CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY OF INDIA - VOLUME VII


Friday, the 7th January 1949

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 on article 149.

Shri L. Krishnaswami Bharathi (Madras: General): Mr.Vice-President, Sir, article 149 is under general discussion. Sub-clause (3) is very important. Mr. T. T.Krishnamachari has moved two amendments with a view to induce the scale of representation to 75,000 perrepresentative. The clause refers to a scale of not more than one representative for every lakh of the population and further the proviso limits the number of members to a maximum of 500. The effect of the amendment of Mr.Krishnamachari, if accepted, will be to have not more than one representative for every 75,000 and the maximum of the total strength of the House will be 500. It is very difficult to understand whether an increase in the number ofmembers to a particular legislature will add to the efficiency of the Assembly. But certain major provinces like the U.P. and Madras have desired this increase, and it is perhaps well that we accept it, but at the same time, I would like to impress the need for not filling up the total strength or the maximum fixed.

Sir, in America, though the scale of representation is fixed at about 30,000 per representative, I understand,actually it is ten times that number. If for every 30,000 a representative were to be elected, the Senate will be somewhere about 4,000, but really it is must less, and therefore, it must be borne in mind that this is only a maximum and it is for the Provincial Legislatures concerned to fix the number. Some Honourable Members felt the need for adding certain more representatives if States accede or merge later on. I would submit it is not wise to exhaust the number--500--and then ask for more. The wiser course will be to reduce the number, say to 450, at the initial constitution and then, if certain States merge later on after the Assembly is constituted, to provide for them. That will be a better course instead of adding further provisos to the clause.

Mr. Krishnamachari yesterday said that the idea of reducing the number to 75,000 is with a view to provide for backward areas, that is to say, the proportion in certain backward areas will be less; that is, in those areas there will be a representative for every 75,000 whereas in other areas naturally the proportion will be much higher. While I perfectly sympathise with the idea we should not, I feel,Sir, allow any loop-hole for gerry mandering later on. We have already had a similar provision in article 67, where we have stated that there shall be uniformity of representation throughout India. I would very much like, Sir, that within a province there must be uniformity as, far as practicable in the scale of representation, that is two say, the variation ratio between the number and the total population in one particular constituency shall as far as practicable, be uniform throughout, that particular State or Province. It is not absolutely possible to have mathematical uniformity. We cannot have 82,824 everywhere. It is necessary that we will have some variations, but variation shall not be so great. It cannot be 75,000 in one constituency and two lakhs in another constituency.

Shri S. Nagappa (Madras: General): Not two lakhs but a lakh and fifty thousand.

Shri L. Krishnaswami Bharathi: There is no lakh and fifty thousand here. The principle of uniform scale of representation should be adopted. As far as practicable,there shall be uniformity. Sir, with the maximum of 500, I have certain figures. In the United Provinces the ratio of representatives will be a lakh and ten thousand per seat. In Madras

it will be 98,682 per seat on an average, if we exhaust all the 500 seats, which is very unlikely; if the number is reduced, the proportion will be increased. I think though there is the scale of 75,000, both the U.P. and Madras cannot have the advantage because if they have 75,000, the maximum will be exceeded, and therefore, we havea lakh and ten thousand in the U.P. and 98,682 in Madras,per seat.

Sir, no doubt Mr. Krishnamachari said that it is with a view to provide for certain backward areas. I am afraid that cannot be introduced into the Constitution with this principle I mentioned in view.

I must inform this House of certain important matter in this connection Madras is a composite province, consisting of 4 linguistic areas, the Andhras, Tamils, Malabar and Canarese. Sir, there are five districts, know as Rayalaseema in the Andhra part, which are really backward and which deserve every encouragement. There has been some understanding between the two groups of Andhra areas with reference to this matter. Rayalaseema consists of five districts, Bellary, Cudappa, Anantapur, Kurnool and Chittoor. There is another group called the coastal districts consisting of five or six districts, Vizagapatam,East Godavari, West Godavari, Kistna, Guntur and Nellore. In1937, there was a kind of understanding between these two groups under which Rayalaseema, the famine stricken area,shall have equal representation on the basis of district.Sir, it has to be mentioned that these districts are sparsely populated and they very rightly claimed weightage,and came to some kind of understanding. We have it from there port of the Linguistic Provinces Commission that this matter has not been finally agreed to by the two groups. I do not want to go into the details of the question. I am only submitting that it is only with a view to provide for these backward areas that this limit is reduced. So far as I am concerned, it must be entirely a matter between the Andhras themselves to decide and into which I shall not go.But so far as other areas are concerned, if these five districts, the famine stricken districts of Rayalaseema are given representation at the rate of 75,000 per seat, and other areas have to provide otherwise, the ratio will be107,000 per seat. I have worked out certain figures. They will show that Rayalaseema will get 116 seats, the rest of the Andhras will get 118 seats, Tamil Nadu will get 216seats, Malabar 36 seats and South Canara 14 seats on this basis. On this scale of representation, the balance will be entirely upset by this. That is to say, the Andhra group will get 234 seats whereas Tamil Nad will get 216 seats; the population of Andhras is twenty millions and that of the Tamils is twenty--three million. So, all these things will raise difficulties. It is not in this province alone that we come across this difficulty; I am told similar is the case in other provinces. An honourable Member was telling me that in Bombay there are certain areas which are backward. It is just possible that there are other backward areas also. If we introduce this kind of thing, it will bristle with difficulties and it is not very good that we have it in the Constitution. At the same time, we must have this principle. If this cannot be introduced, at least, we must inform the proper authorities, the Delimitation Committee that as far as practicable, there shall be uniformity throughout the State. That is the most important thing and therefore though I have great sympathy with the backward areas I support the amendment moved by Prof.Shibban Lal Saksena.

Shri Kuladhar Chaliha (Assam: General): Sir, it is really difficult to follow the argument of the previousspeaker. We have our own difficulties in our province. For certain reasons, the last census was made in a way which did not show exactly what the population was. It was

manipulated in such a way that the party in power had the figures according to their wish. In fact, there was inflation of certain communities and the figures were manipulated in such a way that the currect figures did not come out properly. It was like this: the General community was so reduced that it become only about 39-2 per cent., We find that the Tribal community went up as far as 29 per cent., the Muslims about 22 per cent and the Scheduled Castes about five per cent. If a proper census is taken, probably, the General community would be further increased. Therefore, a census is necessary to be taken in Assam as well. I support Mr. Lakshmi Kanta Maitra that a new census should be taken in Assam;otherwise, the General community will suffer very severely and grievously.

It is necessary that in the fixing of seats and in the allocation of seats to different communities we should befair and just to everybody. In the last census the figures were so manipulated that the General community has become a minority in Assam and if reservations are to be given with so-called minorities then, I think, they would be further reduced and they will have no proper place in the Constitution. It is like this. The General community has already suffered in the last census taken by the party in power. If reservations going to be given to the tribal and other people who have not got the necessary number, seats will be taken out of the General community and the majority will be reduced to such a minority that they will have to be protected and they will have to be given reservation. I therefore request the House to take this into consideration that a new census should be taken in Assam also.

Apart from that, there has been a certain amount of immigration from Eastern Pakistan and West Bengal. There are certain Scheduled Castes and members of other communities who have also to be properly enumerated. There are a certain number of people who just go there for a few months and come back from Eastern Pakistan. We should as certain the number of these people who go there simply for the purpose of earning something in the tea estates and other places. If without as certaining these things, seats are given then probably we will be doing an in justice to the General community and other communities. I request the House that proper census be taken for Assam also and Assam be included in the census for which an amendment has been given by Mr.Rohini Kumar Chaudhari.

Shri S. Nagappa: Mr. Vice-President, Sir, this is a very important point especially from the point of view of the representatives of Rayalaseema. I do understand according to the fundamental principles, one cannot ask for weightage but this is not a communal weightage. We are not asking as a matter of social backwardness or political backwardness but this is economically an area that has been backward for centuries and ages and that is why representation given to this area will enable the representatives of this area to fight for their betterment.That was one of the reason why the people of Rayalaseema especially in Andhra Desa have agreed to a pact called the Sree Bagh Pact in 1937. and there they said the representation between Rayalaseema and the Circars will bein the ratio of 6:5. There are five districts in Rayalaseema and 6 in the Circars and these 11 districts have entered into a pact that representation should go, irrespective of population, on the ratio of 6:5 even in the Cabinet but that is a pact entered by only two sections of one and the same province.

Shri L. Krishnaswami Bharathi: Representation in the Cabinet is not in the Pack.

Shri S. Nagappa: We are not asking this representation from Tamil Nadu. Now according to the principles laid down in the constitution here the representation will be given to Madras province and out of that there will be an Andhra

quota. Out of this Andhra quota between Rayalaseema and circars we will have our own agreement. For Instance, If the Circars get a seat for every 125,000, for 75,000 the Rayalaseema may get one representative. It solves our problem. Why we ask this is because Rayalaseema is two-thirds of Andhra Desa in area but the population is only one-third.

Shri L. Krishnaswami Bharathi: That is not correct.

Mr. Vice-President: Please do not interrupt the speaker.

Shri S. Nagappa: From the figures here I can give my friend if he wants, the population of Circars is two-third and that of Rayalaseema one-third roughly, but the area in Rayalaseema is two-third of Andhra Desa.

This was the agreement we have entered into and I would request members to see that our agreement is respected. I donot claim this on broad principles; but it is due to the backwardness of the area economically and politically, that we have to claim this.

Prof. N. G. Ranga (Madras: General): Mr. Vice-President, we are all in favour of the general principle that so far as possible there should be no distinction within the same State, between one constituency and another,as far as it quota of representation in the local legislature is concerned. But at the same time there are certain special needs of certain areas based upon theirsocial and economic condition excluding communal considerations, religious considerations, any anti-nationalor unnational considerations in regard to which certain special provisions have to be made enable the people of the politically and economically backward or under develop areasto stand on their own legs and minimise the distinction between them and the other more advanced areas than if more principle of uniformity were to be accepted. Sir, as Mr.Nagappa has just now told you, the representatives of these two section of the Andra Dasa had met together in 1937 and come to an amicable settlement among themselves. I need not go into details in respect of population or their areas, bug it is true that one area known as Circars is very thickly populated and the other area known as Rayalaseema is very thinly populated. The Circars is also economically a little more advanced and much less subject to famines than Rayalseema. Therefore, these peoples have agreed among themselves that from out of the usual quota of representatives that the circars should be entitled to according to the principle of uniform representation as between one constituency and another, they would like to give away a portion and distribute it between these districts of Rayalaseema as per their own population basis.Now, this is an agreement that was reached when the Provincial Congress Committee was presided over by Dr. Pattabhi who happpens to be the Rashtrapathi today of the Indian National Congress. I happen to be the President of the Provincial Congress Committee today, and I am bound to honour that agreement. It is the universal wish of the Andhras to see that this agreement is put into practice andis honoured so far as praticable under the present conditions, constitutionally and politically. Small variation this side or that side may have to be made and the parties concerned will be quite agreeable to that but this much of weightage we are all agreed to give to Rayalaseema.How it is to be given in terms of this constitution is aticklish problem. All these years we have been very much worried about it and it is because of this uncertainty the relations between these two areas have come to be a little strained, because it was felt by the representatives of Rayalaseema that quite possibly this House might stand in the way of the implementation of the Sree Bagh Pact. But now that this House has already given its consent to the principle of a certain amount of variation in the total strength of

the population as between different constituencies so far as the Central Legislature is concerned varying from 500,000 to750,000 as any between any two constituencies, there has arisen the hope in our hearts that quite possibly the House might be willing to make it possible for us to make a similar distinction between the consistencies of Rayalaseemaon the one side and the Circars on the others. It is only reasonable on our part to ask for this much of consideration from this House for three reasons. One is, this distinction has already been agreed to so far as the Central Legislatureis concerned. Another is, the people concerned in these two areas are within the Andhra Desa and have already agreed upon it and there has been no dissentient voice at all inregard to this matter and the acceptance of this will only be conducive to the development of better relations between these peoples in any one State than in simply sticking to some dull principle of uniformity and then not swerving this side or that side and not making any special provision in favour of any one area within this country. Thirdly, this House also accepted in the case of Assam. Assam also is faced with a similar difficulty so far as the tribal people are concerned. There, in the so-called autonomous tribalare as certain special provisions are made in this constitution in order to protect their interests and inorder to safe guard or assure their orderly and speedy progress in the near future.

Sir, for the above three reasons, I appeal before this House. and also before those who are responsible for the drafting of this Constitution, and for helping us in drafting the various alterations we are deciding upon, to accommodate these special needs of Andra, and thus to helpus in looking after the special interests of Rayalaseema, and thus bring about greater harmony between these people.

Sir I have to state only one more fact. The most important consideration that was placed before the Linguistic Commission which visited our areas recently is this. Some of the representatives of the Rayalaseema urged for the immediate formation of the Andhra Province and for the implementation of the Sree Bagh Pact, so for as it is practicable under the present circumstances, in the manner that may be accepted by this House and by parlIament so that it would be possible for the Rayalaseema people also to wipeout all the difference that there may be, between the Circars and the Rayalaseema. If you are to remove the difficulties that stand in the way of their coming together, then I can assure you that so far as this particular area is concerned--and it is notionality separated even now from therest of the province, or State of Madras,--it will be possible for the Central Government to create this Andhra province without any difficulty whatsoever,--socialeconomic, religious or financial or any other difficulty.Therefore, I urge most sincerely before this House the advisability of making a special provision in the case of this area, just as it has already agreed to make a special provision in the case of Assam.

Thank you, Sir.

Shri Deshbandhu Gupta (Delhi: General): Mr. Vice-President, Sir, my Friend Pandit Thakur Dass Bhargava has already given arguments in favour of taking census of East Punjab and West Bengal before the next elections take place.I do not wish to take the time of the House, therefore, by elaborating the arguments which he has already advanced yesterday. I only wish to point out that Delhi falls under the same category as East Punjab and West Bengal.

Pandit Thakur Dass Bhargava (East Punjab: General): Imentioned that also.

Shri Deshbandhu Gupta: Thank you. Delhi too is in the same category because not only has there been exodus of many Muslims from Delhi to Pakistan, but Delhi is particularly affected by the large number of people who have came from

Pakistan and who are now living in Delhi. Perhaps, Delhi Is only city whose population has been almost doubled by these changes of populations. According to the last census, the population of Delhi was about nine lakhs, whereas it is believed that at present the population is somewhere near 19 lakhs; taking the city alone it is about 15 lakhs. It is only fair, therefore, that when this question is considered, Delhi's claim should not be ignored, and that it should be treated in the same manner as West Bengal or East Punjab.

Sir, I have nothing more to say, except that whatever assurances are given and whatever methods are adopted by Government for the satisfaction of East Punjab and WestBengal, for assessing the present populations of these areas which have been affected by the partition on India, the same methods should be made applicable in the case of Delhi as well.

The Honourable Shri Gopinath Bardoli (Assam: General):Mr. Vice-President, Sir, I am speaking in reference to the amendment of Pandit Thakur Dass Bhargava, in respect of the census in East Punjab and West Bengal. I am sorry to point out that although in this House several references have been made regarding the population of Assam, the case of Assam was not taken into consideration along with those of East Punjab and West Bengal. Mr. Chaliha has just now spoken about the population position in Assam, under the last census. The last census was strongly opposed by the Congress Party in the Assam Legislature in 1941 on the ground that itdid not actually represent the actual population strength of Assam. Now, things have very much changed under the partition arrangements and in the altered circumstances that have come into existence in the mean time. According to the official figures that we have got, about three to four lakhs people have come from East Bengal as refugees in the same way as large numbers have come from.........

Mr. Vice-President: May I ask the honourable Membersthere to take their seats?

The Honourable Shri Gopinath Bardoli: People have comeinto Assam in the same way as people from West Punjab havecome to East Punjab and people from East Bengal have gone toWest Ben l. A population of four lakhs is not a smallnumber, and to exclude them from any representation would, Ibelieve be a grievous wrong, and it would be unjust. Itherefor, suggest that Dr. Ambedkar be pleased to accept, in the category of East Punjab and West Bengal, Assam also. it is more or less, a formal amendment and the facts I havesubmitted have already been placed before the House. I haveonly to repeat my request that Assam also may be included in the category of East Punjab and West Bengal. I consider thatany attempt at representation, without taking intoconsideration the iniquity of the last census, as well asthe populations that have come into Assam in the meantime,would be something which should not be tolerated. In view ofthis, Sir, I beg to submit that my proposal to include Assamwith East Punjab and West Bengal be taken intoconsideration.

Shri Kallur Subba Rao (Madras: General): Sir, I wish tomake a few remarks on this subject as I come from theRayalaseema districts. If the constitution-makers hadprovided in this article for maximum and minimum populationstrength for a seat, as they have dome in the case ofrepresentation of the States in the People's House, it wouldnot have been necessary to speak on this occasion at all.You have provided 75,000 as the minimum, but have not set any upper limit. The difference between theRayalaseema people and the Andhras is only about this. TheCeded districts are famine districts and are known to be sofrom the beginning of history. They comprise mainlymountainous areas. I represent a constituency or a talukwhich is the largest in area or size with the lowest numberof people. Even if you fix the minimum at 75,000 populationfor a seat, the voters of a

constituency like mine wouldhave to go 15 miles to the nearest polling booth to exercisetheir franchise. That is why we want that, on the populationbasis, the Ceded districts must be given morerepresentation. And they are economically and politicallybackward. This drawback of the population of the Cededdistricts has long ago been recognised and an agreementreached between the Andhras of the Circars and theRayalaseema people. This arrangement does not affect Mr.Bharathi or the people of Tamil Nad. We are not going todeny the right or representation of Madura to Mr. Bharathi.We are only considering the representation of the Andhraarea and whether Rayalaseem should get more and Circars lessunder the agreement. That is why we request the House tomake a provision for upper limit so that in the State thatis going to be formed, there may be amicability andagreement. There is no question of Rayalaseema being againstthe Andhra province. But the difficulty is one ofrepresentation. The population of Rayalaseema is 60 lakhsand that of the Circars is 125 lakhs. I request the House toaccept the amendment.

Dr. B. Pattabhi Sitaramayya (Madras: General): Mr.Vice-President, Sir, I am sorry to have to intervene in thisdebate which has proved to be a somewhat controversial one.But, as one intimately connected with that part of thecountry around which the controversy has centred, I feel itmy duty to say what we all exactly feel in the matter. Thereappears to be little more in the controversy than appears onthe surface. Whenever a controversial issue arises it is ourhabit of mind to say to the parties that the involved in itto come together, sit round a table and convince each otherby easy arguments of love and not refer it to a third partyfor arbitration or adjudication. That is a noble principle.This noble principle has been adopted by the Andhra people.They are the second largest community in India, next to theHindi-speaking people. Even leaving out the 85 lakhs of ourpeople in the Nizam's territory whom we do not want toabsorb unless they want to come in,--let there be nomisunderstanding,--we who form three crores in all are abouteighteen millions in the Madras presidency in the northernpart thereof. The Madras presidency has Madras as itscapital and there, nearly half the population is Andhra and the other half is in the south of the city. They speak fourdifferent languages. In the Legislature of Madras, there isa babel of tongues. People do not understand one another.But that is different matter.

Sir, we have been asking for a separate province for the last thirty five years. We were asked to wait till aNational Government came to power-Through that NationalGovernment has now come into existence it appears that theclaim for the division of Andhras appears to recede muchfurther than ever before. Whatever it be, we have come tosome kind of understanding amongst ourselves.

When I was President of the Andhra Provincial CongressCommittee- an office which was thrust upon me-during theregime of the first Congress Ministry, we came to anunderstanding with the Ceded Districts or Rayalaseema oncertain principle and on a very good basis. There it was aquestion of give and take. The people of the coastaldistricts, who are more advanced and who enjoy deltaiccultivation, are in every way more prosperous and have gotthe better of the people of Rayalaseema in trade, incommerce, in industry, in education and in public service,tough the whole of the Andhradesa itself is behind-hand, taken as a whole, whencompared to the people of the southern part of the provice.As between the two parts of the Andhradesa, the coastalregions are highly advanced and the other areas are highlybackward. In these two parts, even the soil conditions aretotally different. On cut side you cannot even get a stonewith which to drive away a dog, and on their side,

youcannot get a clod of earth for any purpose what soever. Thatside is stony and mountainous and its three-fifths of thearea is inhabited by only about one-third of the population;and the rest of the territory, two-fifths m area isinhabited by two-thirds of the total population. Apart fromthe cultural, social commercial, industrial and economicadvance, taking more numbers into consideration, we are twotimes more numerous and more Jense per square mile thanthey. If that be so, is it not a matter deserving theconsideration of this House? Are you going to adopt yourprinciple and your policies on the basis of the steam road-roller which levels down the tall oaks to the height of theshort poppies? That is not desirable.

Sir, the other day, the case of Assam was presented to the House and the House was good enough to say, `Well, wewill make an exception in the case of Assam. There are fourkinds of areas there. Therefore the rule of thumb does notapply. We cannot apply the same measure of representation toall the provinces of India. India is a huge continent with avariety of climates as well as surface and soil andcivilization more or less. Therefore there are differentdegrees of progress in different areas. In thosecircumstances there must be some kind of elasticity in themethods and measure of representation employed. And what isthe elasticity that we plead for? It so only this: Do notput the basis of representation as high as one lakh. Have75,000 as the minimum so that the sparely populated areas ofAndhradesa may get 90 seats. When they get 90 seats, and for the rest of the area you have the quantum as one lakh, wewill get 120 seats. By this means the disparity inrepresentation between the two areas can be brought down andit will not be easy for the people of one area to overridethe interests of the people of the other area.

Now take the administration in the two areas. There isa complaint that one part of the country has not receivedthat amount of attention which it is entitled to and therefore it has remained in a backward state. There is notank-water or well-water to drink in that part of thecountry and perpetually famine regius supreme. Almost everythree years it has to be declared a famine area andoperations costing crores of rupees have to be taken onhand. It would have been of great help if constructiveendeavors had been made in time to ensure water-supply andother amenities in those areas. But nothing of that kind isdone. Nobody listens to them. When the Andhra province comesinto existence pretty large sums will have to be spent inthat area. It is not an easy matter. But even so we have togive them to help in order to bring their representation toa higher level. What is the good of India having self-government if the States are lacking in equalrepresentation? I never considered India free so long as oneUnit was under a despotic ruler. We have fortunately tidedover that condition. What is the good of a province beingconsidered independent when half of it, may two-thirds of it is backward, has no water to drink and no food to eat and isbehind-hand both economically and educationally? We want tobring up the hilly areas of our country to the same level asour leves, even if progress in that direction may be slow.When that is the case, what is the meaning in the framing ofa rule which will arrest the progress of the country?Therefore I say an off-hand solution may not be foundhelpful and in this behalf I wish to appeal to Dr. Ambedkarwho has taken so much trouble in order to push this draftConstitution through this House. He has been circumspect,reasonable and eloquent and he has brought a comprehensivejudgment to bear upon these matters. We agreed day before yesterday to grant a seat forevery 75,000 of the population. Unfortunately I had to go toAmritsar yesterday evening and came back this morning. In the meantime this

amendment has come up. This amendment isharsh on one portion of the area. If it is not there, it would be harsh on the Punjab, it is said. Therefore the caseof the Punjab has to be considered, the case of Assam has tobe considered the case of Andhra has to be considered. Allthese matters require attention. Make your rules thereforeas elastic as possible. Give detailed attention to each of these subjects and then deal with them at leisure and not ina hurry. After all, for the preparation of the electoralrolls, all these details may not be necessary, though thefurnishing of these details will greatly facilitate thattask. Even if the electorates have to be formed, they can beformed in the month of May or June. We are in a hurry toprepare the electoral roll and we must know the basis and we have passed a rule that twenty-one years should be the agelimit. Therefore the provincial governments can go on with the preparation of their electoral rolls, but even if otherpoints be necessary, I say, please take a little time and doconsider and bring up this subject tomorrow so that we mayhave an agreed solution instead of trying to confuse thewhole audience who may not be really able to grasp the fulldetails or all the bearings of this subjects. Beyond this, Iwill not say anything. Whenever we bring up a question, it is said, "Oh, let the Tamils and the Andhras agree". Weagree. Then you raise the question, "Let all the Andhrasagree". We agree. Then you say, "No this does not answer myrule of thumb." This kind of thing is meaningress and itlooks as though the result, if not the intention, issidetrack the major problem. If the more advanced peoplesay, "We do not want a seat for every seventy-five thousandor one lakh; we want a seat for two lakhs; we want to raiseyou to a position of equality with us", is it repugnant toyour sense of justice? Is it repugnant to your politicalprinciples or administrative policy? I cannot understandthat. Therefore please allow this matter to come up atleisure so that an agreed understanding may be arrived at.

Mr. Vice-President: So much goodwill has been shown to the me by the House, so much kindness is bestowed on me thatI suggest that I do not call upon Dr. Ambedkar to make hisreply today but that we pass on to some other business, sothat all the parties concerned may have an opportunity ofputting their heads together and arriving at an agreedsolution. After all, framing the Construction is a co-operative effort and we must do all that we can to make it asuccess.

Some Honourable Members: Thank you, Sir.

*Article 63

Mr. Vice-President: We shall now pass on to article 63.

The motion is:

"That article 63 form part of the Constitution."

(Amendments Nos. 1339 and 1340 were not moved.)

Amendment Nos 1341 and 1339 are disallowed as beingmerely verbal amendments.

Amendment No. 1343 standing in the name of Mr. R. V.Thomas. I understand that he is no longer a Member of the House.

Amendment No. 1344 standing in the name of Mr.Naziruddin Ahmad may now be moved.

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

"That for clause (4) of article 63, the followingclauses be substitute namely:

`(4) The Attorney-General shall retire from officeupon the resignation of the Prime Minister,but he may continue in office until hissuccessor is appointed or he is re-appointed.

(5) The Attorney-General shall receive suchremuneration as the President maydetermine'."

Sir, I have brought this amendment to make this clausesimilar to a corresponding clause which appears in theprovincial constitution. The House may be pleased toconsider article 145. In article 145 there is provision foran Advocate-General for the State.

I feel that arguments which I may advance should belistened to by at least one Member upon whom so much rests,but with the lapse of time and experience one

has to grow alittle indifferent to the effect his speehes really producein the House. in fact I find that Dr. Ambedkar is engaged ina very much more important conference, a subject which mustbe much more important than the subject matter of thisamendment, but I think it will be needless or useless for metot wait upon the pleasure of Dr. Ambedkar's attention, andI think I should go on the with the amendment, trustingthat the House may be some chance accept my view.

Sir, article 145 deals with the Advocate-General whocorresponds to the Attorney-General at the Centre. Clause(1) of artcle 145 deals with the appointment of theAdvocate-General. Clause (2) corresponds to clause (2) of the present article. Clauses (1) and (2) of article 145really correspond to clauses (1) and (2) of the presentarticle. Clause (3) and (4) of article 145 really important.Clause (3) provides that "That Advocate-General shall retirefrom office upon the resignation of the Chief Minister in the State, but he may continue in office untill hissuccessor is appointed or he is re-apointed." Clause (4)provides that "That Advocate-General shall receive suchremuneration as the Governor may determine." The provisionsof theses two clausese do not appear in article 63. Isubmit, Sir, that the provisions of these two article, 63and 145, should be similar as they deal with two similaroffices. One is the Attorney-General of India and the otheris the Advocate-General of a State. The principle which Iwant to introduce by this amendement is that the position of the Attorney-General of India and that of the Advocate-General in the Provinces should stand on the same footing.In fact in the Provinces the Advocate-General is to form somuch a part of the Ministry that on the fall or resignationof the Ministry he has also to retire along with theretirement of the Ministry. it is a wholesome principle that the Advocate-General forms part of the Ministry and standsor falls with the rise and fall of the Ministry. It is alsonecessary that the Advocate-General must function so long ashe is not re-appointed or a successor to him is appointed,because routine work cannot otherwise be carried on by theGovernor or any other officer, he being a specialist and hisretention on office for that temporary period is desirable,and that he must receive a pay which the Governor maydetermine. I submit that a similar principle should apply to the Attorney-General of India. In fact he should also somuch form part of the Government that he should also retirewith the retirement of the Ministry. There is no reason whya difference should be made between the Attorney-General ofIndia and the Advocate-General of a State. It may be, I donot know, that this difference was not intentional. It maybe doe to an acciddental omission rather than deliberatepolicy. It is for this reason that I have attempted to drawthe attention of the House to the difference and i suggestthat the difference should be eliminated. As many honourableMembers may not have any opportunity of consideringindividually the difference between these two articles. I have pointedout the difference and I hope they will give the matter dueconsideration.

Prof. K. T. Shah ( Bihar: General): Sir, I beg to move:

"That in clause (4) of article 63, for the words `asthe President' the words `as the ParlI ament by law' besubstituted."

The amendment if sdopted would change the article toread:

"The Attorney-General shall hold office during thepleasure of the President and shallreceive suchremuneration as the ParlI ament may be law determine."

I do not like even as it is the proviso of this articlewhich would make the Attorney-General hold office during thepleasure of the President. But it may be that a conventionwould be established whereby the Attorney-General, assuggested in the preceding amendment, may form part of thecabinet, and may retire or take

office along with theMinistry. If the constitution does not provide specificallyto the contrary there is no bar to a convention of this kinddeveloping and the Attorney-General ranking as the Chieflegal adviser of Government, so that his office willtechnically be at the pleasure of the President.

So far as his emoluments are concerned, I think it would be proper if his emoluments are left not to bedetermined by order of the President, but by an act ofParlI ament as those the Ministers. The President would, it is quite true, act on the advice of the Ministers; but evenso the salary and allowances of the Attorney-General shouldbe determined I think by an Act of ParlI ament, and shouldnot therefore be varied in any particular term while, agiven individual holds office, to the prejudice of thatindividual. I think the ground is perfectly simple and Ihope the amendment will commend itself to the House.

Shri Prabhudayal Himatsingka (West Bengal: General):Sir, I beg to oppose the amendments moved by Mr. NaziruddinAhmad and Prof. K. T. Shah. The article as it stands is whatshould be accepted by the House. There is certainlydifference between the Advocate-General of a province and the Attorney-General of India. Sub-clause (4) provides that the Attorney-General shall hold office at the pleasure of the President and I think that should serve the purpose. Ifthere is a change in the Ministry that necessarily need notmean the going out of office of the Attorney-General also,but in the provinces with the change of ministry theAdvocate-General also, but in the provinces with the changeof ministry the Advocate-General should be required toretire unless he is appointed again. Therefore, I oppose theamendments moved and I support the article as it stands.

Mr. Vice-President: Dr. Ambedkar:

Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad: He has not listened. He isgetting his instrucions, Sir

Mr. Vice-President: That is hardly a charitable remarkto make.

Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad: It is not. I am forced to makethe remark, Sir.

Mr. Vice-President: will the honourable Member kindlyresume his seat?

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar (Bombay: General):Sir, I do not know whether any reply is necessary.

Mr. naziruddin Ahmad: No, not at all There has been nodebate on the amendment. It would be unfair to the House tobe called upon to vote without any reply. Rather than havethe amendment put to vote without any consideration, I wouldbeg leave of the House to withdraw it.

Mr. Vice-President: Has the honourable Member the leaveof the House for withdraw his amendment No.1344?

Some Honourable Members: No.

Mr. Vice-President: The question is:

"That for clause (4) of article 63, the followingclause be substitute, namely:

(4) "The Attorney-General shall retire from officeupon the resignation of the Prime Minister,but he may continue in office until hissuccessor is appointed or he is re-appointed.

(5) The Attorney-General shall receive suchremunerating as the President maydetermine'."

The Amendment was negatived.

Mr. Vice-President: The Question is:

"That is clause (4) of article 63, for the words'as thePresident' the words 'as the ParlI ament by law' besubstituted."

The amendment was negatives.

Mr.Vice-President: The question is:

"That article 63 stand part of the Constitution."

The motion was adopted.

Article 63 was added to the Constitution.

*Article 64

Mr. Vice-President: We now come to article 64. Themotion before the House is:

"That article 64 form part of the Constitution."

There are two amendements (1346 and 1348) standing in the name of Prof. K. T. Shah. He may move then one after theother.

Prof. K. T. Shah: Sir, I Move:

"That in clause (1) of article 64, for the word`President' the words `Government of India' be substituted"and,

"That in clause (2) of article 64, for the word`President', where it occurs for the first

time, the words`Government of India', for the word `President', where itoccurs for the second time, the words `Council ofMinisters', and for the word `President' where it occurs for the third time the words `Government of India' besubstituted respectively, and the following proviso be addedat the end of clause (2):-

`Provied that nothing in this article shall invalidateany act or word of Government expressed in the name of aparticular Department or Ministry'."

The amended article would then read:

"All executive action of the Government of India shallbe expressed to be taken in the name of the Government ofIndia.

Orders and other instruments made and executed in thename of the Government of India shall be authenticated insuch manner as may be specified in rules to be made by theCouncil of Ministers, and the validity of an order orinstrument which is so authenticated shall not be called inquestion on the ground that it is not an order or instrumentmade or executed by the Government of India:

Provided that nothing in this article shall invalidateany act or word of Government expressed in the name of aparticular Department or Ministry."

While accepting that the President would be the head of the Government, I shall do not quite understand why all theGovernment business should be carried on and orders issuedin the name of the President. Even if you are following thepractice in England, according to this draft, the ordersetc. of the Government in England are by "His Majesty'sGovernment". It is surely not so in India-at least I hope it is not intended that the Government in India would hereafterbe described as "the President's Government". The Governmentis the Government of India, and I do not see why theimpersonal and collective form should be substituted by thepersonal and direct form of the President. In my reading of the Constitutions this offendsagainst every principle that this Draft Constitution isotherwise based upon and I see no reason why decisions of the Government of India in their executive sphere should beexpressed in the name of the President. By the expressprovision of this Constitution the President is outside theturmoil of parties, while the Government of India isdefinitely going to be a party Government or even acoalition Government which may have varying fortunes. If sothere is every ground to suggest that the orders ofGovernment be in the name of Government themselvescollectively and not in the name of the President. It is forthat reason that the first amendment has been suggested.

The second amendment is consequential. Rules which willregulate the framing and issue of orders will of course bemade by the Council of Ministers. The President should,therfore, not intervene at all in this direction and theorders will be expressed in the name of the government ofIndia. If by any chance or for any special occasion anyDepartment has to issue, let us say, a circular or anordinance or some particular orders relating to the doingsof that particular Department. and the order concerned isexpressed in the name of that Department or Ministry, thatshould not by itself invalidate the order merely because it is not spoken of as in the name of the Government of India.To me this procedure seems to be not only more simple butmore in accordance with the theory of the Constitution, and therefore I hope the House will accept it.

(Amendment No. 1347 was not moved.)

Mr. Vice -President: The article is now open forgeneral discussion.

Shri M. Ananthasayanam Ayyangar (Madras: General): Sir,Prof. K. T. Shah who has moved the amendments Nos. 1346 and1348 has tabled his amendments in accordance with adifferent scheme which he envisaged; and in pursuance ofthat he has tabled amendments almost to every clause, or to the majority of the clauses, in this Constitution. He wanteda different kind of Government in this country,

namely, thePresidential system a opposed to the parlI amentary system.

Prof. K. T. Shah: On a point of correction, this iskeeping the President outside the Presidential system that Iwanted. It is on their Draft that I wanted to make theamendment.

Shri M. Ananthsayanam Ayyangar: I am glad that for oncemy friend has tried to help other party. My friend, Prof.Shah will find that we have already given our seal ofaproval to article 66, which says:

"There shall be a parlI ament for the Union whichconsist of the President and two Houses to be knownrespectively as the Council of States and the Houses of thePeople."

Therefore the president of the Union becomes an integralpart of the ParlI ament of the Indian Union. In anothersection, the executive power is co-extensive with the powerof the Legislature. Thus at one stage he becomes anecessary, element and at another stage he ceases to be in the turmoil of the day-to-day administration. Prof. Shahwanted by an amendment to article 66 to do away with thePresident and restrict it only to the two Houses-he wantedonly one House. But the amendment was lost and the Presidenthas become a permanent fixture. So far as ParlI ament isconcerned, I do not see any reason why the executiveauthority ought not to be exercised in his name.

Let us turn to article 42. It says:

"The executive power of the Union shall be vested in thePresident and may be exercised by him a accordance with the Constitution and the Law."

That was also passed by this House. In view of articles 42and 66, where in the one of case the President is theexecutive authority and in the other the President with the two Houses, constitues ParlI ament, thePresident has been firmly fixed up in both the places. ThisArticle, that is article 64, is only carrying out thesubstantive provisions of articles 42 and 66, by saying that"all executive action of the Government of India shall beexpressed to be taken in the name of the President".

He is the Chief Executive authority. He is the firstperson and in case of dissolution of ParlI ament, who is theperson to dissolve it? It is the President who is vestedwith the authority. During day-to-day administration, exceptin regard to legislative portions and legislative isdissolved the Ministry also is dissolved. If an occasionarise like that, the President has to exercise the powers.

Let us address ourselves to another reason that hasbeen given. My friend Prof. Shah wants that executive actionshould be taken in the name of the Government. The Presidentmeans the President means the President on the advice of theMinisters. He cannot act independently. Action is taken inhis name though it is action of the Government as a whole,that is, consisting of the President and the Ministry. Thusit is impossible to get him out of the framework. ThePresident is the chief executive authority action should betaken in the name of the President.

I oppose both the amendments of Prof. Shah-Nos. 1346and 1348-and request the Houses to pass the article 64 as itstands.

Shri Raj Bahadur (United State of Matsya): Mr. Vice-President, Sir, I come here to oppose the amendment that hasbeen moved by Prof. K. T. Shah. From the various amendmentsthat he has been moving from time to time, I am led to thinkthat he is moving according to a set plan and that he wantsthe Presidential system of constitution instead of theParlI amentary system of democracy for the country. But, withall respect to his erudition and experience. I see that hehas not been consistent even in that. When we discussedarticle 42, by which the entire executive power of the Unionis vested in the President, he himself moved two amendments,Nos. 1040 and 1045 to that article and one of his amendmentreads as follows:-

"The sovereign executive power and authority of theUnion shall be vested in the President, and shall beexercised by him in accordance with

the Consititution and inAccordance with the laws made thereunder and in force for the time being."

By implication it means obviously that all executiveactions should be taken by and in the name of the President,Which is exactly the import, meaning and the implication ofarticle 64, under discussion. I, therefore, fail to see anyreason for Prof. K. T. Shah to go now behind the terms ofhis own amendment, which he moved to article 42. What wemean clearly enough is that the entire executive power of the Union vests in the President and all governmentalorders, and instruments shall be made in the name of thePresident. It is no anomaly and no inconsistency under anyknown democratic principles to get the orders issued in thename of the President and as such, I submit, there is noreason for the House to accept the amendment which has beenmoved by Prof. Shah.

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Mr. Vice-president,Sir, I do not think any reply is called for.

Mr. Vice-President: The Question is:

"That in clause (1) of article 64, for the word'President' the Words `as the ParlI aments by law' besubstituted."

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. Vice-President: The question is:

"That in clause (2) of article 64, for the word'President', where it occurs for the first time, the words'Government of India', for the word 'President', where itoccurs for the second time, the words 'Council ofMinisters', and for the word 'President' where it occuresfor the third time the words 'Government of India' besubstituted respectively, and the following proviso be addedat the end of clause (2):-

'Provided that nothing in this article shallinvalidate any act or word of Governmentexpressed in the name of a particularDepartment or Ministry'."

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. Vice-President: The Question is:

"That article 64 stand part of the Constitution."

The motion was adopted.

Article 64 was added to the Cosntitution

*Article 65

Mr. Vice-president: Amendment No. 1349 has the effectof a negative vote, and is, therefore, desallowed.

Amendment no. stands in the name of Shri H. V. Kamathand may be moved.

Shri H. V. Kamath (C.P. & Berar: General): Mr. Vice-president, I move Sir,

"That in clause (a) of article 65, after the word"President' a comma and the words as soon as they are made,'be inserted."

This clause as it stands at present, reads as follows;-

"It shall be the duty of the Prime Minister-

to communicate to the President all decisions of theCouncil of Ministers,....."

If may amendment be accepted by the House, the clause,as amended, would read thus:--

"It shall be the duty of the Prime Minister--

to communicate to the President, as soon as theyare made, all decisions of the Council ofMinisters."

The amendment is more or less formal, and only makesfor clarity of the meaning of the clause. In my judgement,there is no need whatever for such a clause in the Constitution and I think that it may as well be incorporatedin the Rules of Business of the Cabinet. But somehow orother, it has found its way in the Constitution and anyamendment which seeks to eliminate it would be disallowed asit seeks to negative the motion. Personally I should havewished that the article as a whole were not there, becauseit is merely some of the Rules of Business of the Cabinet;and what they should do in this matter must be purely aroutine affair and must have been embodied in the Rules ofBusiness of the Council of Ministers. But as it has comebefore us, I would only move this amendment, with a view toobtaining greater clarity of this particular sub-clauses(a), because decisions of the Council Ministers, if they are not communicated as soon as they are made,-it may be, ofcourse, that they will be communicated very soon after that-but to make it absolutely clear, we might as well providefor this, that all the decisions of

the Cabinet must becommunicated to the President as soon as they are made, sothat if a contingency arises, as visualized in sub-clauses(b) and (c), the President may call for information and ifthe President so requires, any matter which has beenconsidered by the Cabinet already, may be re-opened by them,as provided for in sub-clause (c) of this article. Delayperhaps may be dangerous in this matter as in so manyothers, and therefore with a view to eliminate any delay, any procrastination in these matters, I move, Sir,that decisions of the Cabinet must be communicated to thePresident as soon as they are made. I move amendment No. of the List of Amendments and commend it to the acceptance of the House.

Mr. Vice-President: There is an amendment to thisamendment No. 71 of List No. V (Sixth week) standing in thename of Mr. R. K. Sidhva-Member not in the House.

Then we come to Amendment No. 1351 standing in thenames of Shri. A. K. Menon and Shri. B. M. Gupta.

(The amendment was not moved).

Amendment No. 1352 stands in the name of Prof. K. T.Shah.

Prof. K. T.Shah: This is a matter of detail and I wouldlike to be excused form, moving this amendment.

Mr. Vice-President: There is only on amendment nowbefore the House and the clause is open for genraldiscussion. Dr. Ambedkar, would you like to say anything?

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: No. Sir, I do notaccept Mr. Kamath's amendment.

Mr. Vice-president: The question is:

"That in clause (a) of article 65, after the word`President' a comma and the words `as soon as they aremade,' be inserted."

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. Vice-president: The question is:

"That article 65 stand part of the Constitution."

The motion was adopted.

Article 65 was added to the Constitution.

Mr. Vice-President: Ordinarily, we close at 1 p.m. inorder to accommodate our Muslim brethren. Today, we closejust now to accommodate ourselves. The House standsadjourned till 10 A.M. tomorrow.

Shri M. Ananthasayanam Ayyangar: May I request you,sir,............

Mr. vice-president: The Houses has been adjourned; nofurther business can be transacted now.

The Assembly then adjourned till Ten of the Clock onSaturday the 8th January, 1949