CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY OF INDIA - VOLUME VII


Friday, the 31st December 1948.

The Constituent Assembly of India met in the Constitution Hall, New Delhi, at Ten of the Clock, Mr. Vice-President (Dr. H. C. Mookherjee) in the Chair.

Mr. Vice-President (Dr. H. C. Mookherjee): We shall now resume discussion of article 62.

(Amendments Nos. 1310 and 1311 were not moved.)

Nos. 1312 and 1329 are of similar import. No 1329 maybe moved. Dr. Ambedkar.

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar (Bombay: General):Sir, I move:

"That after clause (5) of article 62, the following newclause be inserted:--

`(5) (a) In the choice of his Ministers and the exercise of his other functions under this Constitution, the President shall be generally guided by the instructions set out in Schedule III-A, but the validity of anything done by the President shall not be called in question on the ground that it was done otherwise than in accordance with such instructions.' "

Mr. Vice-President: There is an amendment to this amendment, viz., No. 50 of List IV in the name of Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad.

Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad (West Bengal: Muslim): Mr. Vice-President, Sir, I beg to move:

"That in amendment No. 1329 of the List of Amendments, in the proposed new clause 5(a) all the words commencing with `but the validity' to the end be deleted."

Sir, the amendment which has just been moved by the honourable Member Dr. Ambedkar introduces a new clause (5)(a) to article 62. It provides that the President in choosing his Ministers as well as "in the exercise of other functions" under the Constitution, would be generally guided by the Instrument of Instructions. With regard to this partof the clause I have no quarrel. But the last few lines which I have sought to omit seem to be open to be serious objection. At least they require clarification. The words which I want to delete are the following--"but the validity of anything done by the President shall not be called in question on the ground that it was done other wise than in accordance with such instructions."

I submit, Sir, that these words imply a serious encroachment the Constitution. The earlier part of the clause affects also "other functions" under the Constitution. These words are all-embracing. In fact, the"other functions" under the Constitution mean all sorts of functions. The choice of Ministers should be matter which should not be open to question at all. But the validity of any other functions, I submit, should not be immune from question. In fact, under the Constitution, the President would be a constitutional President. He would be acting on the advice of Ministers. So in the exercise of his other functions under the Constitution, he would be acting on the advice of his Ministers. The effect of the words which I seek to delete would be that it would give the President absolute and autocratic power in the exercise of his "other functions" under the Constitution. That is too much to concede. The real effect of the President being a constitutional President would be that the Ministry or a Minister may advise the President to do anything which is not constitutional, and the effect of the words which I seek to delete would be that a clearly unconstitutional act, or which may amount even to a deliberate, open violation of the Constitution would not be open to question. The new clause says that such an act of the President "shall not be called in question". The prohibition is absolute. It cannot be called into question in any place, in any manner. It would not be open to question in a Court of law, in the legislature or anywhere else. I do not know whether any criticism in a newspaper questioning the egality or even the propriety of an act of the President would be prohibited under this clause. But the plain meaning of these words would be at any rate to shut out any discussion of it in the Legislature or in a Court of law where an unconstitutional act should be effectively challenged. I submit, Sir, that these words are too wide to be accepted. I do not suggest or believe that

they were introduced to cover and protect adeliberately perpetrated unconstitutional act. I do not believe it. But the effect of these words would nevertheless be this. They would cover or protect from question in anyway any act done by a Minister or by a Ministry or by a Ministry through the President and a Minister will thereby secure a kind of protection which he should not enjoy. A Minister will be enabled to use the President as an effective shield to support an unconstitutional act. The sanctity of the Constitution would thus be seriously impaired, its authority seriously undermined, if a perfectly unconstitutional act is shut out from any kind of discussion or question, under the latter part of this clause. I submit,Sir, this is a very serious encroachment on the rights of the citizens so eloquently guaranteed with so much flourish in the Constitution. These rights would be absolutely nullified if a President can be coaxed, persuaded, on the advice of a Minister to act in an unconstitutional manner. I submit that this is an effect which is undesirable and,perhaps, not intended. I, therefore, seek the elimination of even any possibility of any question as to the unconstitutionality of an act of the President being in anyway shut out. At any rate I seek clarification. I think that the rights of the citizens should be protected from this sort of encroachment under the last few lines.

Mr. Vice-President: Amendment No. 1312. Mr. Mohd. Tahirand Saiyid Jafar Imam, do you want this amendment to be put to vote?

Saiyid Jafar Imam (Bihar: Muslim): Yes.

(Amendment No. 1313 was not moved.)

Mr. Vice-President: Amendments Nos. 1314, 1315, 1316,1317, 1319 and 1320 are all of similar import. No. 1315 seems to be the most comprehensive and may be moved. It stands in the name of Shri Damodar Swarup Seth.

(Amendment No. 1315 was not moved.)

Amendment No. 1314, standing in the name of Shri Kesava Rao may be moved.

(Amendment No. 1315 was not moved.)

Amendment No. 1316, standing in the names of Mr.Mohamed Ismail and Mr. Pocker Sahib, may be moved.

B. Pocker Sahib Bahadur (Madras: Muslim): Sir, I beg to move:

"That for clause (2) of article 62, the following be substituted:--

`(2) The ministers shall bold office so long as they enjoy the confidence of the House of the People.' "

Sir, I may at the outset say that this amendment has no communal character, and there is no political motive behind it. I have to make this statement in view of my past experience. What this amendment asks for is only to put inwriting in the Constitution what is admitted to be the convention. No doubt, the convention prevails, that the Ministers shall hold office only so long as they enjoy the confidence of the House of the People. So long as the Ministers enjoy the confidence of the House of the People,certainly they will not be dismissed by the President. Butas a matter of practice, it is not a fact to say that the Ministers hold office during the pleasure of the President.It is really a fiction to say that the Ministers hold office during the pleasure of the President. It is not so, as a matter of fact. No doubt, the convention prevails in Great Britain and some other countries. But when we are providing for the country a written Constitution, I do not see any reason why we should hang on to the conventions that obtainin other parts of the world. Even when we have got an opportunity to put down everything clearly in the Constitution, should we be left to quote the precedents of the United Kingdom or the United States? There is absolutely no harm in putting on paper, in the Constitution, the actualstate of affairs, namely, that the ministers shall hold office so long as they enjoy the confidence of the people. I am saying this in anticipation of the only possible objection to this amendment, viz., that it is a convention that obtains in the rest of the world and therefore it is not necessary to put it down in writing in the Constitution. As a matter of fact, I feel myself at a disadvantage on account of the procedure that is

being followed; under this procedure one is not in a position to know what the real objection to an amendment is until the Honourable Dr. Ambedkar gets up and states his objection. He has the last word on the subject. There is no opportunity for the Moveror any of the other members of the House to deal with the objections or tell the House whether the objections are valid or not. I am not in the least questioning the procedure. I simply state what the procedure followed is.Therefore I am driven to the necessity of anticipating what possible objection there can be to an innocent amendment like this.

From what was mentioned by the Honourable Shri K.Santhanam in connection with the discussion of article 61, Igather that this will be the possible objection, namely that this is a convention that obtains elsewhere and therefore it will be difficult to put it down on paper and it is also unnecessary. To this anticipated objection I submit that we should not continue to be slavish here after too, when we have obtained our freedom. No doubt until now we have been slavishly following the convention or procedure adopted in Great Britain and in other parts of the British Common wealth. But, having obtained freedom to do what we feel to be for the best for our country, why should we not put down our ideas in the Constitution itself? I see no reason why we should again be hanging on even here after to precedents and conventions obtaining else where and not put down what we desire to be the law in our Constitution? The conventions referred to in other countries are there because of the fact that they have unwritten Constitutions. At least so far as these aspects are concerned, why should we leave them in an unspecified manner to be fought out in the Supreme Court? There is no necessity for that when we have an opportunity to put these down in the Constitution now.Why cannot we state this clearly? Where is the harm or danger in doing so, I cannot understand.

Sir, as I said. I have anticipated the possible objection to my amendment and I say that is on objection at all. On the other hand, we must put down in writing clearly what the convention is.

Now, Sir. I also heartily support the amendment moved by my honourable Friend Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad for the deletion of the latter part of the amendment moved by the Honourable Dr. Ambedkar. Mr. Naziruddin's amendment is to omit the words "but the validity of anything done by the President shall not be called in question on the ground that it was done otherwise than in accordance with such instructions". Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad's amendment only seeks to delete what is attempted to be taken away from that which is given by the first part of the amendment of the Honourable Dr. Ambedkar. If the latter part of the amendment of Dr. Ambedkar is not there, it will mean something.Otherwise his amendment would only be a paper amendment and a pious wish without any substance in it and helpful to nobody. Therefore I heartily support the amendment of Mr.Naziruddin Ahmad.

Now, Sir, so far as my amendment is concerned, before resuming my seat, I would only mention this: that as I have already said, I am driven to the necessity of anticipating the possible objections to it and reply there to. Another possible objection that I can think of to my amendment is,according to the experience I have gained in the discussionon other clauses, that the amendment, is communal. To that I say that this amendment is entirely non-communal and non-political and there is no other motive behind it. It affects only the constitutional aspect of the problem. Only it happens to be moved by a member who is a Muslim. I say this,Sir, because yesterday I was surprised to find that Dr.Ambedkar, in his reply to an amendment moved by Mr. K. T. M . Ahmed Shah pointed out to the House that it must be remembered that the amendments are moved and supported only by Muslims. I ask, Sir, whether an amendment or the reason behind it loses any force by the fact that the Mover is a Muslim or a Christian or a member of the Scheduled Castes or

of other minority communities? I am very sorry to find that, while Dr. Ambedkar is doing very great service to the country in having undertaken this most difficult task at so much sacrifice of pushing through the Constitution, I never expected that he of all people would resort to such reasoning.

Mr. Vice-President: Please confine yourself to your amendment. You are going out of your way.

B. Pocker Sahib Bahadur: Sir, I do not want...

Mr. Vice-President: Kindly carry out my suggestion.

B. Pocker Sahib Bahadur: I am carrying out your suggestion. I want to say I am only appealing to the House that, in considering the validity or the propriety of this amendment, the fact that the Mover is a Muslim should not be taken into consideration. Sir, I am entitled to say that in view of what has happened with reference to the other amendments moved by some Muslim members.......

Mr. Vice-President: You need not dilate upon it.

B. Pocker Sahib Bahadur: That is right, Sir. I entirely agree. I only wanted to make that point clear; that is all.I only wished to mention that the discussion in this House should be kept at a higher level than what it would be if such kind of reasoning is adopted for opposing amendments of members of minority communities.

Mr. Mohamed Ismail Sahib (Madras: Muslim): On a point of information, Sir, may I know whether, in view of the fact that the movers of amendments have not got the right to reply and particularly in view of the fact that certain serious statements have been made by some members and also personal reflections have been cast on members, they cannot reply to them when there is an opportunity of doing so; more particularly when they have a legitimate opportunity to reply to the reflections and unjustified and unwarranted statements that were made in the House. In all legislative proceedings, the mover of a serious amendment, a substantive amendment, has got the right to reply at the end, but you have ruled, Sir, to the contrary, to which we submit. However, have we not got the right to reply to the statements made, when there is an opportunity and that too an opportunity which does not take the Member out of his way?

Mr. Vice-President: I certainly shall not hinder any member from replying to unjustifiable reflections. On that I am perfectly clear in my mind. At the same time I must use my powers in order to persuade members when they make such reply to use language which may not provoke irritation. it is this that was responsible for the request I made to Pocker Sahib. I think you will agree that this is the best way of proceeding with our work without unnecessary friction.

Mr. Mohamed Ismail Sahib: I quite appreciate and agree to the advice you have given, Sir, that members should not use any provocative language. That advice of yours, I hope,is addressed to all sections of the House.

Mr. Vice-President: Has the Chair ever been guilty of saying anything which is meant for one section of the House only? I do not think that has ever been the case.

Mr. Mohamed Ismail Sahib: That is what I wanted you to emphasise, Sir. This interruption of mine has been occasioned by certain provocative statements that have been made. They were quite unwarranted. Therefore I am grateful to you for saying that this advice of yours is meant not to one section but to all sections of the House. I beg your pardon for interrupting.

Mr. Vice-President: Pocker Sahib, please continue.

B. Pocker Sahib Bahadur: Sir, I would respectfully follow your advice. I do not want to make either any provocative statements or to dilate more upon the topic. I have already mentioned what I wanted to mention, viz., the fact that a particular member belongs to a particular community ought not to be a ground for stating that aparticular argument has no value or should not hold water,as it proceeds from a member of a particular community. Isay this particularly for the reason that it is the duty of each and every member of this House to keep the debate on a high level and we should never go down to a low

level to which we will be driven if such statements are resorted to.I do not want to pursue this matter further. Sir, I move this amendment and leave it to the House to consider the same without any reference to the question that it is a Muslim who has moved it.

(Amendment No. 1317 was not moved.)

Mr. Vice-President: Amendment No. 1319. Prof. Shah, do you want it to be put to vote?

Prof. K. T. Shah (Bihar: General): Yes, Sir.

Mr. Vice-President: There is an amendment to thisamendment. I allow that to be moved. No. 48 of List IV.

Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad: I desire that this also should be put to the vote.

Mr. Vice-President: Amendment No. 1320 standing in thenames of Mr. Tahir and Mr. Jafar Imam. Do you want it to be put to vote?

Mr. Mohd. Tahir (Bihar: Muslim): Yes, Sir.

Mr. Vice-President: There is an amendment to this. No.49 of List IV.

Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad: I desire that this also should be put to the vote.

(Amendments Nos. 1318 and 1321 were not moved.)

Mr. Vice-President: Amendment No. 1322 standing in the name of Mr. Mihir Lal Chattopadhyay.

Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad: On a point of order, Sir. This isa good amendment, but it is purely verbal.

Mr. Vice-President: It is a good amendment, though it is verbal. Therefore it is allowed.

Shri Mihir Lal Chattopadhyay (West Bengal: General):Mr. Vice-President, Sir, I move:

"That in clause (3) of article 62, after the word`Council', the words `of Ministers' be inserted.

Obviously, this is a simple amendment but I consider it to be very necessary. The word `Council' has been used in the body of the Draft Constitution in different places to express different meanings. It is desirable that in this clause nothing should be left vague and uncertain. It should be precise and definite. I hope Dr. Ambedkar and the House will have no difficulty in accepting this.

(Amendments Nos. 1323 and 1324 were not moved.)

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

"That for clause (5) of article 62 the following be substituted:

`(5) A minister shall at the time of his appointment as such, be a member of the ParlI ament.' "

Before I submit a few words regarding my amendment I would draw the attention of the House to the existing clause of the article. Clause (5) says:

A minister who for any period of six consecutive months is not a member of either House of ParlI ament shall at the expiration of that period cease to be a minister."

This shows that even if a person is not a member of the ParlI ament he can be appointed as a minister. In this connection I would submit that it is wholly against the spirit of democracy that a person who has not been chosen by the people of the country should be appointed as a minister.When the ParlI ament is constituted it is evident that it will be a House consisting of more than 300 members and they will all be members elected by the people of the country and there is no reason why an outsider who is not a member of the ParlI ament should be appointed as a minister. It cannot be imagined that out of a total of 300 or 400 members of the ParlI ament the President or the Leader of the party will not be able to find out a suitable person to be taken into the ministry and hence he will be forced to choose a minister who is not a member of the ParlI ament. I think that it goes against the spirit of democracy; rather it cuts at the very root of democracy not to choose a minister from out of the members of the ParlI ament chosen by the people of the country. Therefore I submit that this clause should be replaced by my amendment.

After this I want to say a few words regarding the amendment which has been proposed by my honourable Friend Dr. Ambedkar, viz., No. 1329. On this matter I have also given notice of an amendment, No. 1312, which reads:

"In choosing his Ministers the President shall be generally guided by the instruction set out in Schedule4(A)."

Now my friend has brought up a similar amendment, though notexactly the same thing, and has selected the Schedule to be3(A). I would point out that Schedule 3(A)

is not the properplace nor should this schedule be numbered as Schedule 3(A),because in the existing schedules we find that Schedule 4gives the instructions to the Governors and Schedule 3 isthe form of declaration. Therefore I submit that if anyproper place is to be given to this schedule it can only beeither Schedule 4 or 4(A). It cannot be given a place asSchedule 3(A). Besides this, in the amendment proposed by myhonourable Friend the last portion, viz., "but the validityof anything done by the President shall not be called inquestion on the ground that it was done otherwise than inaccordance with such instructions", is in fact the negationof the instruction that has been given to the President. The spirit of this schedule is that in choosing the ministers the President should have regard togiving proper representation to the minorities in theMinistry. The instruction as has been laid down by myhonourable Friend Dr. Ambedkar gives me to understand that the idea that proper representation should be given to theminorities in the Ministry cannot be met if this portion ismaintained in the amendment. In fact, my honourable Friendhas been very generous here to give discretionary power to the President, whereas in his speech yesterday he was clearto the House that no discretionary power should be given to the President and the House had adopted it. By thisamendment, in other words, he has given some discretionarypower to the President. My submission would be that theInstrument of Instructions to the President should be verysimple and clear as has been laid down in my amendment and Ihope my honourable Friend Dr. Ambedkar will consider it andbe pleased to amend his amendment accordingly, so that theInstrument of Instructions may stand very simple and clear.

Prof. K. T. Shah: Sir, I beg to move:

"That in clause (5) of article 62, for the words `forany period of six consecutive months, is' the words `afterhis appointment, is for any period of six consecutivemonths' be substituted."

The amended clause would then read:

"A minister, who after his appointment is for anyperiod of six consecutive months not a member of eitherHouse of ParlI ament shall at the expiration of that periodcease to be a minister."

This I take it must have been the intention. If for anyconsecutive period of six months, whether on account of hisgoing abroad or doing other work which prevents him frombeing a member of the House, he is to be disqualified orthat he should cease to be a minister, I think it could nothave been the intention. What the intention of this clausemust have been is that if a Minister is, after hisappointment as Minister, not a member for six consecutivemonths, whether as originally not elected, or has not beenable to find subsequently election to the House, he shouldcease to be a member. This, Sir, is merely a consequence of the principle of collective responsibility of a Minister,which requires every Minister to be a member of one or theother House of ParlI ament. As such I do not think it isnecessary to present any elaborate case in support of thisamendment. I commend it to the House.

Mr. Vice-President: There is an amendment to thisamendment, No. 71 of list V standing in the name of Mr.Krishnamachari. Does he move it?

Shri T. T. Krishnamachari (Madras: General): Mr. Vice-President, Sir, I beg to move:

"That in amendment No. 1326 of the List of Amendmentsfor the word `after' (in the words proposed to besubstituted), the words `from the date of' be substituted."

If this amendment is accepted, it will read: "from thedate of his appointment, is for any period of sixconsecutive months" and so on. This is a very minoramendment. It makes the meaning very precise and indicatesfrom when the six months will operate. I trust the Housewill accept it.

Shri H. V. Kamath (C. P. and Berar: General): May Isuggest to my Friend Mr. Krishnamachari that consistentlywith the import and meaning of his amendment the word "any"should be substituted by the word "a". The word "any" makesno sense in this context.

Shri T. T.

Krishnamachari: Personally I have noobjection, though I do not think it will make any materialdifference.

(Amendment No. 1327 was not moved.)

Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena (United Provinces: General):Sir, I beg to move:

"That in clause (5) of article 62, for the words`either House of ParlI ament' the words `House of the People'be substituted."

This has been further amended by my amendment to thisamendment No. 72 of list V. I beg to move:

"That for amendment No. 1328 of the List of Amendmentsthe following be substituted:

`That in clause (5) of article 62, for the words "isnot a member" the words "is not an elected member" besubstituted.' "

This is an amendment of a fundamental character. We have provided in the Constitution for nomination of twelvemembers to the Council of States. There will be twelvemembers who are nominated in that Council and in the LowerHouse Anglo-Indians will also be nominated. According tothis clause (5) as it stands, members who have not beenreturned by the electorate shall be able to be permanentMinisters of the Government. This is altogether against alldemocratic methods. Formerly, I had desired that onlymembers of the Lower House who were elected by the GeneralElectorate should be eligible to be appointed as Ministersbut after seeing the opinion of many Members I thought thatmy amendment should not be so extreme, but I do feel thatunless everybody who is a Minister has got the confidence of the electorate, he should not be appointed as one. Itherefore want that instead of "is not a member" it shouldbe "is not an elected member". You may remember, formerly,when we were discussing the election of the President, weprovided that only elected members should be entitled tovote. Now, if members nominated are not fit to vote at thePresidential election, if we do not credit them with thatmuch responsibility, surely to be a Minister of theGovernment of India is a far more responsible office. Thesame will be the case about any Cabinet in any province.Therefore, if nominated members are not fit to vote for thePresident's election they are also not fit to be appointedMinisters of any Government. Every Minister who is a memberof a Cabinet must seek open election and if he is returned,only then he should be appointed a Minister. Otherwise, whatwill happen is this. In many provinces we shall have UpperChambers, and there too there will be nominated members andif these nominated members may become Ministers I am sure anoccasion might arise when the whole Council Ministers iscomposed of nominated members excepting perhaps the PrimeMinister. That will be a very extraordinary situationindeed. It would be a complete negation of democracy.Therefore I want this question to be properly understood.Probably, this was the purpose of my honourable Friend Dr.Ambedkar and what he meant was that if a Minister does notbecome a member of either House within six months, he ceasesto be a Minister. By this, he surely meant that he should beelected and I would very much welcome it from him if that ishis purpose, and I expect he will accept my amendment. Ihope in this way he will see that Government is absolvedfrom the charge that in our Constitution there could beCabinets where except the Prime Minister all the Ministersare nominated. Especially in the State legislatures, as atpresent provided about two-thirds of the members in theUpper Chamber shall be nominated and if any Prime Ministerthinks of nominating only those members, then the wholeCabinet will become a sort of nominated Cabinet and thatsurely is utterly against democratic principles. Similarly,in the Central ParlI ament also, the twelve members whom thePresident may nominate may be persons the majority of whommay be appointed to the Cabinet. It may be that such a thingmay not arise, but it is quite possible and we should seethat no Prime Minister is able to allow his power to be somisused. I therefore think that the addition of the word"elected member" would make the whole thing perfectly right.I hope Dr. Ambedkar will accept this amendment. Sir, I move.

(Amendments Nos. 1330 and 1331 were not moved.)

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

"That after clause (6) of article 62, the following newclause be inserted:

`(7) Every Minister shall, before he enters upon thefunctions and responsibilities of his office, make adeclaration and take steps in regard to any right, title,corresponding to those provided in this Constitution for thePresident and Vice-President, and shall take an oath--ormake a solemn declaration--in the presence of the Presidentand of his colleagues in the following form.' "

Sir, I see that the form is not printed here. I do notknow whether it was some separate slip that I had givenwhich is left out or forgotten or has been lost, but theoath actually suggested has not been printed. I hope, Sir,that would not be an objection.

Mr. Vice-President: That will not be an objection. Atthe same time, I have to make it clear that the form has notbeen received by the office.

Prof. K. T. Shah: I may have forgotten. I am notblaming the office. The form is one which I have read on theformer occasion, Sir, I have not got that paper here, but Ican say from memory.

Mr. Vice-President: You may proceed with your speech.

Prof. K. T. Shah: This, Sir, is an amendment which inprinciple I have been pressing for from a variety of angles,whether as regards the President or the Minister or thePrime Minister. It was to me a very painful and surprisingphenomenon that yesterday, when one of the most satisfactoryreasoned replies was given to one of my amendments by theChairman of the Drafting Committee, this particular pointwas not answered; I do not know, whether it remainedunanswered by oversight, or by deliberate omission. I hadtaken care to remind him that he had assured me, or at anyrate, he had made a sort of promise when discussing asimilar matter in regard to the President that when or ifthe matter occurred in connection with the Ministers, whohad the real effective executive power under thisConstitution, he might consider it. I say, Sir, it wasextremely surprising that such a careful, painstakingchampion of the Draft should have, notwithstanding a pointedreminder, chosen to remain altogether silent and the silencewas still more intriguing, when one of the honourableMembers actually asked whether there was any answer to thatparticular point. It seems either that the Honourable theChairman of the Drafting Committee has no answer or does notwish to answer, or has made a promise which is soembarrassing that he does not wish now to be even remindedof it.

Whatever it may be, Sir, I beg to place before thisHouse that even in the Press that particular item seems tohave been completely overlooked, whether it was by oversightjust as the form is not printed here,--my mistake ofcourse,--or for any reason, one particular most essentialitem that in my opinion would guarantee a purity, anhonesty, an honourableness in the working of our Governmentseems to be killed by a strange conspiracy of silence. Itrust that this is a matter, at least when we are dealingwith the Ministers, that the draftsman will take note. It isnot a matter of changing a comma or a semi-colon; it is nota matter of substituting ministers for Council of Ministers;it is a matter, Sir, which goes to the very foundation of the actual working of the governmental machinery; and, assuch, Sir, I hope that those who have it in their power tomould, form, and shape this Constitution, to put it into aproper wording, and to give it a sound working character,will appreciate the desire with which the principle isplaced before them from one angle and another, with a viewto make them realise that we do stand in need of some suchprovision in our Constitution.

I was advised, Sir, yesterday from a high authority,that if I had not taken upon myself this unnecessary task ofputting forward amendments to every clause, and if I hadconcentrated myself on a few principles, I might have provedmore useful. Sir, I do not measure the usefulness of my amendments by the number of them which are carried. I

measure theusefulness of my amendments merely by the degree of thoughtand interest or opposition I provoke; and, as such, I feelperfectly satisfied, whether or not they are accepted, ifthe honourable Members, including Ministers of theGovernment of India, are given furiously to think in thematter; and have to reply specifically to points of thatcharacter. Here, however, Sir, is a case in which I seem tohave, whether consciously or unconsciously, accepted andacted upto such an honourable and exalted advice; and appearto have concentrated myself on this principle. On this I have been labouring time and again, from one angle andanother. And yet what is the fate? Failure, of course, topersuade the drafting and piloting block to see eye to eyewith me. There is no possibility of an effective reply.There is no gainsaying the desirability of the points I ammaking. And yet not only do I get no reply; the very point Iurged is suppressed or blacked out even in the press. Andthis conspiracy of silence, to say the least, is amazing. Itrust on this occasion the silence will be broken; I truston this occasion I will be given, what has been called "acrushing reply". And I trust this time, at any rate, thereply will be so crushing that I will cease to put forward,at least to this House, this kind of amendment.

Mr. Vice-President: There is an amendment to thisamendment. It is No. 51 of List No. IV and stands in thename of Mr. H. V. Kamath.

Shri H. V. Kamath: Sir, I move:--

That for amendment No. 1332 just moved by my honourableFriend, Prof. K. T. Shah, the following be substituted:--

"That after clause (6) of article 62, the following newclause be inserted:

`(7) Every minister including the Prime Minister shall,before he enters upon his office, make a full disclosure toParlI ament of any interest, right, share property or titlehe may have in any enterprise, business or trade, directlyowned or controlled by the State, or which is in any wayaided, protected or subsidised by the State; and ParlI amentmay deal with the matter in such manner as it may, in the circumstances, deem necessary or appropriate.'"

My amendment, Sir, does not go as far my honourableFriend, Prof. K. T. Shah's goes. I only seek through thisamendment that a minister before he enters upon his officeshall disclose to ParlI ament whatever share, interest ortitle he may have in any business or enterprise that may beowned, controlled or subsidised by Government and I leave itto ParlI ament to deal with the matter as best as it can. Itmay call upon him to sell it to Government; ParlI ament maycall upon him to make it over to be administered in trustfor him or the Reserve Bank may hold it in safe trust. Ileave it to ParlI ament as our sovereign legislature todecide the best course that may be adopted in the circumstances for dealing with this particular matter.

I would, by your leave, Sir, like to read from theFactory Act, to which I referred in a previous occasion, theAct which we passed during the last session of the legislative Assembly. There is a section, Section 8 in thisFactory Act, of 1948, which provides for the appointment ofFactory Inspectors and one clause of this section is to theeffect:--

"No person shall be appointed as Factory Inspector orhaving been so appointed shall continue to hold office, whois or becomes directly or indirectly interested in thefactory or in any process or business carried on therein, orin any patent or machinery connected therewith."

Sir, there is another section, Section 10, providingfor the appointment of Factory Doctors, Certifying Surgeons.That also provides that:

"Certifying Surgeon. No person shall to be appointed tobe or authorised to exercise the powers of a CertifyingSurgeon, or having been so appointed or authorised, continueto exercise such powers, who is or becomes an occupier of afactory or is or becomes directly or indirectly interestedtherein or in any process or business carried on therein orin any patent or machinery connected therewith or isotherwise in the employ of the factory."

Now, it is

obvious, it is plain as a pikestaff, that the relationship of a Minister of State is far moreintimate, is fraught with far greater possibilities for goodor for evil than the relationship of a Factory Inspector orCertifying Surgeon to his particular factory or anyconnected business. What is sauce for the goose must besauce for the gander as well. If this principle is appliedon a larger scale, I do not see why this principle laid downfor the Factory Inspector and Certifying Surgeon in theFactories Act should not be applied to Ministers of State.

You will permit, me, Sir, to remind the House of whatDr. Ambedkar told us a couple of days ago when replying to the debate on Article 47. I hope I have his leave as well toremind the House and remind him too about the words he usedwhen replying to that debate. Referring to an amendmentregarding a similar provision for the President to declareto ParlI ament and to divest himself of all right, interest,share or title in any business or enterprise owned orcontrolled, subsidised or aided by the State, Dr. Ambedkarsaid, "If at all such a provision is necessary, it should bewith regard to the Prime Minister and the other Ministers ofState, because, it is they who are in complete control of the administration of the State, If any person under theGovernment of India has any opportunity of aggrandisinghimself, it is either the Prime Minister or the Ministers ofState and such a provision,--mark his words--such aprovision ought to have been made--he did not say may bemade, he said `ought to have been' imposed--on their tenureand not on the President." I hope Dr. Ambedkar will reply tothis particular amendment after great consideration and indetail and I hope he will not find a way out of the tanglethat might have been caused by the words, by the languagethat he employed on a previous occasion. I hope he willstick to the views which he expressed only a couple of daysago, not a year or two ago; and I hope during these twodays, he has not been prevailed upon, or he has not had theoccasion or opportunity, or has not been persuaded to changehis views in the matter. After reminding the House and Dr.Ambedkar about what he himself said a couple of days ago, Ido not think there is anything more for me to say, but thatDr. Ambedkar will not hesitate to uphold his own view, not avery ancient view, but a very recent view and will see hisway to accept this amendment.

(Amendment Nos. 1333, and 1334 and 1335 were not moved.)

Mr. Vice-President: The article is now open for generaldiscussion.

It is suggested that the next two amendments Nos. 1336and 1337 also deal with similar matters and may be taken uphere. Prof. Shah, will you please move your amendment No.1336?

Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad: That is a new article.

Prof. K. T. Shah: It is a new article; it is not anamendment.

Mr. Vice-President: Just as you please.

Prof. K. T. Shah: I am in your hands. If you ask me tomove it now, I shall do so.

Mr. Vice-President: I thought the general discussionmay take place together. Today, as honourable Members areaware, we have to adjourn the House at 1 p.m. in order toafford facilities to our Muslim brethren to the Jummaprayers. If there is no objection, I would like Prof. K. T.Shah to move his amendment now.

Shri Amiyo Kumar Ghosh (Bihar: General): Sir, this is anew article. We may dispose of article 62 first, and thentake up this new article.

Mr. Vice-President: Suppose we forget the niceties oflaw for one occasion.

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

"That after article 62, the following new article beinserted:

`62-A. No one shall be elected or appointed to anypublic office including that of the President, Governor,Minister of the Union or of any State of the Union, Judge of the Supreme Court or of any High Court in any State in theUnion, who--

(a) is not able to read or write this express in the English language; or

(b) within ten years from the day when this Constitution comes into operation, is not able to read or write or express himself in the

National language;

(c) or who has been found guilty at any time before such election or appointment of any offence against the safety, security or integrity of the Union; or

(d) of any offence involving moral turpitude and making him liable on conviction to a maximum punishment of two years imprisonment;

(e) or who has not, prior to such election or appointment, served in some public body, or done some form of social work, or otherwise proved his fitness, capacity and suitability for such election or appointment as may be laid down by ParlI ament by law in that behalf.'"

Sir, these are some of the points which, in my opinion,should be positively fulfilled; or they should negativelyact as disqualification for any person to hold such exaltedoffices as that of the President, Minister, Governor, Judgeand so on.

The points that I am making may seem at first sight tobe so obvious that it may appear somewhat improper to putthem in the Constitution. I am free to admit, however, that,for instance, the first item in my amendment seems to be ofthat category, namely ability to read or write and expresshimself in the English language. At the present time, Sir,however, constituted as we are, and with the absence of anational language of our own, it is important that membersshould be able to exchange, in some sort of a common mediumof intercourse, their ideas on crucial matters in the Constitution or in any piece of legislation, or otherlegislative work that may come before ParlI ament hereafter.Judging from that point of view, and without wanting toprovide that English should for ever continue to be themedium of intercourse of this country, or over this Sub-Continent, I think it but right to require that, unlesspersons who choose to be or who are elected to be members ofeither House of ParlI ament, are able to express themselvesin some common language that others of their fellows mayunderstand, it would be improper, it would be against theinterest of the country to do so.

Opinion, Sir, I quite realize, may differ on thissubject, honestly differ, perhaps very hotly differ. But Isubmit, Sir, that very often we are all familiar with thephenomenon in this House of speeches delivered in onelanguage which fall absolutely meaningless upon the ears orminds of other Members of this House. It is but fair notonly to those Members who cannot follow the language, but it is also in fairness to the speakers themselves, that, Isubmit, some common medium of expression should be used, sothat everybody should be in a position to follow and dojustice to the remarks. I at least do not think that anyMember of this House is intended merely to raise his hands.I do believe that every member intelligently and carefullyfollows all that is said: and, as such, it would be a lossto the House if anything said in this House is not, for merelack of following the language or understanding the idiom inwhich some idea is expressed, it should be lost upon anysection of the House. It is for this reason, Sir, that Imake this provision in the Constitution, at least for tenyears to come.

In the next clause I require a similar provision to bemade for the national language. I am equally strong on thesubject that once we have got over this initial hurdle, oncewe have been able to fix upon a national language, within the given period of ten years--and I think that period issufficiently long for this purpose,--every member should beexpected to know, or be able to read and write and express himself in the national language. Onceagain, the basic are is the same in this case as in theformer, viz., that people should be able to expressthemselves in some common medium of speech that isunderstood by all their fellow members. It must therefore bemade a categorical requirement that, not only we must have aNational Language which is, so to say, a statutory provisionmore often broken than observed, but it should be a livingforce, so that in this House or its successor, or in theParlI ament, we should be able to exchange in our ownlanguage all the thoughts, in all the

fineness andtechnicality that such legal documents require. I think,therefore, that no further argument is necessary to supportthe provision of such a positive qualification from thosewho aspire to hold high offices in the country that I haveenumerated or described in my amendment in the firstgoverning clause.

As regards the clause with reference to moralcleanliness of those who aspire to such offices that, again,is almost self-evident and I trust there can be and will beno opposition to accept such a provision as this. I fearthat if we take things for granted, as it might be urgedthat in a case like this it must be taken for granted, wemay land ourselves into difficulties, or embarrassments, toput it mildly, which it might be as well for us to avoidfrom the beginning.

Here, again, is may I say, Sir, another of thosefundamental principles on which I seem to have concentratedmyself as I was advised the other day on high authority, butto no avail, at least as regards some people who areotherwise convinced.

Finally, Sir, I insist upon the qualification thatthose who aspire to be members of such legislature, or tohold such high offices, must themselves have some positivequalification. I am not just now thinking of purelyacademical qualifications. I am thinking of those moremature, deeper, fuller indices or measures ofqualifications, which might be provided by constructivework, or social service, or some other work that is muchmore tangible evidence of fitness and suitability of suchpeople for the posts, than mere academical qualifications.Those latter are very often the work merely of a good memoryrather than of a good character, or a good general outlookon the part of the person concerned, not a means or index ofjudging his real, objective fitness for suchresponsibilities. The criteria--or indices--I am suggestingwill provide better, more reliable means of judging thesuitability of particular individuals for the posts theyaspire to, or which they may be asked to fill.

With these words, Sir, I commend this motion to the House.

Mr. Vice-President: There are two amendments to thisamendment. One is No. 52 of List IV in the name of Mr.Naziruddin Ahmad.

Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad: Mr. Vice-President, Sir, I beg tomove:

"That in amendment No. 1336 of the List of Amendments,in the proposed new article 62-A the words `Judge of theSupreme Court or of any State in the Union' be deleted."

Sir, the proposed new article 62-A is of a verycomprehensive character. In fact through this amendmentProf. Shah, with his characteristic thoroughness, has soughtto introduce certain conditions as to public servants andspecially Ministers, Presidents and even Judges of the HighCourt and of the Supreme Court. The test he would lay downfor them are (a) that they must be able to read and writeand express themselves in the English language; then perhapsalternatively, (b) they must know the national language, and(c) and (d) that they must not have been found guilty of anyoffence and (e) they must be of proved fitness.

Sir, with regard to the idea behind this amendment, I have nothing to say, I also support the idea. But I doconsider that the Judges of the High Court and of the Supreme court should be outside these tests-notthat I desire that they should be illiterate or be incapableof expressing themselves in English or in the nationallanguage, or that they should have been connected ofoffences involving moral turpitude or that they need nothave any provable fitness-far from it. But I do submit thatin this very Draft Constitution itself we have providedcertain standards by which the Judges of the High court andof the Supreme Court are to be appointed. In clause (2) ofarticle 193 we have clearly provided that a person can beappointed a Judge of the High Court only if he has been ajudicial officer or an Advocate of a certain standing, andunder clause (3) of article 103, no person can be appointeda Judge of the Supreme Court unless he has been a Judge of the High Court or an Advocate for a period. I believe thatAdvocates are at least expected to

be, for any length oftime that we can now foresee, literate or be capable ofexpressing themselves in English. At present we have agalaxy of lawyers in the House-Dr. Ambedkar, Mr. K. M.Munshi, Mr. Ananthasayanam Ayyangar and a lot of others,Alladi Krishnaswamy Ayyar (A voice: And yourself) of coursemy humble self. There are a lot of Advocates in the countryand I believe that they will, at least for a long time tocome, be literate.

It could perhaps be safely assumed that, with thespread of compulsory primary education, lawyers would beliterate, and if one is not literate, he cannot be a lawyer.To be a lawyer and also an Advocate, one has to pass certaintests in literacy and commonsense. So that if one is notliterate he could not be an Advocate and so he could not beappointed a Judge of a High Court and he could not also beappointed Judge of the Supreme Court.

Then with regard to expressing themselves in thenational language, I think if and when English is to bediscarded, Advocates and Judges must necessarily possess theminimum literacy qualifications which are required of themand they ought to be able to express themselves in thenational language. With in a foreseeable period of time, anAdvocate, a Judge of the High Court or of the Supreme Courtmust necessarily be able to express themselves in theEnglish language, so long as it is current, and thereafter,of course, in the national language.

I also believe that no person who is guilty of anyoffence involving moral turpitude can be appointed Judge ofa High Court or of the Supreme Court. He would initiallycease to be an Advocate and therefore cannot be appointed aJudge. A provision like this for Judges is thereforeabsolutely unnecessary, though we are indebted to theindefatigable labours of Mr. Kamath who disclosed hereyesterday, that a Minister has been appointed in a certainarea who had a previous conviction relating to black-marketing. Although Ministers of this type may be appointed,Judges cannot possibly be so appointed. I devoutly hope thatwe should rather cease to be a free country than contemplateeven the possibility of Judges being appointed who haveprevious convictions for offences involving any moralturpitude or be illiterate.

Shri H. V. Kamath: Is my honourable Friend of the viewthat a person convicted of black-marketing may be appointeda Minister? I am astonished.

Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad: I did not express any personalview. I was careful to state that we were indebted to thelabours of Mr. Kamath himself for the discovery. In fact, itwas he who said yesterday that a Minister had been appointedat a certain place who had been convicted of an offenceinvolving moral turpitude relating to black-marketing. Sosuch an event is conceivable. Such considerations may beapplicable to a Minister but not to a Judge. I thereforesubmit that these words relating to Judges should bedeleted. In fact it would be highly insulting to the Judgesof the High Court and of the Supreme Court themselves to betold that no one should be appointed a Judge who had no literacy qualifications or who had previousconvictions. These words should therefore be deleted.

Mr. Vice-President: The next amendment to thisamendment is No. 73 in List V. But it is disallowed becauseit has previously been covered.

Then amendment No. 1337, standing in the name of Mr.Bharati.

(Amendment No. 1337 was not moved.)

Now, the article is open for general discussion. Mr.Sidhwa.

Shri R. K. Sidhwa (C. P. & Berar: General): Mr. Vice-President, Sir, this article has created a lot of discussionby way of amendments, particularly as regards clauses (1),(2) and (5). The rest of them are formal. Clause (1) relatesto the appointment of the Prime Minister by the Presidentand the former appointing his colleagues as other ministers.Several amendments have been moved which state that thePresident should call the person who enjoys the confidenceof the House and who could form a stable ministry. Sir, thisis really a very good suggestion undoubtedly and from ourpast experience we know that the Governors of some

provinceshave intentionally called, for their own convenience and for their own purpose, a person who did not enjoy the confidenceof the House, and who had hardly a following of a smallminority, to form a cabinet. We have got the instances ofBengal, of Assam, of Orissa, of Sind and of the Punjab. And these Governors created hell and created mischief byappointing a person who did not at all enjoy the confidenceof the House. And what was the other aspect of it? When aministry was thus formed under the 1935 Act, no sessioncould be called, until the next budget session came, once ina year. So the man enjoyed the benefits of his Ministry forfull one year, and then when the budget came, he hadconsolidated his position by offering various kinds ofbribes and jobs to members, and showed that he enjoyed theconfidence of the House. Of course, I do realise under thenew constitution, conditions have changed, and in theInstrument of Instructions it is stated that the PrimeMinister should be such and such who enjoys the confidenceof the House--that is in Schedule III A. I know that theSchedule also forms part of the Constitution. Therefore, Isay this is a good suggestion. Keeping in mind all that hashappened in the past, I support this motion, for this reasonthat our Governors and our Presidents will not beirresponsible persons. If a President were to call a personwho really did not enjoy the confidence of the House thatPresident would be subject to impeachment under theseclauses and the Prime Minister also to dismissal.

Sir, I know that in the past, requisitions were sent toa Governor to call a session of the legislature for thepurpose of a no-confidence in the ministry, but the Governordid not call such a session. But today the position is quitedifferent. If such a mistake is committed, the Presidentshall have to call for a session, otherwise he will besubject to many disqualifications that we have passed in thevarious articles. Therefore, fearing in my own mind the sameapprehensions that are in the minds of honourable Members,still I do not want to take that view which existed in thepast, and I support clause (1) as stated in the draftarticle.

The other important clause is No. (5) which states thata minister who, for any period of six consecutive months, isnot a member of either House of ParlI ament shall at theexpiration of that period cease to be a minister. Such aclause existed in the 1935 Act, and it has been borrowedfrom there. I wish that such a clause should not exist inour Constitution, for the simple reason that in our newlegislature there will be about five hundred members, and ifwe cannot secure a minister with technical or expertknowledge that may be necessary it would be a slur on the legislature if it does not contain a single person with therequisite expert knowledge. Apart from that, Sir, our wholeConstitution is based on the ParlI amentary system of GreatBritain and in

Great Britain elections are run on the party system. Therethey take care to see that persons who are likely to beMinisters, with special knowledge and who are experts, aregiven party tickets, and they see to it that thosecandidates are returned. We also shall be running, underthis Constitution, similar party elections, and care shouldbe taken to see that persons with special knowledge aregiven tickets to contest the seats. Sir, I do not understandwhy, except probably in the case of the Ministry of Law andthat of Finance, where knowledge of certain special subjectsis required, the other Ministers should have any specialexpert qualifications, except common-sense, practicalknowledge, ability, perseverance, strong will, tenacity ofpurpose and a pushing nature. These are the qualificationsthat a Minister should possess, rather than mere theoreticalknowledge. These are the qualifications the Ministers shouldpossess. A man with theoretical knowledge fails as we know,in practical politics. In my opinion a man with practicalknowledge is far superiro to one who possesses onlytheoretical knowledge. Sir, even assuming that we want aperson with theoretical

knowledge, I am sure that the partyrunning the elections will take care to see that such aperson is given a party ticket. Further I consider it a sluron the Legislature that we should have to go outside theranks of members for filling the post of a particularMinister. Such things have happened in the past. Buthereafter it will be unnecessary to have in the Cabinet, aswe have in the Legislatures, a combination of Members someof whom do not necessarily advocate the policy of the partyin power. I therefore feel that this matter should be reallyconsidered from that point of view. In the British Cabinet I have not seen anyone who is not a Member of ParlI ament istaken in the cabinet. Whatever may have happened in thepast, today this is the case. It may be argued that a non-Member would be in the Cabinet only for six months. I objectfor even one day an outsider to be a member of the cabinet.Why should we have for six months a non-Member who shouldhold office when we can find among Members suitable person?I therefore do contend that this clause should be deleted.

Now coming to the last amendment of my friend Prof.Shah, I may say it is a laudable one. There could be noobjection to it. But I do feel that he has given greatprominence to the English language by saying that the officeof Governor, President and Ministers should be given tothose persons in the first instance who know English andwho, within ten years, learn the national language. Myreaction to such a clause is that the President, theGovernors and the Ministers should be only those who knowboth English and the national language at the very outset.The term of office of these dignitaries is five years and we have passed a clause laying down that the Governor shall beelected once and only once more, that is to say for tenyears in all. If the Professor's amendment is accepted, itwill mean that by the time a President or Governor isexpected to learn the national language he would haveretired. Of course I do not think it is appropriate toinsert it in the Constitution. Even on merits, such aprovision would be defective in that it is the nationallanguage that should be given importance and not English. Wecannot, I agree, summarily reject the English language.Therefore we may provide that if a person does not know thenational language along with English he should not be deemedto be qualified to hold the office of President, Governor,etc.

As far as the other clauses are concerned, particularlythose relating to honesty, integrity, maximum punishment formoral turpitude and so on are concerned, I know that in the1935 Act such provisions exist. They may well find a placein the disqualification clause for those who contestelections. It is not enough to lay down these things for thebig offices only. No man who has been convicted or punishedfor moral turpitude would be chosen as a candidate forelection. From that point of view, while the other clauses of the amendments are commendable, I do feel, this has no placehere. This may find a place in the general disqualificationclause which we shall be providing in the case of theGovernors, the President and even the Ministers.

With these words I support the article except clause(5) for which I have stated that the Chairman of theDrafting Committee will again reconsider in view of mysuggestions. Unfortunately he was not present when Ipresented forceful arguments in support of my contention.Otherwise he would have certainly considered, this matter. Ihope he will bear in mind my point and agree that such aclause in a Free India Constitution should not exist. With these words I commend the article for acceptance.

Shri Mahavir Tyagi (United Provinces: General): Sir, Irise to oppose this amendment. There is somemisunderstanding in the minds of some of my friends here.They feel, as my friends Kazi Karimuddin, Mr. Pocker Sahiband others feel, that the Prime Minister and his Cabinet arethe representatives of the House. Politically speaking, andspeaking from the point of view of democracy, they are notliable to represent the House. No

Prime Minister representsthe House. The House is represented by the Chair here. It isonly the Chair through whom the House can express itself.The Prime Minister represents the majority party in the House and therefore the Prime Minister cannot be elected bythe whole House. Any person who is elected by the wholeHouse has to represent the whole House. So, if the PrimeMinister were to be elected by the whole House, then morallyhe would have to be responsible to the whole House. ThePrime Minister is not responsible to the whole House. He isresponsible only for the majority outside that has sent himhere. Though he keeps in view the views of the oppositeparty also, he cannot be elected by the whole House. If heis to be elected by the whole House, then his position asparty Leader will be gone altogether, because even those whohave cast their votes in the ballot against him will claimhim as their representative. Just as in the case of aconstituency which elects a Member, the member thus electedis expected to represent even the views of those who votedagainst him, the Prime Minister also, if the whole Housewere to elect him, would have to represent even the party inopposition. Such an election is against the principles of aparty-systemed democracy. He represents the general will of the masses outside, the vast bulk of the population who havevoted his party as the party of their choice. Though he, ofcourse, protects the minorities as a matter of duty yet hecontinues to represent the majority party only. The case of the President is quite different. He is elected by all theparties, which means by all the elected representatives of the people. He therefore acts as the guardian of all alike.As the head of the State, it is only through him that thegeneral will of the people is expressed. The ministersshould be made to invoke the general will. The Presidentcontains the biggest representation in him. Such a Presidentshall therefore have the right of appointing the Ministers.We have already clarified the issue by providing in the Constitution, further on, as Instrument of Instructions to the President that when he appoints the Ministers he willsee to it that they shall enjoy the confidence of the House.But the appointment should be made by the President becausehe is the only one person in whom the whole nation hasinvested its sovereignty and therefore the amendment of Mr.Pocker Sahib goes against the whole set up of democracy.

Then another amendment has been moved in which it issaid that the Ministers will hold office so long as theyenjoy the confidence of the House. In the Draft Constitutionthe position virtually comes to the same. The Ministers areappointed by the President and when that sole representativeof the people appoints the Ministers, it is only he who willdispense with their services if circumstances so demand. The House is always at liberty to pass a vote of confidence orno-confidence. A vote of no-confidence in the Cabinet passedby the House is always a recommendation to the President to see that the Ministry should go and another appointed in its place. Thispoint is further on enunciated in the Constitution. Itherefore oppose this amendment also.

Then there is the amendment of Prof. Shah in which hesays that Ministers should know the English language for tenyears, and Hindi after the next ten years. I happen to be ananarchist by faith so far as literacy is concerned. I do notbelieve in the present-day education. I am opposed to thenotion of literacy also, even though it has its own value.If I were a boy now, I would refuse to read and write. As itwas, I practically refused to read and write and hence I ama semi-literate. The majority in India are illiteratepersons. Why should they be denied their share in theadministration of the country? I wonder, why should literacybe considered as the supreme achievement of men. Why shouldit be made as the sole criterion for entrusting thegovernance of a country to a person, and why Art, Industrymechanics, Physique or Beauty be not chosen as a bettercriterion, Ranjit Singh was not

literate. Shivaji was notliterate. Akbar was not much of a literate. But all of themwere administering their states very well. I submit, Sir,that we should not attach too much importance to literacy. Iask Dr. Ambedkar, does he ever write? Probably he has gotwriters to write for him and readers to read to him. I donot see why Ministers need read and write. Whenever theywant to write anything, they can use typists. Neitherreading nor writing is necessary. What is necessary isinitiative, honesty, personality, integrity, intelligenceand sincerity. These are the qualifications that a manshould have to become a Minister. It is not literacy whichis important.

Shri H. V. Kamath: Does my redoubtable friend want tokeep India as illiterate as she is today?

The Honourable Dr. Ambedkar: Have you any conscientiousobjection against literacy?

Shri Mahavir Tyagi: No, Sir.

Shri B. H. Khandekar (Kolhapur): I wish to raise mysmall voice in support of the lone and indefatigablefighter, Prof. K. T. Shah. I am here to support particularlyhis amendment No. 1332. I want complete elimination of thepossibility of corruption as far as the Ministers areconcerned. I differ from him in the case of the President. Imake a very great distinction between the President and theMinisters for the following reasons: The President has noexecutive power. Sir, the President is the one, only one,the best and the highest citizen of the country. He is thedelight of crores of eyes and he is the balm of the people'sheart. It is not proper to have any suspicion with regard tothis real idol of the people. I am not being superstitiousat all. But the Ministers are on a different footing and arevery different persons. They have executive authority and they are too many comparatively. In this country, Sir, youknow that some men are very great but they are very few. Iremember having seen a cartoon the day before in one of theweeklies--I believe it is Shankar's--that now-a-days twopersons are always found doing all the work--PanditJawaharlal Nehru and Sardar Patel. One or two may be addedto this class but the rest are what I may call comparativelyvery ordinary persons.

Now, I wish honourable Members to revive their memoryof their college days and to think of a very great book onpolitical philosophy--the Republic of plato. Plato in tryingto give us an ideal state, makes it incumbent on theGovernors to have absolutely no personal interest in anyproperty. He goes even further and says that Governorsshould not have even families. We in this country talk a lotof idealism, of very high ideals, but when it comes toactual practice, it seems to me that we fall deplorably low.If it is impossible to carry out Plato's utopian ideas, at least we should go asfar as possible to approach the ideal. I would not have beenso suspicious but for the singular service rendered by myhonourable Friend Mr. Kamath in giving a particular example,a deplorable case, a scandalous case from a certain State inthis country where a person, although convicted forblackmarketing, became a Minister. That is really mostscandalous. It is not only in the States but also in theprovinces that there are so many rumours about widespreadcorruption. These might be rumours but you cannot have smokewithout fire: as the Sanskrit saying goes:

"Yatra yatra dhoomah

Tatra tatra wahnih."

When we talk of Gandhiji and bring his name every time,let us try to be in a small measure worthy of that great manand if I were to bring in an amendment to Prof. Shah'samendment at this late hour I would go so far as to say thatministers should not only make a declaration of theirinterests and their property but they should also make adeclaration of their relatives and friends. There is so muchof favouritism, nepotism and partiality that we seem to begoing down and down though we have achieved great things. Ido wish to support to a certain extent the amendment movedby Prof. Shah with regard to the ministers or high officialshaving a knowledge of English during the transition period.It was very interesting to listen to the

animated talk ofMr. Mahavir Tyagi. He was almost for the elimination ofliteracy and he reminded us of Shivaji and others. I merelywish to remind the House about the skit that a French Kinghad when he heard about Abraham Lincoln's definition ofdemocracy as being "the government of the people, by thepeople and for the people." The French King immediatelyblurted "Democracy is government of the cattle by the cattleand for the cattle." If we are going to have democracy byilliterate men, it will be a democracy as described by theFrench King.

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Mr. Vice-President,of the amendments that have been moved I am prepared toaccept amendment No. 1322 and 1326 as amended by No. 71 onList V. As to the rest of the amendments I should just liketo make a sort of running commentary.

These amendments raise three points. The first pointrelates to the term of a minister, the second relates to thequalifications of a minister and the third relates tocondition for membership of a cabinet. I shall take thefirst point for consideration, viz., the term of a minister.On this point there are two amendments, one by Mr. Pockerand the other by Mr. Karimuddin. Mr. Pocker's amendment isthat the minister shall continue in office so long as hecontinues to enjoy the confidence of the House, irrespectiveof other considerations. He may be a corrupt minister, hemay be a bad minister, he may be quite incompetent, but ifhe happened to enjoy the confidence of the House then nobodyshall be entitled to remove him from office. According toMr. Karimuddin, the position that he has taken, if I haveunderstood him correctly, is just the opposite. His positionseems to be that the Minister shall be liable to removalonly on impeachment for certains specified offences such asbribery, corruption, treason and so on, irrespective of thequestion whether he enjoys the confidence of the House ornot. Even if a minister lost the confidence of the House, solong as there was no impeachment of that minister on thegrounds that he has specified, it shall not be open eitherto the Prime Minister or the President to remove him fromoffice. As the Honourable House will see both theseamendments are in a certain sense inconsistent, if notcontradictory. My submission is that the provision containedin sub-clause (2) of article 62 is a much better provisionand covers both the points. Article 62, (2) states that theministers shall hold office during the pleasure of thePresident. That means that a minister will be liable toremoval on two grounds. One ground on which he would be liable to dismissalunder the provisions contained in clause (2) of article 62would be that he has lost the confidence of the House, andsecondly, that his administration is not pure, because theword used here is "pleasure". It would be perfectly openunder that particular clause of article 62 for the Presidentto call for the removal of a particular minister on theground that he is guilty of corruption or bribery ormaladministration, although that particular ministerprobably is a person who enjoyed the confidence of the House. I think honourable Members will realise that thetenure of a minister must be subject not merely to onecondition but to two conditions and the two conditions arepurity of administration and confidence of the House. Thearticle makes provision for both and therefore theamendments moved by my honourable Friends, Messrs. Pockerand Karimuddin are quite unnecessary.

With regard to the second point, namely thequalifications of ministers, we have three amendments. Thefirst amendment is by Mr. Mohd. Tahir. His suggestion isthat no person should be appointed a minister unless at thetime of his appointment he is an elected member of the House. He does not admit the possibility of the casescovered in the proviso namely that although a person is notat the time of his appointment a member of the House, he maynonetheless be appointed as a minister in the cabinetsubject to the condition that within six months he shall gethimself elected to the House. The second qualification is byProf.

K. T. Shah. He said that a minister should belong to amajority party and his third qualification is that he musthave a certain educational status. Now, with regard to thefirst point, namely, that no person shall be entitled to beappointed a Minister unless he is at the time of hisappointment an elected member of the House, I think itforgets to take into consideration certain important matterswhich cannot be overlooked. First is this,--it is perfectlypossible to imagine that a person who is otherwise competentto hold the post of a Minister has been defeated in aconstituency for some reason which, although it may beperfectly good, might have annoyed the constituency and hemight have incurred the displeasure of that particularconstituency. It is not a reason why a member so competentas that should be not permitted to be appointed a member of the Cabinet on the assumption that he shall be able to gethimself elected either from the same constituency or fromanother constituency. After all the privilege that ispermitted is a privilege that extends only for six months.It does not confer a right to that individual to sit in the House without being elected at all. My second submission is this, that the fact that a nominated Minister is a member of the Cabinet, does not either violate the principle ofcollective responsibility nor does it violate the principleof confidence, because if he is a member of the Cabinet, ifhe is prepared to accept the policy of the Cabinet, standspart of the Cabinet and resigns with the Cabinet, when heceases to have the confidence of the House, his membershipof the Cabinet does not in any way cause any inconvenienceor breach of the fundamental principles on whichparlI amentary government is based. Therefore, thisqualification, in my judgment, is quite unnecessary.

With regard to the second qualification, namely, that amember must be a member of the majority party, I think Prof.K. T. Shah has in contemplation or believes and hopes that the electorate will always return in the election a partywhich will always be in majority and another party whichwill be in a minority but in opposition. Now, it is notpermissible to make any such assumption. It would beperfectly possible and natural, that in an election theParlI ament may consist of various number of parties, none ofwhich is in a majority. How is this principle to be invokedand put into operation in a situation of this sort wherethere are three parties none of which has a majority? Therefore, in a contingency of that sort the qualificationlaid down by Prof. K. T. Shah makes government quiteimpossible.

Secondly, assuming there is a majority party in the House, but there is an emergency and it is desired both onthe part of the majority party as well as on the part of theminority party that party quarrels should stop during theperiod of the emergency, that there shall be no partygovernment, so that government may be able to meet anemergency--in that event, again, no such situation can bemet except by a coalition government and if a coalitiongovernment takes the place, ex hypothesi the members of aminority party must be entitled to become members of theCabinet. Therefore, I submit that on both those grounds thisamendment is not a practicable amendment.

With regard to the educational qualification,notwithstanding what they Friend Mr. Mahavir Tyagi has saidon the question of literary qualification, when I asked himwhether in view of the fact that he expressed himself sovehemently against literary qualification whether he has anyconscientious objection to literary education, he was veryglad to assure me that he has none. All the same, I wonderwhether there would be any Prime Minister or President whowould think it desirable to appoint a person who does notknow English, assuming that English remains the officiallanguage of the business of the Executive or of ParlI ament.I cannot conceive of such a thing. Supposing the officiallanguage was Hindi, Hindustani or Urdu--whatever it is--inthat event, I again find it impossible to think that a PrimeMinister would

be so stupid as to appoint a Minister who didnot understand the official language of the country or of the Administration, and while therefore it is no doubt avery desirable thing to bear in mind that persons who wouldhold a portfolio in the Government should have propereducational qualification, I think it is rather unnecessaryto incorporate this principle in the Constitution itself.

Now, I come to the third condition for the membershipof a Cabinet and that is that there should be a declarationof the interests, rights and properties belonging to aMinister before he actually assumes office. This amendmentmoved by Prof. K. T. Shah is to some extent amended by Mr.Kamath. Now, this is not the first time that this matter hasbeen debated in the House. It was debated at the time whensimilar amendments were moved with regard to the articledealing with the appointment and oath of the President and I have had a great deal to say about it at that particulartime and I do not wish to repeat what I said then on thisoccasion. My Friend Mr. Kamath reminded me of what I said onthe occasion when the article dealing with the President wasdebated in this House and I do remember that I did say thatsuch a provision might be necessary......

Shri H. V. Kamath: May I remind Dr. Ambedkar of whatexactly he said? I am reading from the official type-scriptof the Assembly Secretariat. These are his very words:

"If any person in the Government of India has anyopportunity of aggrandizing himself, it is either the PrimeMinister or the Ministers of State and such a provisionought to have been imposed upon them for their tenure butnot upon the President."

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: That is what I wassaying. What I said was that such a provision might benecessary in the case of Ministers, and my friend Mr. Kamathalso read some section from the Factory Act requiringsimilar qualifications for a factory inspector. Now, Sir,the position that we have to consider is this: no doubt,this is a very laudable object, namely, that the Ministersin charge should maintain the purity of administration. I donot think anybody in this House can have any quarrel overthat matter. We all of us are interested in seeing that theadministration is maintained at a high level, not only ofefficiency but also of purity. The question really is this:what ought to be the sanctions for maintaining that purity?It seems to me there are two sanctions. One is this, namely, that weshould require by law and by Constitution,--if thisprovision is to be effective--not only that the Ministersshould make a declaration of their assets and theirliabilities at the time when they assume office, but we mustalso have two supplementary provisions. One is that everyMinister on quitting office shall also make a declaration ofhis assets on the day on which he resigns, so that everybodywho is interested in assessing whether the administrationwas corrupt or not during the tenure of his office should beable to see what increase there is in the assets of theMinister and whether that increase can be accounted for bythe savings which he can make out of his salary. The otherprovision would be that if we find that a Minister'sincreases in his assets on the day on which he resigns are not explainable by the normal increases due to his savings,then there must be a third provision to charge the Ministerfor explaining how he managed to increase his assets to anabnormal degree during that period. In my judgment, if youwant to make this clause effective, then there must be threeprovisions as I stated. One is a declaration at the outset;second is a declaration at the end of the quitting of thisoffice; thirdly, responsibility for explaining as to how theassets have come to be so abnormal and fourthly, declaringthat to be an offence followed up by a penalty or by a fine.The mere declaration at the initial state.....

Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad: How could you trace or checkinvisible assets or secret assets?

The Honourable Dr B. R. Ambedkar: The whole thing issimply good for nothing, so to say. It might

still bepossible, notwithstanding this amendment, for the Ministerto arrange the transfer of his assets during the period insuch a manner that nobody might be able to know what he hasdone and therefore, although the object is laudable, themachinery provided is very inadequate and I say the remedymight be worse than the disease.

Shri H. V. Kamath: May I, Sir, presume that Dr.Ambedkar at least accepts the amendment in principle andthat he has not resiled from the view which he propoundedthe other day, that he has not recanted?

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: I do not resile frommy view at all. All I am saying is that the remedy providedis very inadequate and not effective, and therefore, I amnot in a position to accept it.

Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena: Make it more comprehensive.

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: I cannot do it now.It was the business of those who move the amendment to makethe thing fool-proof and knave-proof, but they did not.

Now, Sir, I was saying that nobody has any objection;nobody quarrels with the aim and object which is behind thisamendment. The question is, what sort of sanction we shouldforget. As I said, the legal sanction is inadequate. Have weno other sanction at all? In my judgment, we have a bettersanction for the enforcement of the purity ofadministration, and that is public opinion as mobilised andfocussed in the Legislative Assembly. My honourable Friend,Mr. H. V. Kamath cited the illustration of the Factory Act.The reason why those disqualifications had been introducedin the case of the Factory Inspector is because publicopinion cannot touch him, but public opinion is every minuteglowing, so to say, against the Ministry, and if the Houseso desires at any time, it can make itself felt on anyparticular point of maladministration and remove theMinistry; and my submission, therefore, is that there is fargreater sanction in the opinion and the authority of the House to enforce purity of administration, so as to nullifythe necessity of having an outside legal sanction at all.

Shri Lokanath Misra (Orissa: General): Is that not amore impossible task?

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Democracy has toperform many more impossible tasks. If you want democracy,you must face them.

Now, Sir, I come to the amendment of my honourableFriend, Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad. He wants the deletion of thelatter part of the amendment which I moved. His objectionwas that if the latter part of my amendment remained, it would nullify the earlier part of my amendment, namely, theobligation of the minister to follow the directions given in the Instrument of Instructions. Yes, theoretically that isso. There again the question that arises is this. How are wegoing to enforce the injunctions which will be contained in the Instrument of Instructions? There are two ways open. Oneway is to permit the court to enquire and to adjudicate uponthe validity of the thing. The other is to leave the matterto the legislature itself and to see whether by a censuremotion or a motion of no confidence, it cannot compel theMinistry to give proper advice to the President andimpeachment to see that the President follows that advicegiven by the Ministry. In my judgment, the latter is thebetter way of effecting our purpose and it would be unfair,inconvenient, if everything done in the House is madesubject to the jurisdiction of the court, so that anyrecalcitrant Member may run to the Supreme Court and by awrit of injunction against the Speaker prevent him fromcarrying on the business of the House, unless thatparticular matter is decided either by the Supreme Court orthe High Court as the case may be. It seems to me that wouldbe an intolerable interference in the work of the Assembly.Even in England the ParlI ament is not subject to theauthority of the Court in matters of procedure and in theconduct of its own business and I think that is a very soundrule which we ought to follow, especially when it isperfectly possible for the House to see that the Instrumentof Instructions is carried out in the terms in which it isintended by

the President and by the Ministry. Sir, I opposethis amendment.

Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena: What about nominated membersbeing in the Cabinet?

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: I have dealt withthat.

Mr. Vice-President: I shall now put the amendments oneby one to vote.

The question is:

"That for clause (3) of article 62, the followingclauses be substituted:

`(3) A member of the Cabinet shall not be liable to be removed except on impeachment by the House on the ground of corruption or treason or contravention of laws of the country or deliberate adoption of policy detrimental to the interests of the State.

(3A) The procedure for such impeachment will be thesame as provided in article 50.'"

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. Vice-President: The question is:

"That in clause (1) of article 62, before the words`and the other ministers', the words from the members of theparty commanding a majority of votes in the People's Houseof ParlI ament' be inserted."

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. Vice-President: The question is:

"That after clause (5) of article 62, the following newclause be inserted:

`5(a) In the choice of his Ministers and the exercise of his other functions under this Constitution, the President shall be generally guided by the instructions set out in Schedule III-A, but the validity of anything done by the President shall not be called in question on the ground that it was done otherwise than in accordance with such instructions.'"

The amendment was adopted.

Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad: There is an amendment to thisamendment which should be put to vote first.

Mr. Vice-President: The question is:

"That in amendment No. 1329 of the List of amendments,in the proposed new clause (5a) all the words commencingwith `but the validity' to the end be deleted."

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. Vice-President: The question is:

"That after clause (1) the following new clause beinserted as clause (2) and the existing clauses be re-numbered:

`(2) In chosing his Ministers the President shall be generally guided by the instruction set out in Schedule 4 (A).'"

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. Vice-President: The question is:

"That for clause (2) of article 62, the following besubstituted:

`(2) The ministers shall hold office so long as they enjoy the confidence of the House of the People.'"

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. Vice-President: The question is:

"That in amendment No. 1319 of the List of amendments,for the words `People's House of ParlI ament' (in the wordsproposed to be substituted), the words `House of the People'be substituted."

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. Vice-President: Amendment No. 1319 standing in thename of Professor K. T. Shah.

The question is:

"That in clause (2) of article 62, for the words`during the pleasure of the President' the words `such timeas they possess the confidence of a majority in the People'sHouse of ParlI ament' be substituted."

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. Vice-President: Amendment No. 49 in List IVstanding in the name of Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad.

The question is:

"That in amendment No. 1320 of the list of amendments,for the word `maintains' the word `enjoys' be substituted."

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. Vice-President: Amendment No. 1320 standing in thename of Mr. Mohamed tahir.

The question is:

"That the following be inserted at the end of clause(2) of article 62:

`and till such time as the Council of Ministers maintains the confidence of the ParlI ament.'"

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. Vice-President: Amendment No. 1322 standing in thename of Shri Mihir Lal Chattopadhyay.

The question is:

"That in clause (3) of article 62, after the word`Council' the words `of ministers' be inserted."

The amendment was adopted.

Mr. Vice-President: Amendment No. 1325 standing in thename of Mr. Mohamed Tahir.

The question is:

"That for clause (5) of article 62, the following besubstituted:

`(5). A minister shall at the time of his appointment as such, be a

member of the ParlI ament.'"

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. Vice-President: Amendment No. 1326 as amended byamendment No. 71 of list V as further amended by ShriKrishnamachari and Shri Kamath.

The question is:

"That in clause (5) of article 62, for the words `forany period of six consecutive months is' the words `from thedate of his appointment, is for a period of six consecutivemonths', be substituted."

The amendment was adopted.

Mr. Vice-President: Amendment No. 1328 as modified byamendment No. 72 of list V.

"That in clause (5) of article 62, for the words `isnot a member' the words `is not an elected number' besubstituted."

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. Vice-President: Amendment No. 1332 standing in thename of Prof. K. T. Shah.

The question is:

"That after clause (6) of article 62, the following newclause be inserted:

`(7) Every Minister shall, before he enters upon the functions and responsibilities of his office, make a declaration and take steps in regard to any right, title, corresponding to those provided in this Constitution for the President and Vice-President, and shall take an oath--or make a solemn declaration--in the presence of the President and of his colleagues in the following form.'"

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. Vice-President: Amendment No. 51 of List IVstanding in the name of Mr. Kamath:

The question is:

"That for amendment No. 1332 of the List of amendmentsthe following be substituted:

`That after clause (6) of article 62, the following newclause be inserted:

(7) Every minister including the Prime Minister shall, before he enters upon his office, make a full disclosure to ParlI ament of any interest, right, share, property or title he may have in any enterprise, business or trade, directly owned or controlled by the State, or which is in any way aided, protected or subsidised by the State; and ParlI ament may deal with the matter in such manner as it may, in the circumstances, deem necessary or appropriate.'"

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. Vice-President: Amendment No. 52 of list IV,standing in the name of Mr. Kamath:

The question is:

"That for amendment No. 1332 of the List of amendmentsthe following be substituted:

`That after clause (6) of article 62, the following newclause be inserted:

(7) Every minister including the Prime Minister shall, before he enters upon his office, make a full disclosure to ParlI ament of any interest, right, share, property or title he may have in any enterprise, business or trade, directly owned or controlled by the State, or which is in any way added, protected or subsidised by the State; and ParlI ament may deal with the matter in such manner as it may, in the circumstances, deem necessary or appropriate.'"

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. Vice-President: Amendment No. 52 of list IV,standing in the name of Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad.

The question is:

"That in amendment No. 1336 of the list of amendments,in the proposed new article 62-A, the words `Judge of theSupreme Court or of any High Court in any State in theUnion' be deleted."

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. Vice-President: Amendment No. 1336 standing in thename of Professor K. T. Shah.

The question is:

"That after article 62, the following new article beinserted:

`62-A. No one shall be elected or appointed to any public office including that of the President, Governor, Minister of the Union or of any State of the Union, Judge of the Supreme Court or of any High Court in any State in the Union, who--

(a) is not able to read or write any express in the English language ; or

(b) within ten years from the day when this Constitution comes into operation, is not able to read or write or express himself in the National language;

(c) or who has been found guilty at any time before such election or appointment of any offence against the safety, security or integrity of the Union ; or

(d) of any offence involving moral turpitude and making him liable on conviction to a maximum punishment of two years

imprisonment:

(e) or who has not prior to such election or appointment, served in some public capacity and suitability for such election or appointment as may be laid down by ParlI ament by law in that behalf.'"

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad: There is an amendment to thisamendment. That should be put to vote first.

Mr. "Vice-President: That was put to vote before.Probably, the honourable Member did not follow theproceedings closely.

The question is:

"That article 62, as amended, stand part of the Constitution."

That motion was adopted.

Article 62, as amended, was added to the Constitution.

Mr. Vice-President: We shall now pass on ..........

Shri T. T. Krishnamachari: Mr. Vice-President, may Isuggest that the House do take up article 67 in view of thefact that it is the desire of a number of Members of thisHouse that these articles which relate to elections shouldbe disposed of first, so that the election machinery mightbe got ready?

B. Pocker Sahib Bahadur: Mr. Vice-President, I verystrongly object to the procedure suggested. As a matter offact Members are entitled to know what is the order in whichthe business of the House would proceed. If all of a sudden,for the whim of any particular Members, some particulararticle should be taken at once, I submit, that it will putthe honourable Members of this House to a great deal ofinconvenience and it will be impossible for them to get on.Article 67 is a very important article and if that is to bedealt with first, it ought to be announced by you andhonourable Members should have sufficient notice of suchadvancement and therefore, I strongly object to thesuggestion made by my honourable Freind Mr. T. T.Krishnamachari.

Mr. Vice-President: I should like to remind honourableMembers that the suggestion made by Mr. T. T. Krishnamacharicannot be given effect to without securing the permission of the House, which I would take in due course.

Secondly, so far as the technical objection isconcerned, I should like to remind the honourable Memberthat in the agenda that has been sent, we have distinctlystated that a particular Part would be taken up. There is nosuch specification. Lastly, I should remind him thatgrouping of the amendments in question has been forwarded tohonourable Members. That objection, I overrule.

The real objection is whether the House as a wholewhishes to take up article 67. I should like to inform the House that it has been intimated to me that in severalprovinces the electoral rolls are almost complete and insome provinces the rolls have been completed. It is up to usto facilitate the passing of these articles because if anyserious modification is made, then, the work of theprovincial Governments would be seriously interfered with.We have to keep that in mind. But it is for the House todecide whether it will stand on its dignity and go onincreasing the difficulties of the provincial Governments.

Pandit Hirday Nath Kunzru: (United Provinces: General):Sir, may I put a consideration before you in thisconnection? So far as I remember, the Drafting Committee hassuggested an amendment to this clause. This amendmentrequires that instead of the proportion of elected seatsassigned to the States in this article, the number assignedto each State should be substituted. I think therefore, that it would be desirable that this artilce should be taken upnot now, but on Monday next. That would not involvepractically any delay at all. We are very near one o'clockand as it is Friday, I suppose in accordance with outordinary convention, the House will disperse at one o'clock.

Mr. Vice-President: Yes.

Pandit Hirday Nath Kunzru: If we take up the clause onMonday, we shall have time to consider the matter more fullyand also to acquaint ourselves with what was done on aprevious occasion in connection with the representation of the States here. We shall have time to consult Dr. Ambedkarhimself on the point.

Mr. Vice-President: That seems a more reasonableobjection. I am quite prepared..........

Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad:

Sir, I have got a more importantconsideration to submit.

Mr. Vice-President: We shall now go on with article 62-A. We shall take up article 67 on Monday. In thatconnection, I would remind the House and that there areother articles also dealing with election provisions. Theseare articles 149, 150, 289, 290 and 291. Information as to the way in which the various amendments are proposed to begrouped by me will be given to honourable to article 149,and then article 150 and so on.

Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad: Will that lead to acceleration ofbusiness at all? If article 67 is passed, it will not beoperative because until we pass the whole Constitution afterthe third reading and it is signed by thePresident...........

Mr. Vice-President: We shall consider that questionwhen we pass article 67. Probably, the ingenuity of somelawyers will be able to find some way by which we canobviate this difficulty.

Article 62-A

We come to articles 62-A and 62-B. Amendment No. 1338.

Prof. K. T. Shah: Sir, I beg to move:

"That after article 62, the following new article 62-A,be inserted:--

`62A. No one selected to be a Minister shall be a member of ParlI ament in either House; and if already a member of either House, he shall, before accepting the office of a Minister, resign his seat in the Legislature. The provisions of article 48-a shall apply to every Minister mutatis mutatis mutandis.

62-B. A Minister shall have the right to sit in either House of ParlI ament, and to address the House or any of its committees, at any time he deems necessary, but not vote on any issue coming before any such body.'"

Sir, may I say, before I commend this motion to the House, that this has arisen out of a scheme of amendmentswhich I had in mind when I was proposing that the Executiveor the Ministry should be separate from the Legislature andall organs of the State should be separate from one another.That having been rejected by the House, I wonder if it wouldbe in order to move the first part of this motion.

Mr. Vice-president: Take the second part.

Prof. K. T. Shah: In that case I am proposing thesecond part that the Ministers should be entitled to sit andspeak in either House no matter to what House originallythey belong, or are elected to.

Pandit Thakur Dass Bhargava: May I point out that thisis the subject matter of article 72?

Prof. K. T. Shah: Then I will move this at that time.

Mr. Vice-President: Shall we proceed to the nextarticle or shall we adjourn now. Article 63 may not befinished today. I would like to have the whole of Monday forarticle 67.

Prof. Shibban Lal Saxsena: We can finish article 66. it is a small ons.

Mr. Vice-President: I do not want to start on a fresharticle because that would interfere with our work onMonday, and I suppose from Tuesday we have some otherbusiness to engage our attention. I have got to inform the House that it is more than probable that we shall come to the end of our labours on the 8th January; but there will bea sitting on Saturday, the 8th January. A formalannouncement will be made later but I am giving theinformation in advance so that honourable Members may notexperience any difficulty in reserving their accommodation.

The House stands adjourned till ten A.M on Monday next.

The Assembly then adjourned till Ten of the Clock onMonday, the 3rd January 1949.