead letter and no action will ever be taken. Because only after crossing the hurdles mentioned in article 3 namely, ascertaining the views of the States concerned etc., and getting the permission of the President, the Bill has to be introduced in the Parliament and even then there will be difficulties. Suppose there is a question regarding a small area in the south with respect to which the boundaries are to be changed. The members representing other areas not likely to be keen about this, and if the government of the day is not interested in doing this, I am sure that the majority of members will be more inclined to go with the Government and say nothing should be done at present and no action is necessary and the bill will not be passed. The article therefore will continue to be a dead letter hereafter, as it has continued even since 1919.
    I, therefore, propose this amendment. I do not want that it should be decided only by a particular group. Suppose one province is to be separated from another or one area is to be taken out from one province and added to another. I want the matter to be decided not with the votes of persons representing one of them but with the votes of all persons who are going to be affected by the change. I insist that the matter should be decided with the votes of all of them. If you leave to votes of all the members of the House who are not affected by the changes and leave the article as wide as it stands now, I am sure that this article 3 will be a dead letter for all time to come, and no action will ever be taken under this provision which is similar to the provision contained in the old Act of 1919 and in the Act of 1935. If I may so there will be more difficulties under the new Constitution and the provisions of article 3.
    Mr. President : Well, Mr. Pataskar, it is conceivable that a case may arise where the members representing the State or States affected by the proposed law or opposed to the change, but the rest of the House wants it to be passed.
    Shri H.V. Pataskar : That is not likely.
    Mr. President : Likely or unlikely, I am putting it to you as a hypothetical question. Suppose a case arises, would you like the few members representing that particular State to defeat the rest of the House?
    Shri H.V. Pataskar : In the very nature of things it is unlikely. What I expect is that the others are not likely to be much interested. Supposing they are interested, the matter should better be left to those who are concerned with the matter. Only the other day I learnt from the honourable Member Mr. Chaliha that there is a place called Dimapur in Assam and its inclusion in a particular are has started controversy; even for that there is such a terrible sort of agitation. Under such circumstances no administration is likely to make any change. So the hypothetical contingency is not likely to arise. In the next place even if such a contingency arises, it would be better that the matter should be decided with the votes of those that are going to be affected rather than otherwise.
    Mr. President : The contingency is not very remote. Supposing that a proposal is that a certain portion be transferred to another and there is no question of creating separate linguistic provinces-that possibility is not remote. It is a possibility that should be considered.
    Shri H.V. Pataskar : According to my amendment that should be decided by votes of both the States. However that is the object of my amendment and therefore I hope it is not out of order. Therefore my amendment is :
    "That in amendment No.226 of List VII (Second Week), after the proposed words in the proviso to article 3 the following Explanation be added :-
    'Explanation.---Any such law shall be deemed to have been passed if a majority
of the members of the House of the People representing the State or States
affected by the provision of such a Bill support the same'."
    Honourable Mr. Santhanam raised the difficulty of ascertaining the representatives whose votes are to decide the matter. My submission is there will be no difficulty as I have confined this matter to the votes of the members in the House of the People alone and not to Parliament generally or to the votes of the Upper House.
    Mr. President : I think I will rule this out of order for various reasons. The first is that it is not germane to the amendment which has been moved and it does not fit it with that. The second reason is that the contingency that is contemplated raises very many questions and points which impinge upon many other articles of the Constitution which we have already passed. For example, the amendment wants that the vote of a majority of the Members of the House of People representing the State or States affected by the provision of such a Bill shall prevail. In the first place, it takes away the right of the other House to consider that question. In the second place, the difficulty will be experienced when instead of voting for the law, the majority of members mentioned here are opposed to the law and the majority of the House wants the law to be opposed. So, for these various reasons I think this is out of order.
    Then there is no other amendment to this. Anybody wishes to speak?
    Shri Brajeshwar Prasad : Sir, I rise to oppose this amendment. We gave our permission to reopen this article on the understanding that these are consequential amendments. This is not a consequential amendment to any article which has been passed. We are reopening the whole question once again. The whole attempt seems to me to water down the power of the Parliament. It will make the article practically null and void.
    Mr. President : I thought it was increasing the power of the Parliament.
    Shri Brajeshwar Prasad : If the Parliament is to function according to this article and if any such step is taken only after the views of the Legislatures of the State or of each of the States with respect to the proposal to introduce the Bill are received, the article will never come into operation, it would make it utterly impossible. It was on the definite understanding that this is a consequential amendment that we gave permission to reopen this.
    Mr. President : In provision (b) as it stands which has been accepted, the consent is required. Here it is only the consultation that is required. Consent is much more than consultation. It enhances the power of the Parliament, it does not reduce it.
    Shri Brajeshwar Prasad : I agree with this interpretation of this Constitution, but I feel that we should not sail under false colours. Why should we say that we are reopening this because this is a consequential amendment?
    Shri T.T. Krishnamachari : This is substantially the same as provision (a) in the original article.
    Shri Brajeshwar Prasad : May be, but why did you say that this is a consequential amendment? The House gave the permission on the understanding that this is a consequential amendment.
    Shri B. Das : Sir, the amendment moved by my Friend Mr. Pataskar and the objection made by my friend Brajeshwar Prasad indicate that some of us are not satisfied with the old article 3 or the present draft article 3. It is not a new thing that my Friend Mr. Pataskar points out that it repeats the old Government of India Act provisions. Mr. Pataskar wanted that the areas affected which are to be transferred to another State should have their views preponderate over the view of the whole Assembly of that State. I had some experience in the establishment of the province of Orissa. We followed the old 1920 Government of India Act. We were then in Bihar and Orissa. The Bihar and Orissa Legislative Council unanimously passed that Orissa province should he separated. Then there was a similar resolution in the Assembly of Madras and the great leader of Bihar, Shri Sachchidananda Sinha moved a Resolution on the floor of the former Indian Legislative Assembly that Orissa should be made into a separate province. It is not the creation of a new state that agitates the feelings of the Members of this House or the public at large. It is the adjustment of boundaries that is the issue and that crops up here and there, whether it be Bengal and Bihar or Maharashtra and Gujarat or Andhra and Orissa. It always crops up The leaders make responsible or irresponsible statements and the public at large get agitated. For myself, I am not very happy with this new article 3 or with Schedule I that is coming, whereby two of my ancient Orissa States, namely Sareikella and Kharsuan once merged with Orissa and then re-merged into Bihar. We feel those Oriya people will lose their race identity. The whole of Midnapore, three-fourths of which are Oriyas, does not have an Oriya school. Now the people there pass off as Bengalees. Bengalees have raised similar trouble in Purulia District. These are problems and I am touching on the psychological aspect of those fears and apprehensions. Whatever our Drafting Committee legislates or lays down is not the issue. The hearts of the people speaking different languages, or having ancient ties with one another, are seriously affected and touched in this matter. I am not very happy at my friend Prof. Ranga laying claim almost to the area in which my village stands. So, Sir, these responsible or irresponsible utterances of responsible leaders or irresponsible political agitators create such state of things, people to be amalgamated with their own race by adjustment of boundaries. It will not give my friend Mr. Chaliha any chance to readjust certain boundaries. It will not give anybody any chance. I am only voicing the psychological fear, knowing the conditions, that many of us live in; but we do not know how to rectify it by provisions of article 3.
    Shri Kuladhar Chaliha (Assam : General) : Mr. President, Sir, I am neither satisfied with the amendment, nor with the article enacted. In fact, if you know the history of the present position of the Easter frontiers you would not pass an article like this. I should like the President to have absolute power to determine, to increase or decrease any State if he like to do so. At present the Eastern boundary of Assam, for instance the MacMahon line is quite nebulous. You do not know where the boundary is. You can push it further and further and nobody knows where it will end. If the permission of Parliament is to be got and on its recommendation the President is to act, that will take a long time. He has to fix the boundary immediately. Now, we do not know where the boundary lies, either in the Eastern or Northern frontier. There was RIMA, which was said to be last port of the British territory, but the Chinese took away the flag and a boundary, but nobody knows if the boundary was ever fixed. Now, there should be some power or some provision which would empower the President to fix boundary is. Now, there is the Balipara frontier and nobody knows where its boundary exactly is. Nobody knows the Naga boundary and where the Burmese territory begins. As such, the article as it is, and also the amendment suggested, I am not satisfied with. The President must have some power to fix the boundaries and if possible, the Drafting Committee should make the necessary provisions whereby the boundaries could be fixed wherever they are nebulous, where you do not know the boundary, where the MacMahon line ends, where General Hertz's fort or HERTZ line is, and so on.
    Mr. President : I may point out that this article has nothing to do with boundaries of foreign States. It relates to boundaries within India. Why bring in the Chinese and all that?
    Shri Kuladhar Chaliha : All right, Sir.
    Mr. President : Mr. Brajeshwar Prasad, there is no question of sailing under false colours. The whole substance of the amendment adopted this morning is that the States should be brought in line with the Provinces. Here there is one point where the Indian States in Part III are treated separately from the States in Part I and the amendment is to put them all together. So it is really in pursuance of that, and not a case of sailing under false colours.
    Shri Brajeshwar Prasad : I am sorry, Sir, I had not understood the implications.
    Mr. President : Does anyone wish to say anything?
    Shri T.T. Krishnamachari : Not after your explanation.
    Mr. President : Then I put 226 to vote.
    The question is :
    "That for clauses (a) and (b) of the proviso to article 3, the following be substituted:-
    'where the proposal contained in the Bill affects the boundaries of any State or State for the time being specified in Part I or Part III of the First Schedule, or the name or names of any such State or States the views of the Legislature of the State or, as the case may be, of each of the States both with respect to the proposal to introduce the Bill and with respect to the provisions thereof have been ascertained by the President'."
 
 
The amendment was adopted.

 
    Shri T.T. Krishnamachari : Sir, I move:
    "That for the Explanation to clause (2) of article 47, the following Explanation be substituted :-
    'Explanation.- For the purposes of this clause, a person shall not be deemed to hold any office of profit by reason only that he is the President or Vice-President of the Union or the Governor or Rajpramukh or Upajpramukh of any State or is a Minister either for the Union or for any State'."
    Sir, this is a purely consequential amendment and the words introduced here are the words 'Rajpramukh' and 'Uprajpramukh'. I hope there will be no difficulty in passing this.
    Shri K. Chengalaraya Reddy: I may point out that "Uprajpramukh" has not been defined yet.
    Shri T.T. Krishnamachari: We have not yet tabled our definition of Rajpramukh yet. We will take the hint given by my friend and include the definition of Uprajpramukh.
    Mr. President: Then I put it to vote.
    The question is:
    "That for the Explanation to clause (2) of article 47, the following Explanation be substituted:-
    'Explanation - For the purposes of this clause, a person shall not be deemed to hold any office of profit by reason only that he is the President or Vice-President of the Union or the Governor or Rajpramukh or Uprajpramukh of any State or is a Minister either for the Union or for any State'."
 
 
The amendment was adopted.
ARTICLE 55 (reopened)
    Shri T.T. Krishnamachari : Sir, I move:
    "That for the Explanation to clause (4) of article 55, the following Explanation be substituted:-
    'Explanation.- For the purposes of this clause, a person shall not be deemed to hold any office of profit by reason only that he is the President or Vice-President of the Union or the Governor or Rajpramukh or Uprajpramukh of any State or is a Minister either for the Union or for any State'."
    Mr. President: Does anyone wish to say anything about it?
    The Honourable Shri K. Santhanam : I think the word "President" may be left out, because you cannot expect the President to contest for the Vice-Presidentship.
    Mr. President: Mr. Krishnamachari?
    Shri T.T. Krishnamachari: Sir, I do not know. We will examine the matter.
    Shri A. Thanu Pillai (United State of Travancore & Cochin) : A president in office can stand for re-election and therefore the term 'President' should be in the article.
    Shri T.T. Krishnamachari: Sir, we will examine it. It can be put to vote now.
    Mr. President: The question is:
    "That for the Explanation to clause (4) of article 55, the following Explanation be substituted:-
    'Explanation.- For the purposes of this clause, a person shall not be deemed to hold any office of profit by reason only that he is the President or Vice President of the Union or the Governor or Rajpramukh or Uprajpramukh of any State or is a Minister either for the Union or for any State'."
 
 
The amendment was adopted.
ARTICLE 67 (reopened)

 
    Shri T.T. Krishnamachari : Sir, I move:
    "That clause (9) of article 67 be omitted."
    This clause (9) reads as follows;-
    "When States for the time being specified in Part III of the First Schedule are grouped together for the purpose of returning representatives to the Council of States, the entire group shall be deemed to be single State for the purposes of this article."
    Sir, this will no longer be necessary and a contingency like this will be adequately provided for in article 3B because I think there will be no necessity for providing for small States in the present State of the Sates, which are in Part III. So clause (9) of article 67 may be omitted.
    Mr. President: Does anyone wish to say anything about it? The question is:
    "That clause (9) of article 67 be omitted."
 
The amendment was adopted.
ARTICLE 83 (reopened)
 
    Shri T.T. Krishnamachari : Sir, I move:
    "That for sub-clauses (a) and (b) of clause (2) of article 83, the following be substituted:-
        'he is a Minister either for the Union or for such State'."
    Actually these sub-clauses (a) and (b) are fairly lengthy and this amendment, it is considered would serve the purpose.
    Mr. President: Does anyone wish to say anything about it? The question is:
    "That for sub-clauses (a) and (b) of clause (2) of article 83, the following be substituted:-
    'he is a Minister either for the Union or for such State'."
 
 
The amendment was adopted.
 
    Shri T.T. Krishnamachari: Sir, I move:
    "That in paragraph (iii) of sub-clause (d) of clause (3) of article 92, for the words 'exercises or immediately' the words 'exercise jurisdiction within any area included in the territory of India or which at any time' be substituted."
    Sir, this refers to article 92 which incidentally deals with the subject of the annual financial statement and here it is a matter which deals with pensions payable to judges for this amendment is considered necessary in view of the present circumstances. Therefore, Sir, I move.
    Mr. President: The question is:
    "That in paragraph (iii) of sub-clause (d) of clause (3) of article 92, for the words 'exercises or immediately' the words 'exercises jurisdiction within any area included in the territory of India or which at any time' be substituted."
 
 
The amendment was adopted.
ARTICLE 100 (reopened)
    Shri T.T. Krishnamachari : Sir, I move.
    "That clause (2) of article 100 be omitted."
    Sir, article 100 deals with restrictions on discussion in Parliament and this particular clause (2) reads thus:
    "In this article the reference to a High Court shall be constructed as including a reference to any court in a State for the time being specified in Part III of the First Schedule which is a High Court for any of the purposes of Chapter IV of this Part."
    This is no longer necessary in view of the action taken by this House this morning. Sir, I move.
    Mr. President: The question is:
    "That clause (2) of article 100 be omitted."
 
 
The amendment was adopted.
ARTICLE 248B (reopened)

      Shri T.T. Krishnamachari: Sir, I move:
    "That in clause (2) of article 248B, after the word 'Governor' or Rajpramukh of the State' be inserted."
    An explanation for this is hardly necessary.
    Mr. President: The question is:
    "That in clause (2) of article 248B, after the word 'Governor' the words 'or Rajpramukh of the State' be inserted."
 
The amendment was adopted.
ARTICLE 263 (reopened)

 
    Shri T.T. Krishnamachari : Sir, I move:
    "That in clause (2) of article 263, after the word 'Governor' the words 'or Rajpramukh' be inserted."
    This clause deals with the custody of the Consolidated Fund of the States, and this change is necessary in view of the House having passed Part VI-A.
    Mr. President: The question is:
    "That in clause (2) of article 263, after the word 'Governor' the words 'or Rajpramukh' be inserted."
 
 
The amendment was adopted.
SEVENTH SCHEDULE (reopened)
    Shri T.T. Krishamachari: Sir, I move:
    "That in List I of the Seventh Schedule, after entry 43, the following entry be inserted:-
    '43A. Courts of wards for the estates of Rulers of Indian States'."
    Sir, in the present set-up of the States, and in view of the fact that there are a number of Rulers, who are no longer Rulers in the real sense but have only estates, imposes a particular liability on the Central Government in regard to the administration of those estates, should that be necessary by virtue of the minority of those who own the estates or some incapacity for one reason or another of such persons, and the provision that is now being put in, is analogous to entry 25 of List II by which the provinces hitherto have been exercising jurisdiction over estates of zamindars and owners of other big estates where minority or other factors had supervened. The same provision is now sought to be put in with regard to the estates of India Rulers. This power has necessarily to be exercised by the Government of India and it cannot be entrusted for various reasons to the Governments of the States concerned.
    Mr. President: The question is:
    "That in List I of the Seventh Schedule, after entry 43, the following entry be inserted:--
    '43A. Courts of Wards for the estates or Rulers of Indian States'."
 
 
The amendment was adopted.
    Shri T.T. Krishnamachari: Sir, I move:
    "That in List II of the Seventh Schedule, to entry 25 the following words and figures be added:-
    'subject to the provisions of entry 43A of List I'."
    This is consequential as a result of the House accepting my previous amendment. This is necessary as it indicates precisely the powers of the States in regard to entry 25. Sir, I move.
    Mr. President: The question is:
    "That in List II of the Seventh Schedule, to entry 25 the following words and figures be added:-
    'subject to the provisions of entry 43A of List I'."
 
 
The amendment was adopted.
ARTICLE 270 (reopened)
    Shri T.T. Krishnamachari : Sir, there are two other articles. One is 270 for which, I hope, the permission of the House will be given to reopen that article. There is another article of a non-controversial nature 67-A. I suggest that these two articles be taken up.
    Mr. President: Let us take up 270 now.
    Shri T.T. Krishnamachari: Sir, I move:
    "That for article 270, the following article be substituted:
    270. (a) All property and assets vested in His Majesty for the purposes of the Governmment of Succession to property, assets, liabilities   the Dominion of India and all property and assets and obligations                                                vested in His Majesty for the purposes of the Government of each Governor's Province shall, as from the commencement of this Constitution, vest respectively in the government of India and the Government of each corresponding State, and
    (b) all liabilities and obligations of the Government of the Dominion f India and of the Government of each Governor's province shall, as from the commencement of the Constitution, be the liabilities and obligations, respectively, of the Government of India and the Government of each corresponding State, subject to any adjustment made or to be made by reason of the creation before the commencement of this Constitution of the Dominion of Pakistan or of the provinces of West Bengal, West Punjab and East Punjab."
    Mr. President: I think this is also an independent article which you wish to move.
    Shri T.T. Krishnamachari: It forms part of the Chapter. I said that permission may be given for redrafting this also.
    Mr. President: I had better ask for that permission. It is sought to amend article 270 which was adopted at a proviso session of the Assembly. Do the Members give permission to amend that article?
    Honourable Members: Yes.
    Mr. President: It has been moved. You can proceed.
    Shri T.T. Krishnamachari: The reason why this amendment is sought to be moved is merely because our legal advisers have told us that the article as it has been approved by the House originally is defective in character. Sir, the original article, if the House would permit me for purposes of clarification, reads thus:-
    "As from the commencement of this Constitution, the Government of India and the Government of each State for the time being specified in Part I of the First Schedule shall respectively be the successors of the Government of the Dominion of India and of the corresponding Governors' Provinces as regards all property, assets, liabilities and obligations subject to any adjustment made or to be made by reason of the creation before the commencement of this Constitution of the Dominion of Pakistan or of the Provinces of West Bengal, East Bengal, West Punjab and East Punjab.
The reason for the suggested change is this : The technical term that was used in the past was that all properties and assets were vested in his Majesty both in regard to properties that were administered by the Government of India and by the Governments of the provinces. But in respect of the liabilities and obligations of the Governments concerned the language used is slightly different. It has been found that so far as this position is concerned it must be clarified. I should like to tell honourable Members of this House, who I know react rather adversely to any reference to His Majesty, that it is a matter in which we have no escape. If formerly the legal phraseology was that all assets and property of the Governments, whether of the Centre or of the Provinces, were vested in His Majesty, we have to use the same words in order to re-vest those properties and assets in the Government of India to be and the Governments of the States that are to be created by reason of this Constitution. Honourable members will therefore understand that this is a matter in which our legal advisers have been categorical and we have no other option except to amend the article in the manner suggested by me. I hope the honourable Members of the House will find no difficulty in accepting the article as amended by me as it will make the position crystal clear and above any legal defect which it was stated the original article 270 did suffer from.
    Mr. President: Does any Member wish to say anything on this? Then I will put this new article 270 to vote.
    The question is:
    "That for article 270, the following article be substituted:-
    '270. (a) All property and assets vested in His Majesty for the purposes of the Government of the Dominion of India and all property and assets vested in His majesty for the purposes of the
Succession to property, assets,         Government of each Governor's Province shall, as from
liabilities and obligations.                the commencement of this Constitution, vest respectively in the Government of India and
the Government of each corresponding State, and
    (b) All liabilities and obligations of the Government of Dominion of India and of the Government of each Governor's province shall, as from the commencement of this Constitution, be the liabilities and obligations, respectively, of the Government of India and the Government of each corresponding State, subject to any adjustment made or to be made by reason of the creation before the commencement of this Constitution of the Dominion of Pakistan or of the provinces of West Bengal, East Bengal, West Punjab and East Punjab."
 
 
The motion was adopted.
Article 270 was added to the Constitution
________
NEW ARTICLE 67A
 
    Shri T.T. Krishnamachari: May I move article 67A, Sir,
    The President: Yes.
    Shri T.T. Krishnamachari: I move:
    "That after article 67, the following article be inserted:-
    '67A. Notwithstanding anything contained in clause (5) of article 67 of this
Special representation to States                    Constitution, Parliament may by law provide for
in part II and territories other than States          for the representation in the House of the People of any State for the time being
specified in Part II of the First Schedule or of any territories comprised within the territory of India but not included within any State on a basis or in a manner other than that provided in that clause'."
    I would ask honourable Members to look at the wording of clause (5) of article 67, sub-clauses (b) and (c), which imposes certain limits within which representation could be given in respect of territorial constituencies from which Members of the House of the People are to be elected. There is, however, a clause in article 67 clause (7), which reads thus:-
 
    "Parliament may, by law, provide for the representation in the House of the People of territories other than States."
 Though it would not mean that while Parliament may by law provide for representation of these areas, it would certainly not mean that Parliament can depart from the scheme outlined in clause (5), sub-clauses (b) and (c).
    The reason for proposing this amendment is that while Parliament might have to provide for representation in the House of the People of territories other than the States, it is also likely that in the case of Part II States some of them may not satisfy the conditions laid down by sub-clause (b) and (c) of clause (5) of article 67. It may be argued that these areas coming under Part II of First Schedule could be grouped together for purposes of providing representation in the House of the People, but it may not be always possible. I have no desire to go into the details of the provocation for this amendment, but we do visualise that a contingency might occur where we might have to provide special representation for certain areas which might be either in Part II of First Schedule or be territories other than States, and the present set-up of article 67 would provide difficulties in the way of our providing these areas with representation in the House of the People. I therefore ask the House to accept - though it is a tall order - my word for it and accept the necessity for an amendment of this sort. I might anticipate some of the amendments that are sought to be moved, namely, that this concession should be extended to representation in the Council of States. I do not think that clause (4) which is the operative clause in article 67 bars entirely the liberty of Parliament in respect of provision of representation in the Council of States. I think that the matter is now being examined in the light of the set-up of Schedule 3B which we propose to introduce in which the arithmetical proportions will be calculated and seats would be mentioned according to the various States as precisely as possible, that there will be some lee-way left therein for additional representation, should Parliament to decide. I therefore suggest to my honourable Friends in this House who want to bring in the Council of States to leave it at that. We are examining the position and if it is necessary we shall introduce a suitable amendment, but I do not think that it is necessary at this Stage. For that matter most of those areas, particularly those that are covered by Part II, have a greater desire to be adequately represented in the House of the People than in the Council of States, and I think that for the time being the contingencies which we envisage at the moment would be amply covered by a provision of the nature that I have now moved rather than any extension of this particular provision to the Council of States as well. I, therefore, request honourable Members not to press their amendments which seek to include the Council of States within the scope of the suggested article that is before the House.
    Sir, I move.
    Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena: I beg to move:
    "That in amendment No. 306 of List XIII (Second Week), in the proposed new article 67A, after the words 'House of the People' the words 'and the Council of States' be inserted."
    Sir, the article as modified by my amendment would read thus:-
    "Notwithstanding anything contained in clause (5) of article 67 of this Constitution, Parliament may by law provide for the representation in the House of the People and the Council of States of any State for the time being specified in Part II of the First Schedule or of any territories comprised within the territory of India but not included within any State on a basis or in a manner other than that provided in that clause."
    Sir, my Friend Mr. Krishnamachari has explained the purpose of this clause. In fact the House will remember when we were dealing with the question of Delhi Province, the Honourable the Prime Minister suggested that Delhi might, if it does not have a separate Legislature, be given additional representation in the House of Parliament. I think that it is only proper, if that pledge is to be honoured, then representation has to be provided not only in the House of the people but also in the Upper House. Besides Delhi, there are so many other Centrally administered areas. We are taking in more and more of the States under Central administration. Chandranagore will soon come into the Union; similarly we have got Tipperah and the other States on the Eastern border of India which are likely to integrate with the Union. If the idea is to give representation to those areas in the House of the people, there is no reason why they should not be represented in the Council of States. I would have much appreciated and it would have been much simpler if we had provided for a least one seat for each of the Centrally Administered areas in the Upper House as well.
    Shri Brajeshwar Prasad : Mr. President, Sir, I rise to support the article as has been moved by my honourable Friend Shri T.T. Krishnamachari. My honourable Friend Professor Shibban Lal Saksena has perhaps completely misunderstood the meaning of representation in the Upper Chamber. Representation in the Upper Chamber is provided for a constituent unit-for those States which combine in order to form a federation. Here we are providing for representation for States in part II which are not, technically speaking, constituent units. Constituent units are those States which are mentioned in parts I and III of the Schedule. Article 67A provides for representations of those territories which have been placed in Part II territories like Andaman and Nicobar Islands, territories like Ajmer-Merwara, Coorg and panth Piploda. We cannot confer upon these territories the status of constituent units.Therefore, there can be no meaning in providing representation for these territories in the Upper Chamber of the Federal Parliament.
    The Honourable Shri K. Santhanam : Mr. President, Sir, this matter was considered at the time of the constitution of the House of the People and the omission of Part II was deliberate. We did not want to create small pocket constituencies for the House of the People.
    So far as the Council of the States is concerned, article 67(4) provides that the representatives of the States for the time being specified in Part II of the First Schedule in the Council of States shall be chosen in such manner as Parliament may   by law prescribe. Therefore, while provision was made for the representation of States in Part II in the Council of States, they were left out in the representation in the House of the People for the reason that either they have got enough population or not. If they have got enough population, they will get representation on their rights. But where they have not enough population, it was intended that they should be grouped in the near-by constituencies. There is no difficulty in grouping Ajmer-Merwara or Coorg with the neighbouring constituencies so that those people also will take part in the election of the House of the People. Though, for the sake of convenience, each State in Part I and Part III may be taken roughly for demarcation in the constituencies of the House of the People, there is no statutory obligation that every State should be divided into exclusive territorial constituencies for the House of the People. There may be border areas of two States in Part I and Part III grouped together in the constituencies of the people.
    Therefore, we are unnecessarily marring the Constitution by bringing in an article by which representation will be given to small areas. It is possible that in the course of integration or for other reasons, we may have to create a large number of centrally Administered areas. Suppose in the reconstitution of the linguistic provinces many areas have to be left out as Centrally Administered areas, if we are to create a constituency for each of these areas, then we will be creating a large number of pocket constituencies for the House of the People. So, I think it is a wholly unnecessary provision. The purpose can be achieved constitutionally by other means and I do not think representation in the House of the People which is based on a scientific basis should be marred by a provision like this. I do not say that will be misused, but in a Constitution the test is whether a provision can be misused, not whether it will be misused and this is a provision which can be misused. So, I suggest it may be dropped.
    Shri T.T. Krishnamachari : Mr. President, Sir, I quite agree with Mr. Santhanam that article 67 was very carefully worded and it was intended at that time that there should be no mitigation of the conditions which are covered by clause 5, sub-clauses (b) and (c). I did tell honourable Members of this House that we had a specific purpose in view in bringing this amendment and it would be very wise for me to go beyond telling them that the Drafting Committee and the Ministries concerned were fully satisfied that an amendment of this nature was necessary. Therefore, I would ask my honourable Friend to withdraw his objection. At the same time I dare say that he is in a better position to realise than myself that since the initiative in any matter like this would ordinarily come from Government, it is unlikely that the wishes of this August House in regard to fixing representation in the House of the People would not be rigidly adhered to and that Parliament would agree to needless mitigation of the stringent conditions imposed by article 67. Beyond that I am not able to tell my honourab le Friend of the purpose of this amendment. I could give him this assurance that this matter has been very carefully considered and it is after that that we have decided to bring this additional article. I do hope that the House will have no objection to accepting the motion moved by me.
    Mr. President : The question is :
    " That the amendment No. 306 of List XIII (Second Week), in the proposed new article 67A, after the word 'House of the people' the words 'and the Council of States' be inserted."
 
                          The amendment was negatived.
 
     Mr. President : I shall now put article 67A. The question is :
    "That after article 67, the following article be inserted :-
 '67A. Notwithstanding anything contained in clause (5) of article 67 of this   Constitution, Parliament may by law provide for the representation in the House of the People of any State for the time being specified in Part II of the First Schedule or of any territories comprised within the territory of India but not included within any State on a Special representation to States in basis or in a manner other than that Part II and territories other than States provided in that clause.' "
 
 
                            The motion was adopted.
                     Article 67-A was added to the Constitution.
                          __________
                       PROGRAMME re THIRD READING

      Shri T.T. Krishnamachari : May I suggest that article 264A, 296 and 299 be taken up tomorrow ?
    Mr. President : Those are controversial matters and we may better take them up tomorrow. We cannot take up any other article. So we shall rise now.
    Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad (West Bengal : Muslim) : With regard to the amendments which have been passed today, I confess with many others that we have not been able to follow the debate at all. These amendments were sent to us at half past ten last night. I had to be awakened from my sleep. And from morning we are working here with the result we have had no time to consider these amendments. I do not object to the procedure because some short-cut must be arrived at. I am only suggesting that the Drafting Committee should again consider them, and if there are any further changes to be made consequent upon the discovery of any irregularities I think those amendments should again come up.
    Mr. President : Which amendments are you referring to ?
    Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : The amendments which have been accepted. We have had no time to consider them.
    Mr. President : But we have accepted so many amendments.
    Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : Yes. And I am suggesting that they may again be reconsidered by the Drafting Committee, and if there are further irregularities or inconsistencies they should be brought up at a later stage. We are being fed with amendments to satiety. It is impossible to proceed with them for anyone who would like to follow them and consider them.
    Then with regard tomorrow's business we do not know what things are coming up. At nine or ten P.M. today we shall be given some new drafts and we will be expected to consider them tomorrow morning. I do not know what to do with such amendments. I therefore, respectfully ask you, Sir, to consider this and give us some idea as to whether new drafts are coming on and, if so, what time we would be given to send amendments to the new Draft.
    Mr. President : So far as tomorrow is concerned, I think there are these three articles, namely articles 264A, 296 and 299, which have been before the House--two of them for a long time and the third one also for a little while. Tomorrow if there is anything fresh coming, that will come after these three article.
    Shri T.T. Krishnamachari : May I mention that the Drafting Committee is engaged in going through the lacunae in the articles already passed and the quential amendments that may have to be made, and it is likely that we might have to table some amendments tomorrow. My honourable Friend is so fully posted with all the details regarding the articles of the Constitution that he would not find it impossible to readjust himself and see that these amendments that we are likely to table tonight are necessary. They will be only consequential amendments. I would  only offer my apology on behalf of the Drafting Committee for giving honourable Members such short notice, the only reason being that we are hard pressed for time and we would like this Union to close as early as possible.
    Mr. President : Tomorrow we are going to take up these three articles first.
    Shri T.T. Krishnamachari : And then other article.
    Mr. President : So far as I know, there are only one or two matters now which we have to consider. There is first the Preamble which has not been dealt with-I am just mentioning the things which I have noted that have to be considered-then we have Schedule-I which defines the State, then these three articles which have just been mentioned. There is also another article, I understand, which is going to be brought up-article 280A relating to financial emergency. And there is a third article which may come up relating to States, particularly relating to Kashmir article 306A. Then we have Schedule III-B which deals with the allocation of seats for the Council of States.Apart from these I think there may be consequently amendments. Are there any more?
    Shri T.T. Krishnamachari : As I said before, there are some consequential amendments.
    Mr. President : The others may be consequential which will arise out of the amendments we have already accepted.
    Shri R.K. Sidhva : May I know whether Schedule I and the Preamble will be taken up in this session ? There was some complication about it. So I want to know whether Schedule I will be taken up before some formalities are observed.
    Mr. President : They have to come up during this session because we have to complete the Second Reading. If necessary we can amend it in the Third Reading, if there is any change in the Schedule.
    Shri R.K. Sidhva : Schedule I is very important and it may take one or two days, Therefore, unless the Drafting committee is ready in pursuance of the Working Committee's resolution, there is no use our wasting time now and again spending time at the time of the Third Reading.
    Mr. President : But then we cannot complete the Second Reading without having all the articles and Schedules.
    Shri H.V. Kamath (C.P. & Berar : General) : Why not meet for the first two days during the next session and complete the Second Reading, and after an interval of one day start the Third Reading ?
    Mr. President : I might just mention to honourable Members that we were considering the procedure to be followed at the time of the Third Reading, and some amendments to the rules will be coming up before the House on Saturday. It has been said that apart from merely verbal amendments and renumbering and replacements of articles, it may be discovered in the course of the examination which is going to take place of each article, that some changes are required, and we shall have to amend particular articles to that extent. If we hold up the second reading for that purpose, then there will be difficulty in having the Third Reading in the next session-and we must have the Third Reading then. Therefore, we are suggesting that such amendments as are more or less of a consequential nature but which are not merely verbal may be taken up at the Third Reading stage and, under certain restricted conditions, amendments to these amendments. When these amendments have been disposed of, we proceed to a general discussion of the Constitution as a whole and we pass it at the Third Reading. So we are taking powers under the rules to deal with such consequential changes which may be found to be necessary. It may be that we do not find any consequential changes necessary. That would be a very happy state of affairs. But it is possible that we may and therefore we are taking precaution in that way.
    Shri H.V. Kamath : Are Members of the House, as distinct from the Members of the Drafting Committee, at liberty to send amendments at the time of the Third Reading ?
    Mr. President : No.
    Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : Our rules provide for that. If the Drafting Committee has got such enormous powers to make changes.....................
    Mr. President : They cannot make any changes unless they are accepted by the House.
    Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : Some formal changes may be necessary. It is definitely provided in the rules.
    Mr. President : I do not think it will be possible to open the door very wide. If there are any suggestions which honourable Members have to make and which really affect the substance of the provisions, I have no doubt that the Drafting Committee will give due thought to those things and that they will be considered.
    Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : I am only suggesting that the final draft of the Drafting Committee should be circulated to us well in time for a thorough consideration.
    Mr. President : I was thinking of the time table also. I do not think it would be possible to get the Constitution, as it is now passed at the Second Reading, ready for the press before the 31st of this month. The whole thing has to be very carefully considered. Every article-every word-has to be scrutinised. It takes time. And so the Drafting committee will not be in a position to get the thing ready, say, before the 31st of this month. Then it will take about a week to print. We shall try to circulate as soon as possible, say by the 4th or 5th but it would not be possible earlier, we are trying to cut down the time as much as possible, but there are physical difficulties.
    Shri H.V. Kamath : When do you propose to summon the next session for?
    Mr. President : I propose to summon the Assembly from the 14th of November to 25th or 26th, because the session of the Legislative Assembly begins on the 28th November and that has already been summoned. So we have to finish this Third Reading before that and it is proposed to give two or three days for consideration of all such matters and consequential amendments that may be found necessary. I hope it will not be necessary to given two days but we are keeping even three days for that purpose and we shall have eight or nine days for general discussion. These eight days I propose to devote to the general discussion and the last day will be taken up in the formality of actually passing the whole thing. It is suggested that the Constitution that is finally passed should be signed by every Member of this House.
    Honourable Members : Yes, Sir,
    Mr. President : That will be a historical document and it is desirable that every Member who has been associated with the making of this Constitution puts down his name on the copy which would be kept on record and that might take a day. So I am reserving one day for that purpose, and the remaining six or seven days will be available for general discussion.
    Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena : What about the Constitution in Hindi ?
    Mr. President : The Constituent Assembly has passed a provision that all Bills not only in the Centre but also in the provinces must be passed in the English language for the next fifteen years and so we shall pass this and you have already authorised me to get an authorised translation in the various languages. So far as Hindi is concerned, you have put upon me the responsibility of certifying to its correctness; and as regards the translations in other major languages, they will also be prepared. I am taking steps already to get these translations ready. Hindi I propose to publish before the Commencement of the Constitution and the others also, but I am not so sure about the others.
    Shri H.V. Kamath : Are we going to have a formal ceremony on the midnight of the 25th - 26th of January ?
    Mr. President : I have not thought of any formal ceremony at midnight or midday. But it has been suggested that we should all sign the copy of the Constitution.That is all that we have so far been thinking of.
    Shri H. V. Kamath : January 26, I am thinking of that day, Sir.
    Mr. President : We shall decide at the time when we meet next. There is one other matter which has not been discussed up to now, but I do not know, probably the Members may feel interest in that and that is the question of the National Anthem. The National Flag was adopted by the Constituent Assembly; it was not part of the Constitution but it was adopted by the Constituent Assembly. Similarly probably the National Anthem, also will have to be adopted by the Constitution Assembly, but by a Resolution; but we have not yet taken steps in that direction. The government have already adopted a particular song as the National Anthem, but the Constituent Assembly has not yet accepted that. So we have not taken any steps in that direction yet; I do not know what to do, but we may have to consider that point also.
    Shri H. V. Kamath : We may take that up in the Third Reading in the next session.
     Mr. President : I do not know if the House as a whole will be able to fix upon  the National Anthem. If all of us joined in singing here it will not be an Anthem (six); it will be something very different; any way, that has to be done by some expert  committee and I have not yet decided what to do about it, but if the House so desires, we may think of a Committee for that purpose.
     An honourable Member : Compose a new National Anthem !
    Shri Sures Chandra Majumdar (West Bengal : General) : Formerly it was agreed in one of the meetings of the Steering Committee that it would not form part of the Constitution but will be passed in the form of a Resolution just after the Third Reading.
     Mr. President : This is what I said.
     Shri Sures Chandra Majumdar : Now you are thinking of referring it to a Committee or something like a committee for the purpose of selecting what will be the National Anthem, and this House will consider the report of that Committee and adopt any of the two songs as the National Anthem; and that would be during the life-time of the Constituent Assembly, I suppose ?
     Mr. President : During the Third Reading period, that is my idea.
     Shri B. Das : Some of us do not like Jana Gana Mana. We would very much  like that Vande Mataram should be the national song which has inspired us all for the last fifty or sixty years. In any case when the matter comes, we would like to express our views.
     Mr. President : That is of course your opinion. I have said that I am thinking of  having a Committee for the purpose of selecting the best song.
    An honourable Member : Will the committee propose a new song ?
    Mr. President : The Committee will be free to compose even a new one.
    Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena : Is the Committee to be appointed quickly ?
    Mr. President : It will have to be done now and as I said, I have not thought about it in concrete terms. Therefore, I am not in a position to make any announcement now.
    The Honourable Shri K. Santhanam : Mr. President, Sir, my impression is that in other countries they generally do not adopt the National Anthem as part of the Constitution and they call upon expert musicians to create it and even offer prizes. Now that we have a provisional National Anthem. I wonder whether it will be wise or expedient to come to a definite decision now. I think it would be well if we leave it to parliament to enact by law after taking all the necessary steps.
    Mr. President : That is also one point of view. As I have said, I have not thought over the matter in concrete terms yet.
    Shri Sita Ram S. Jajoo (Madhyabharat) : Will the Members from Vindhya Pradesh and Bhopal be present for the Third Reading ?
    Mr. President : I hope so and we are trying to get them; and if they do not come, we cannot help it.
     We shall adjourn till tomorrow ten o'clock.
    The Assembly then adjourned till Ten of the Clock on Friday, the 14th October, 1949.