CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY OF INDIA - VOLUME VII


Tuesday, the 28th December 1948

Shri H. V. Kamath: Am I to understand that Dr. Ambedkaris personally in favour of this amendment?

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Yes; I think thereis nothing in this amendment except the fact that this wasmet by other ways.

Now, Sir, the other question is this: is it necessaryto have these disqualifications laid down specifically andexpressly in the Constitution? It seems to me that there isno necessity, for two reasons. One is that no person who hasbeen shamed in this manner by a public trial and declared tobe a public enemy would ever have the courage to offerhimself as a candidate for any particular post. Therefore,that possibility, I think, is excluded by thisconsideration. The second is this: whether the people ofthis country would be so wanting in sense of public duty andpublic service to elect any such person, if he, as a matterof fact, stood. I think it would be too shameful animputation to the people of this country to say that it isnecessary to make an express provision of this sort in the Constitution because the people of this country are likelyto elect persons who are criminals, who have committedbreach of trust and who have failed the public in theperformance of their public duties. I think these weaknessesare inherent in all societies and no good purpose will beserved by advertising them by putting them in the Constitution. I therefore think that the amendments, howeverlaudable they are, are not necessary to be embodied in the Constitution.

Mr. Vice-President: The amendments which have beenmoved will now be put to vote.

Amendment No. 1152 standing in the name of Kazi SyedKarimuddin. The question is:

"That is clause (1) of article 50, after the words `forviolation of the Constitution', the words `treason, briberyor other high crimes and misdemeanours', be inserted."

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. Vice-President: Amendment No. 1151 standing in thename of Prof. K. T Shah: First part.

The question is:

"That in clause (1) of article 50, after the words `isto be impeached for' the words `treason or' be added."

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. Vice-President: Amendment No. 1151 standing in thename of Prof. K. T. Shah: Second Part.

The question is:

"That in clause (1) of article 50, for the words`either House' the words `the People's House' besubstituted."

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. Vice-President: I now put to vote amendment No.1160 as modified by the amendment of Mr. T. T.Krishnamachari.

The question is:

"That in sub-clause (a) of clause (2) of article 50,for the words `thirty members', the words `one-fourth of thetotal number of members' be substituted."

The amendment was adopted.

Mr. Vice-President: The question is:

"That in sub-clause (a) of clause (2) of article 50,for the words `thirty members' the words `hundred members'be substituted."

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. Vice-President: The question is:

"That in sub-clause (a) of clause (2) of article 50,for the words `after a notice the words' after at least 14days notice' be substituted."

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. Vice-President: The question is:

"That in sub-clause (b) of clause (2) of article 50,for the words `supported by' the words `passed by a majorityof' be substituted."

The amendment was adopted.

Mr. Vice-President: The question is:

"That for sub-clause (b) of clause (2) of article 50,for the following be substituted:--'(b) such resolution hasbeen supported by a majority of the members present andvoting'."

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. Vice-President: I am not putting No. 1168 to votebecause it is the same as 1167. It is already covered.

The question is:

"That the following new sub-clause be inserted aftersub-clause (b) of clause (2) of article 50:

`(c) the meeting shall be presided by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court whose decision on the admissibility of evidence shall be final'."

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. Vice-President: The

question is:

"That in clause (3) of article 50, for the words`either House' the words `the People's House' be substitutedand the words `or cause the charge to be investigated and the President shall have the right to appear and to berepresented at such investigation', be deleted."

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. Vice-President: The question is:

"That in clause (3) of article 50, after the word`investigated' a full stop be inserted."

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. Vice-President: The question is:

"That after clause (3) of Article 50, the following newclause be added:--

`(3A) The President shall have the right to appear andto be represented at such investigation.'"

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. Vice-President: The question is:

"That in clause (4) of article 50, for the words`passed supported by' the words passed by a majority of' besubstituted."

The amendment was adopted.

Mr. Vice-President: The question is:

"That in clause (4) of article 50, for the words `notless than two-thirds of the total membership of the House',the words `a majority of the members present and voting' besubstituted."

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. Vice-President: The question is:

"That in clause (4) of article 50, after the words`such resolution shall' the words `be placed before thePeople's House, and if adopted by the latter, shall' beinserted."

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. Vice-President: The question is: Amendment No.1185.

Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad: Sir, no reply has been given tomy amendment by Dr. Ambedkar.

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Sir, I said I opposeit.

Mr. Vice-President: The question is:

"That in clause (4) of article 50, for the words `dateon which', the words `time when' be substituted."

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. Vice-President: The question is:

"That at the end of clause (4) of article 50, the words`by both Houses of ParlI ament' be added."

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. Vice-President: The question is:

"That the following be added at the end of clause (4)of article 50:--

`and it shall operate as a disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honour, trust or profit under the Indian Union.'"

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. Vice-President: The question is:

"That article 50, as amended, stand part of the Constitution."

The motion was adopted.

Article 50, as amended, was added to the Constitution.

Article 51

Mr. Vice-President: We come to article No. 51.

The motion is:

"That article 51 form part of the Constitution."

We shall take the amendments one after another.Amendments Nos. 1190 and 1191 are of similar import and areto be considered together. No. 1190 may be moved.

(Amendments Nos. 1190 and 1191 were not moved.)

No. 1192 is disallowed.

No. 1193, first alternative, and Amendment No. 1194 aresimilar and are to be considered together and I can allow1193 to be moved--first alternative. Mr. Tahir.

Mr. Mohd. Tahir: Sir, I beg to move:

"That in clause (2) of article 51, for the words `sixmonths' and the words `full term of five years as providedin article 45 of this Constitution' the words `three months'and the words `remaining term of five years in which thevacancy so occurs' be substituted respectively."

Sir, regarding the period of six months and threemonths I would only submit that it is a matter of importanceand it is better that the sooner it is decided the better it is and the period of six months is too long and therefore I have suggested that it should be decided in three monthsonly.

Now I come to the second point. In such cases theoffice will remain only for the remaining term of five yearsin which the vacancy so occurs. Supposing the President iselected and after one year of his term the vacancy hasoccurred by his removal or resignation or anythingotherwise, then in that case the new President who will beelected will hold the office for the remaining term of 5years. In doing so, Sir, I want that the term of theParlI ament and also the term of the office of the

Presidentshould run parallel side by side so that after every fiveyears when there is a new ParlI ament, there must also be anew President--a new air and new breath. If it be not so,then to my mind it appears that there would be somedifficulties. Supposing the President is elected after twoyears when the vacancy occurs, then he will continue inoffice for another two years after the new ParlI ament iselected. Then there may occur two difficulties. Suppose thePresident belongs to a certain party and unfortunately in the next election that party does not come in with amajority. Then what will be the position of the Presidentwho is still continuing in office? Certainly, he will haveto vacate the office on many grounds. Either he will resignfrom his office or the party which comes in with a majoritywill not consider him suitable to their own views, aims and objects.

Secondly, I would submit that if a President who is inoffice at the time of the elections continues in his officefor some more years after the election, then it is butnatural that the President, being in power, certainly willinfluence the elections for the new ParlI ament, and in myopinion, any influence exercised on the elections isagainst--it is hopelessly against--the spirit of democracy.Moreover, nobody can check it, because the President inpower will naturally want to continue in power, and therefore, the party to which he himself belongs, must come into power. Therefore he willexercise all his influence to see that such a party comesinto power. Therefore, it is quite undesirable that thePresident should continue in office beyond a period, whenundersirable that the President should continue in officebeyond a period, when ParlI ament comes to an end. Therefore,I submit that in all fairness, it would be desirable that the office, of the President and the term of life of theParlI ament should run side by side, for equal periods oftime. With these few words I submit my amendment to the House for its acceptance.

Mr. Vice-President: You can move the alternativeamendment also.

Mr. Mohd. Tahir: Sir, the second alternative amendmentruns as follows:

"That for article 51 the following be substituted:--

`51. If the office of the President becomes vacant by reason of his death, resignation, removal or otherwise, the Vice-President shall act as President for the remaining term of office in which the vacancy so occurs'."

In moving this amendment, Sir, I submit that when thequestion of election of President or the Vice-Presidentcomes before ParlI ament or before the country, it is butnatural that the ParlI ament and the country as a whole willthink of selecting the best two men of the country to be thePresident and the Vice-President. The best two men of thecountry to be the President and the Vice-President. The besttwo men are elected as President and Vice-President, andafter that, if the vacancy arises in the office of thePresident, there is no reason why the third person should beelected for that office, and not the next best man who hasalready been elected as Vice-President and who has been inoffice, and who has had experience of the office in which hehas been working for a certain period. Therefore, in allfairness, I am of the opinion that in case of vacancy ofoffice of President, the Vice-President in office shouldautomatically be in the President for the time that remainsunexpired, and for which that office has fallen vacant.

With these few words, Sir, I submit my amendment to the House for its acceptance. I hope the House will considerthese amendments seriously and accept them.

Mr. Vice-President: Amendment No. 1198, standing in thename of Prof. K. T. Shah.

Prof. K. T. Shah: Mr. Vice-President, Sir, I beg tomove:

"That the following new clause be added after clause(2) of article 51:--

`(3) During the interval between the date when a vacancy in the office of the President occurs, and the date when new election to that office is completed, and the name of the new President announced, the Vice-President, provided for in the next following

article, shall hold the office of and act as President of the Union'."

Sir, this is only a consequential amendment, trying tofill in the gap between the removal, resignation or death ofone President and the election of his successor. Somearrangement must be made for the interim period. whether it is three months or six months or whatever period it may be,between the election of the new President and the demise orremoval of his predecessor. This is at least one example inwhich, may I make a present of may non-imitation of theAmerican Constitution. There, after all, the Vice-Presidentautomatically takes charge in such emergency and election isavoided. Here we have insisted upon not only election, butelection not for the balance of the period remaining. butfor the full term of the office. If the Honourable Chairmanof the Drafting Committee will consider the spirit as wellas the wording of my amendment, he will find that there aremuch fewer imitations in mine than in his,--the onlydifference being that he has imitated several moreconstitutions, while I have reserved my "worship"--as hecalled it--for only one.

This, however, does not affect the simple provisionthat some interim provision must be made, and so far as Ican see, the Draft does not make any satisfactoryarrangement for the interim period during which the officemay remain vacant. My amendment only seeks to provide for aconsequence and hence, I hope the House will accept it.

Mr. Vice-President: Amendments Nos. 1195, 1196 and 1197are disallowed, being verbal ones. Dr. Ambedkar.

The Honourable Dr. B.R. Ambedkar: Sir, I am sorry Icannot accept the amendment moved by Prof. K. T. Shah. Hisamendment seems to be covered altogether by article 54 (1).I fail to find any difference between the amendment that hehas moved and the provision contained in sub-clause (1) ofarticle 54. I think if he considers this article, he willfind that his amendment is unnecessary and superfluous.

With regard to the other amendment, the point ofdifference is that any one who is elected as a result of theresignation and so on, should only occupy the Chair of thePresidentship during the balance of the term, while theprovision contained in the Constitution is to the effectthat if a person is elected as a result of resignation,death and so on he should continue to be the President for the full term perscribed by the Constitution. I see noreason why the term of office of a person who has beenelected to the office should not be the full term prescribedby the Constitution and why he should be limited only to thebalance of the term. I therefore, see no justification for the amendment at all.

Mr. Vice-President: I shall put amendment No. 1193--first alternative--standing in the name of Mr. Mohd. Tahirto vote.

The question is:

"That in clause (2) of article 51, for the words `sixmonths' and the words `full term of five years as providedin article 45 of this Constitution' the words `three months'and the words `remaining term of five years in which thevacancy so occurs' be substituted respectively."

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. Vice-President: Amendment No. 1194 standing in thename of Prof. K. T. Shah.

The question is:

"That in clause (2) of article 51, for the words `holdoffice for the full term of five years' the words `holdoffice for the balance of term of five years' besubstituted."

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. Vice-President: Amendment No. 1193, secondalternative, standing in the name of Mr. Mohd. Tahir.

The question is:

"That for article 51 the following be substituted:--

`51. If the office of the President becomes vacant by reason of his death, resignation, removal or otherwise, the Vice-President shall act as President for the remaining term of office in which the vacancy so occurs'."

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. Vice-President: The question is:

"That article 51 stand part of the Constitution."

The motion was adopted.

Article 51 was added to the Constitution.

New Article 51-A

Mr. Vice-President: Now we come to

amendment No. 1199standing in the name of Prof. K. T. Shah.

Prof. K. T. Shah: Sir, am I allowed to move the secondpart of the amendment relating to pension?

Mr. Vice-President: The question of pension to thePresident was dealt with in a former amendment by you?

Prof. K. T. Shah: Yes, Sir, that is why I asked thequestion.

Mr. Vice-President: Then the second part may be leftout.

Prof. K. T. Shah: Then I will not move this amendment.

Article 52

Mr. Vice-President: Then we come to article 52.

I find the amendment deals with a matter which isconcerned with article I and I disallow it on theunderstanding that if any similar change is made in article1 then Drafting Committee itself will the change in thecourse of the Third Reading. Are you willing to accept that,Mr. Kamath?

Shri H. V. Kamath: I will not move the amendment, Sir.

Mr. Vice-President: So. I can put article 52 to cote.

The question is:

"That article 52 stand part of the Constitution."

That motion was adopted.

Article 52 was added to the Constitution.

Article 53

Mr. Vice-President: Then we come to article 53.

Amendment No. 1201 is being disallowed because it hasthe effect of a negative vote. Amendments Nos. 1202 and 1203seem to be identical and I therefore allow amendment No.1202 to be moved.

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Sir, I move:

"That in article 53, for the words 'or position ofemolument' the words 'of profit' be substituted."

Mr. Vice-President: the No. 1204 standing in the nameof Mr. Mohd. Tahir.

Mr. Mohd. Tahir: I am not moving it, Sir.

Mr. Vice-President: Then amendment No. 1205 standing in the name of Dr. Ambekar.

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Sir, I move:

"That to the proviso to article 53, the following beadded:--

'and shall not be entitled to any salary or allowance payable to the Chairman of the Council of States under article 79 of this Constitution'."

The provision is intended to prevent making a doubleprofit.

Mr. Vice-President: There is one amendment sent in byMr. Naziruddin Ahmad, No. 33. this is formal and isdisallowed.

Now I am putting these amendments to vote. Has anyMember anything to say on these amendments?

Shri H. V. Kamath: On a point of information, Sir, withreference to amendment No. 1205, will the Vice-President,when he acts as President, draw the salary and allowances of the President or those of the Vice-President only?

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: The salary of thePresident, salary of the office.

Mr. Vice-President: The I am putting these amendmentsto vote. I shall put No. 1202 standing in the name of Dr.Ambedkar.

The question is:

"That in article 53, for the words 'or position ofemolument' he words 'of profit' be substituted."

The amendment was adopted.

Mr. Vice-President: Do you want me to put your amendment to vote, Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad, which is identicalwith the previous one?

Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad: No. Sir.

Mr. Vice-President: Then I shall put to vote amendmentNo. 1205.

The question is:

"That to the proviso to article 53, the following beadded :--

'are shall not be entitled to any salary or allowance payable to the Chairman of the Council of States under article 79 of this Constitution.'"

The amendment was adopted.

Mr. Vice-President: The question is:

"That article 53, as amended, stand part of the Constitution."

The motion was adopted.

Article 53, as amended, was added to the constitution.

Article 54

Mr. Vice-President: Then we come to article 54.

The motion before the House is:

"That article 54 form part of the Constitution."

There is amendment No. 1206 standing in the name of Mr.Mohd. Tahir.

Mr. Mohd. Tahir: I am not 1207. As amendment No. 1185has been disallowed

Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad: This is a different situationaltogether, Sir. I shall show it in a minute.

Mr. Vice-President: All right.

Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad: Sir, I beg to move :

"That in clause (1) of article 54, for the words 'dateon which', the words 'time when' be substituted."

Sir, I shall be

extremely short. These words occur inclause (1) of article 54. It says that the Vice-Presidentshall act as the President during a vacancy until the dateon which' a newly elected President enters upon his office.I shall ask the House to consider only one example. Supposethe Vice-President acts in a vacancy in the President'soffice and a new President is elected and enters upon hisoffice at noon on the 1st of January. By this clause it islaid down that the Vice-President shall act as President'until the date on which' the new President enters upon hisoffice. so he can act only up to the 31st of December,because he can act only, "until the date on which" the newPresident enters upon his office which is the 1st ofJanuary. From the midnight of the 31st December till thenoon of the 1st January when the new President enters uponhis office, there will be no one presided over the functionsof the Government of India. There will be no President therewill be no Vice-President. The amendment seeks to fill upthis political vacuum.

Mr. Vice-President: Amendments Nos. 1208 and 1209 aremerely verbal and are therefore disallowed.

Amendments Nos. 1211 and 1210 are of import but theformer is more comprehensive and may be moved.

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Sir, I move :

"That to clause (3) of article 54, the following beadded :-

'and be entitled to such privileges, emoluments, and allowances as may be determined by ParlI ament by law until provision in that behalf is so made, such privileges, emoluments and allowances as are specified in the Second Schedule'."

This merely makes good an omission in the DraftConstitution.

Mr. Vice-President: Amendments Nos. 1212 and 1213 havebeen blocked as article 49 has been adopted.

Shri H. V. Kamath: Sir, with regard to amendment No.1211 moved by the Honourable Dr. Ambedkar I would like tosay something. He said a short while ago that the Vice-President will have the same emoluments and allowances asthe President while acting as such, wheres under thisamendment he will 'be entitled to such privileges,emoluments, and allowances as may be determined byParlI ament by law and unit provision in that behalf is somade, such privileges, emoluments and allowances as arespecified in the Second Schedule". If the ParlI ament by lawand until provision in that behalf in the so made, suchprivileges, emoluments and allowances as are specified in the Second Schedule ". If the Vice-President acts asPresident why make a distinction like this that untilParlI ament enacts in that behalf he will get emoluments denthe must get the emoluments of the President all the time andI should like to know why this difference is made.

Pandit Thakur Dass Bhargava: Sir, article 54 (3) says :

"The Vice-President shall, during, and in respect of,the period while he is so acting as, or discharging thefunctions of the President, have all the powers andimmunities of the President."

The amendment which has been moved by Dr. Ambedkarspeaks of privileges, emoluments and allowances but there isno reference to the duties and liabilities of the Vice-President when he is acting as President. If the Vice-President violates the constitution there is no provisionthat he should be impeached or dealt with in any manner.

When we proceed further to article 56 we find that by aresolution of both House he can be made to vacate hisoffice. But in regard to the violation of the Constitutionand in regard to the failure of discharge of his dutiesthere is not provision. When he is acting as President heshould be liable to the same liabilities and duties as thePresident. Therefore I would have liked that the words"duties and liabilities" were inserted after the words"powers and immunities" which would have met the exigenciesof the circumstances. I have given an amendment to thiseffect but since it has not been circulated I do not proposeto move it formally but I would like Dr. Ambedkar toconsider the proposition of the addition of the words"duties and liabilities" after the words "powers andimmunities", which will make the section

complete and makeup the obvious lacuna.

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Mr. Vice-President,I find that in the amendments that have been moved there arereally three points which have been raised. One point whichhas been raised by my friend Mr. Naziruddin ahmad relates totime. We all know by now how very meticulous my friend Mr.Naziruddin Ahmad is and he wants to have the Constitutionspecifically state over that office. I do not know whetherso much meticulousness is necessary in this Constitution.However, what I find difficult to accept in the amendmentwhich he has moved is that he has not particularised what isthe system of timing which he in mind. Is it the Greenwichtime, the Standard time, the Bombay or Calcutta time?

Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad: I mean the actual time ofappointment.

Dr. B. R. Amberdkar: What is the time may be verydifferent. Unless he prescribes the system I do not thinkthat the introduction of the word time introduces anygreater clarity or definiteness at all.

Secondly, so far as this particular clause is concernedI find that his amendment is quite unnecessary, because ifhe will read sub-clause (1) of article 54 he will see that it is stated "to fill such vacancy enters upon his office".Surely the entering upon office will be at sometime in theday-it may be midnight or it may be 12 o'clock in the day.Therefore time is specified so to say by implication andthis amendment is therefor quite unnecessary.......

Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad: The clause provides that theVice-President shall act until the 'date' on which the newPresident enters upon his office and not the time when hedoes so.

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Surely it will besometime on some day on which he will enter the office. Hemay probably consult an astrologer to find out what is theauspicious moment. However, the amendment is quiteunnecessary.

My Friend Mr. Kamath said that in replying to thedebate on the previous article I stated or rather in movingmy amendment I stated that the Vice-President when acting asthe President shell have the same emoluments as thePresident. He found some difficulty in reconciling thatstatement with the amendment which I have moved, which givesthe ParlI ament the power to fix the salary of the Vice-President when acting as the President. If my Friend Mr.Kamath were to turn to page 161 of the Draft Constitution hewill find that there is a schedule fixing the salary of thePresident and paragraph 5 of that schedule definitelyprovides for the salary of the President. Surely when aperson is acting as the President, no matter at what earlystage in life he has climbed to that post, he will beentitled to get that salary according to this Constitution.But it was felt that it might be necessary to leave thematter to ParlI ament to fix a different scale of salary fora person who is assuming the office of the Presidentexpressly for a very short duration. ParlI ament may not liketo give him the same salary, because the tenure of hisoffice is certainly not of the same duration as that of thePresident himself. Consequently, if ParlI ament makes noprovision, then he gets the salary of the President. ButParlI ament may make provision to give him a differentsalary. It is for that purpose the amendment has been moved.

Shri H. V. Kamath: Sir, may I invite the attention ofmy honourable Friend Dr. Ambedkar to article 48 clause (4)which lays down that the emoluments and allowances of thePresident shall not be diminished during his term of office?Am I to understand that you make a distinction between theVice-President acting as President and the President?

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Yes, certainly.

Shri H. V. Kamath: Sir, just now when I raisedobjection to an amendment to the last article, Dr. Ambedkarsaid that the Vice-President shall draw the salary andallowances of the President while acting as President.

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Unless ParlI amento therwise provides, the Vice-President gets the salary of the President when he acts for him. There is no reason whyParlI ament should not be

given authority to fix the scalesof pay of a President who may be there for a short duration.

Pandit Bhargava raised another point and that was to the effect that there was no provision for the impeachmentof the Vice-President when acting as President. Obvious whena Vice-President becomes the President, all the duties andobligations which are imposed upon the President fall uponhim without making any express mention of the fact at all.If during his tenure of office as President the Vice-President commits any of theoffences or acts which expose the President to the risk ofbeing impeached, he will not have any kind of immunity byreason of the fact that he is either a Vice-President or isacting as President pro tempore. There is therefore nonecessity for making any provision for it.

Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad: Mr. Vice-President, may Iask......

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: I do not submitmyself to any cross examination at this stage.

Mr. Vice-President: Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad may go back tohis seat.

Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad: I want to draw the attention of the Honourable Dr. Ambedkar to an oversight.

Mr. Vice-President: He refuses to listen to it. Whatcan I do? I cannot compel him to listen.

Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad: No one can compel him. the pointis that in clause (3) of article 54.........

Mr. Vice-President: I am going to put the amendment tovote. Dr. Ambedkar has said that he will not give any reply.

Mr. Nazirudding Ahmad: I hope he will reconsider thematter.

Mr. Vice-President: I have not called upon Mr.Naziruddin Ahmad to speak.

Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad: Sir. I want only to draw theattention of the House to a point which might influence thevotes.

Mr. Vice-President: Why not do so at the third readingstage ? I am going to put the amendment to vote.

Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad: But, Sir, this is a matter ofgreat importance.

Mr. Vice-President: You think so. May I ask yourespectfully to go back to your seat?

Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad: I shall comply with your request.

Mr. Vice-President: I shall now put amendment No. 1205standing in the name of Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad to vote.

The question is:

"That in clause (1) of article 54, for the words 'dateon which', the words 'time when' be substituted."

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. Vice-President: The question is:

"That to clause (3) of article 54, the following beadded:--

'and be entitled to such privileges, emoluments, and allowances as may be determined by ParlI ament by law and until provision in that behalf is so made, such privileges, emoluments and allowances as are specified in the Second Schedule'."

The amendment was adopted.

Mr. Vice-President: The question is:

"That in clause (3) of article 54, after the words'have all the powers', the words and privileges, emoluments'be added."

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. Vice-President: The question is:

"That article 54, as amended, stand part of the Constitution."

The motion was adopted.

Article 54, as amended, was added to the constitution.

Article 55

Mr. Vice-President: The House will now take up forconsideration article 55.

The first amendment to this article stands in the nameof Shri Himmat Singh K. Maheshwari. As the Member is not isthe House it is not moved.

Amendments Nos. 1215 of Mohd. Tahir and 1218 of Prof.Shah are of similar import. Prof. shah may move hisamendment.

Prof. K. T. Shah: Mr. Vice-President, I beg to move:

"That in clause (1) of article 55 for the words 'by themembers of both Houses of ParlI ament assembled at a jointmeeting in accordance with the system of proportionalrepresentation by means of the single transferable vote and the voting at such election shall be by secrot ballot' thewords 'at the same time and in the same manner as thePresident' be substituted."

May I point out that, though it goes against myselfthis was in consonance with the method of election of thePresident as originally suggested by me in an amendment onadult franchise which this House has been pleased to reject?I wonder whether I would be quit

in order to move it.

Mr. Vice-Prtesident: I would ask the honourable to usehis discretion.

Prof. K. T. Shah: I am not fond of hearing my ownvoice. I only want to point out the discrepancy that isthere.

Mr. Vice-President: I think then the honourable Memberhad better not move it. This need not, therefore, be put tovote.

Mr. Mohd. Tahir: I beg to move:

"That for clause (1) article 55, the following besubstituted:

'(1) The Vice-President shall be elected in the same manner as provided in article 43'."

Article 43 lays down the manner in which the Presidentis to be elected. I think, Sir, that so far as the electionof the President and the Vice-President is concerned, thereshould not be any distinction as top the manner therefor. Asfor the position of the Vice-President, it is the same asthat of the President. Of course there is the division oflabour and division of work. They occupy more or less thesame position and therefore there should be no distinctionbetween them in the manner of their election.

My second point is that the President is to be electedby both Houses of ParlI ament as well as by the members of the legislatures of the States. If we do not elect a Vice-President ion the same manner, it means that we are going todeprive the Legislatures of the States of the right ofelecting him. Therefore it would be quite unfair to theMembers of the Legislatures of the States to deprive themof the power to elect the Vice-President. I have there foresuggested in this amendment that the Vice-President shouldalso be elected in the same manner as the President.

(Amendments Nos. 1216 and 1217 were not moved.)

Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad: Mr. Vice-President, Sir , I begto move:

"That in clause (1) of article 55 the words 'assembledat a joint meeting' be omitted and the clause as so amended,be renumbered as article 55."

Sir, to my mind, the words which I want to deletecreate an anomaly. Sir, the provision is to this effect:"The Vice-President shall be elected by the members of bothHouses of ParlI ament assembled at a joint meeting." I submitthat for the purpose of electing the Vice-President, themembers of both Houses of ParlI ament must vote but they neednot at all assemble at a meeting. They need not assemble and there need be no meeting. We are familiar with the system of election by members to various Committees. Themembers do not a all meet at a meeting. They are notrequired even to assembly formally in the House to bepresided by the Speaker or the President or the Vice-President or the Deputy Speaker as the case may be. They are not even required or expected to assemble at the same time.There is no joint meeting or any meeting at all. There is noquorum required. They may come between the prescribed hoursto the appointed place and the Returning Officer or thePolling Officer records their votes. Even if one membercomes and votes, it is enough. No meeting implying thesimultaneous presence of a certain is absolutelyinapplicable to a matter of votes. It is for this reasonthat [ am asking the House to accept the deletion of thewords "assembled at a joint meeting". If these words wordsare deleted, the clause will read thus:

"The Vice-President shall be elected by the members ofboth Houses of ParlI ament by means of single transferablevote."

The members need not at all assemble at a meeting. Thatwould involve a number of conditions and a set paraphernaliaunder the procedure rules which do not apply to a matter ofvoting. I submit that these words are unnecssary and aremisleading and should be deleted. Then the second part of the amendment is to the effect that this may be regarded asan independent article. That is merely formal. The firstpart of the amendment, I submit, should be carefullyconsidered.

Mr. Vice-President: Amendment No. 1220 standing in thenames of Begum Aizaz Rasul and Mr. Naziruddin ahmad. TheBegum Sahiba is not here and so you can move it, Mr.Naziruddin Ahmad.

Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad: Sir, I beg to move:

"That in clause (1) of article 55, the words "inaccordance with system of

proportional representation' bedeleted."

Sir, the matter has been much mooted in the House as towhether there can be proportional representation when thereis only one seat to be filled. There may be many candidatesfor one seat and so the votes may be transferable. Bytransferability you elect the most popular man. I will givean illustration. If there are one hundred voters and thereare ten seats to be filled up, then ten members representingone group can elect one member and that one member electedby the ten electors represents one-tenth of the electors andthat is proportional representation in the body elected.Sir, I want to draw the attention of Dr. Ambedkar to thispoint. In fact I find that he often misses my points andforgets to reply. I am particularly anxious to draw hisattention to this point and it is this. If there are onehundred voters and ten seats, then ten voters forming agroup can elect one and that one elected by the said tenvotes represents one-tenth of the seats by proportionalrepresentation. He represents one-tenth of the voters.Proportional representation applies to a plurality of seats.There can be no proportional representation where only oneperson is to be elected. He cannot split up his person andrepresent separately a one-tenth and nine-tenths fractionsof electors. As for instance, if you, Sir, are elected bythis House, then you do not by any means proportionatelyrepresent different groups of the electors. There cannot beany proportional representation in the case of one man seat.

With regard to the transfer of votes, that is aproposition which is really acceptable. If at the firstcounting of votes the first man gets less than half thevotes polled, then at the second counting the votestransferred are again appropriately allocated, the first manat the first calculation may not be the first man in thesecond or subsequent calculations. By means of the device of the transferability of votes, the person or personshaving the largest support gets or get elected. Even incases of single seats, it is desirable to have transferablevotes but there is no proportional representation, i.e. oneman elected can not proportionally represent differentgroups of electors. Proportional representation according tothis system is inevitable in case of a plurality of seats.But in the case of a one seat or one man election, he doesnot represent any section proportionately at all.Proportional representation is not applicable to a one manvacancy. I think, Sir, there has been a considerable amountof confusion about this proportional representation. I wantto draw a distinction between election be mixed up togetherand I think there is a risk of these two independentcategories being muddled together as part of each other.

(Amendments Nos. 1221 and 1222 were not moved.)

Mr. Vice-President: Amendment No. 1223 is disallowed asbeing merely verbal.

Amendment No. 1224 Dr. Ambedkar.

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Sir I move:

"That in clause (2) of article 55, for the words'either of ParlI ament or' the words 'of either House ofParlI ament or of a House' for the words 'member ofParlI ament or' the words 'member of either House ofParlI ament or of a House', and for the words 'in ParlI amentor such Legislature, as the case may be' the words in thatHouse' be substituted respectively."

This is only to improve the language. There is no point of substance in it.

(Amendments Nos. 1225, 1226 and 1227 were not moved.)

Mr. Vice-President: Amendments Nos. 1228 and 1229 areof similar import.

(Amendment No. 1231 standing in the name of Prof. K. T. Shahs may be moved.

Prof. K. T. Shah: Mr. Vice-President, Sir, I beg tomove:

"That in sub-clause (c) of clause (3) of article 55,after the words 'Council of States' the following be added:--

'and is not disqualified by reason of any conviction for treason, or any offence against the safety, security or integrity of the State, or any violation of the Constitution, or has been elected and served more than once as President or Vice- President of the Union'."

Even if

the last words are not quite proper after thedecision of the House on article No. 46, I trust thepreceding disqualifications that I have suggested would beacceptable to the House.

Sir, there is a school of thought which seems toconsider infra dig for this Constitution to providespecifically the disqualifications that may attach tocandidates for certain offices. I am afraid, I cannot sharethis view, particularly as these are political offices, inwhich disqualifications like those enumerated above maybecome merely a matter of opinions and unless they are laiddown positively in the Constitution people may be found, notonly having the courage which Dr. Ambedkar was pleased todoubt, but even having the effrontery, to stand ascandidates after having been suspected or charged withviolation of Constitution duly proved or even of treason.Treason can be even without violation of the Constitution.May I say, treason will not be called treason if itsucceeds, for the every good reason that nobody would darecall it treason then. In that way of looking at it, I feelit necessary that a specific provision be made laying downdisqualification on the three or four grounds that I have mentioned.

The violation of the Constitution or conviction fortreason are items, which in regard to political offences, orin regard to political offices, cannot be merely taken forgranted; we cannot, therefore, assume in safety that even ifno one would have the courage, or even if nobody has theeffrontery, to disregard its disqualification clearlyattaching to an individual was conceded, the electoratewould have the common-sense, the decency not to return them.I for one am not so enamoured of any electorate so narrow asis provided in the Draft Constitution to trust that, byparty influences, by party prejudices, it may not bepossible to disregard such disqualification if the Constitution is silent on the subject. accordinglym, sir, Icommend this motion to the house.

Mr. Vice-President: The next two amendments Nos. 1232and 1233 are disallowed as being verbal.

Amendments Nos. 1234 standing in the name of Dr.Ambedkar, 1235 and 1239 standing in the name of Mr.Naziruddin ahmad are of similar import and me the mostcomprehensive one.

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Sir, I move:

"That in clause (4) of article 55, for the words 'orposition of emolument' wherever they occur the words 'ofprofit' be substituted."

Mr. Vice-President: Amendment No. 1235 stands in thename of Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad. Does he want me to put this to the vote?

Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad: No, sir, the previous amendmentwill cover it.

Mr. Vice-President: What about amendment No. 1239?

Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad: The same consideration wouldapply.

(Amendment No. 1236 was not moved.)

Mr. Vice-President: Amendment Nos. 1237 and 1238 arecerbal and are, therfore, disallowed.

Amendment No. 1240 stands in the name of Dr. B. R.Ambedkar. He may move it.

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Sir, I move:

"That for sub-clause (a) of the Explanation to clause(4) of article 55, the following be substituted:--

(a) he is the Governor of any State for the time being specified in Part I of the First Schedule or is a minister either for India or for any such State, of'."

This matter has already been debated last time.

(Amendemnt No. 1241 was not moved.)

Mr. Vice-President: Amendments Nos. 1242, 1243 and 1244are disallowed as being merely verbal amendments.

Amendment No. 1245 stands in the name of Prof. K. T.Shah. I think there is no use in moving this amendments.

Prof. K. T. Shah: All right, sir.

Mr. Vice-President: Amendments Nos. 1246, 1247 and 1248are disallowed as being verbal.

MR. Naziruddin Ahmad: They are not 'merely' verble;they are verbal, no doubt.

Mr. Vice-President: I am afraid, I do not agree withyou.

(Amendments Nos. 1249 and 1250 were not moved.)

Mr. Vice-President: Amendment No. 1251 standing in thename of Prof. K. T. Shah, that also is blocked. AmendmentsNos. 1252, 1253, 1254 and 1255--I am afraid they are alsoverbal and I, therefore

disallow them.

Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad: Amendment No. 1255 in not verbal.

Mr. Vice-President: If it is not verbal, then it isformal.

Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad: So long as it is rejected, itdoes not matter how it is rejected.

(Amendments Nos. 1256 and 1257 were not moved.)

Mr. Vice-President: That brings us to the end of theamendments. The article is now open for general discussion.

Mr. Tajamul Husain: We have got ten minutes more and Ishall finish before that. Mr. Vice-President, Sir, I take upfirst amendment No. 1215 moved by my honourable Friend Mohd.Tahir. His amendment seeks to say that the Vice-Presidentshall be elected in the same manner as provided in article49. Article 43 provides for the election on the President.How is he elected ? He is elected by the elected members ofboth the Houses of ParlI ament and by the is elected membersof both Houses of legislature in the States where there aretwo Houses. According to article 55 with which we aredealing, he is to be elected not in this manner, but boththe Houses of ParlI ament, at a joint because there is adifference between the President and the Council of States.the President of the Republic has nothing to do withpresiding at meetings of the legislature. the Vice-Presidenthas nothing to do, till he becomes the President in case ofvacancy on account of death etc., with the provincial orState legislature. therfore, article 35, as framed in theCounstitution is correct, in my opinion.

The next amendment is amendment No. 1219 moved by myhonourable Friend Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad. His amendment isthat in clause (1) of article 55, the words "assembled at ajoint meeting" be omitted. He does not want that the Vice-President should be elected at a joint meeting of the twoHouses. He does not say by which. House he is to be elected.Therefore, it has no sense and it should be rejected.

Next, I come to amendment No. 1220 again by Mr.Naziruddin Ahmad and Begum Aizaz Rasul, which says that inclause (1) of article 55, the words "in accordance with thesystem of proportional " be deleted. We are dealing entirelywith the system of proportional representation in theelection of the President. Supposing there are more than onecandidate, say, three or four know exactly the votes securedby each according to the system of proportionalrepresentation by means of single transferable vote, Ipresume. That is the best system in a country like this.Therefore, I oppose that amendment also.

Net, I come to the amendment moved by the HonourableMember in charge of this Draft Constitution, the HonourableDr, Ambedkar. That is amendment No. 1224. I have the honourto oppose this also. My submission is this, When theHonourable dr. Ambedkar was speaking, I was busy; otherwise,I would have risen on a point of order. My point of order is this and it could be raised even now. A member cannot movemany things in one motion. there must be one specificresolution or motion. He has brought in three or fourthings. If you read this, you will have to rule it out oforder. It is hopelessly illegal. I do not know how he couldhave moved four things in one amendment. He says that inclause (2) of article 55 for the words "either ofParlI ament. He says that in clause (2) of article 55 for thewords House ", for the words "member of ParlI ament or "thewords " member of either House of ParlI ament or of a House" and for the words "inParlI ament or such legislature, as the case may be" thewords "in that House" be substituted. These are fourseparate amendments. I may accept one and reject the other.Therefore, I think you should fule it out of order'; thatwould be a very good thing.

Mr. Vice-President: Unfortunately, it cannot be donenow. Your advice comes rather too late.

Mr. Tajamul Husain: On a point of order, I am sure Dr.Ambedkar will agree it is never too late.

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: The Office couldhave done it.

Mr. Tajamul Husain: I hope he will agree if I say thata point of law could be raised at any time. at any time, youcan say it is out of order.

Mr. Vice-President: Probably he took

advantage of myignorance of procedure.

Mr. Tajamul Husain: Because of my mistake, I do not seeany reason why a wrong thing should go in. It all depends onyour ruling.

Next I come to amendment No. 1231 moved by myhonourable. Friend Prof. K. T. Shah. He says that in sub-clause (c) of clause (3) of article 55, after the words"Council of States the following be added: "and is notdisqualified by reason of any conviction for treason, or anyoffence against the safety, security or integrity of theState or any violation of the Constitution or has beenelected and served more than once as President or Vice-President of the Union." I think this is hopelessly wrong. Icannot understand why this amendment has been allowed. Youwill find article 83 which deals with the disqualificationsof the members. Article 83 says that a person shall bedisqualified for being chosen as, and for being a member ofeither House of ParlI ament if he holds any office of profitunder the Government of India or the Government of mayState, if he is of unsound mind and stands so declared by acompetent court, if he is an undischarged insolvent, if heis under any acknowledgment of allegiance or adherence to aforeign power, or is a subject or a citizen or entitled to the rights or privileges of a subject or a citizen of aforeign power, and if he is so disqualified by or under anylaw made by ParlI ament. Everything comes there; all thesethings are mentioned in article 83. Therefore, according toarticle 83, he cannot be a member and is not entitled to bea member of the Council of States. According to article 55,sub-clause (3), he has to be qualified for election as amember of the Council of States. Therefore to add this inclause (3) has no sense, is meaningless. I am sure Dr.Ambedkar will never accept it and the House will not acceptit.

I have divided the amendment into two parts; I havealready dealt with the first part. The second part of theamendment says, "or has been elected and served more thanonce as President or Vice-President of the Union". Supposinghe has served as Vice-President or President for one term,why prevent him from becoming Vice-President again if hehappens to be a very qualified man and the people want himand the legislature wants him? I had sent in an amendment to the effect that President could be elected more than once,but as I was not in the House I could not move it; but itwas accepted by the House that the President could beelected more than once. Therefore, why prevent the Vice-President from being elected more than once?

Sir, it is exactly 1-30 now and I have finished.

Mr. Vice-President: The House stands adjourned to tenof the clock tomorrow.

The Assembly then adjourned till Ten of the Clock onWednesday, the 29th December 1948.