CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY OF INDIA - Volume VIII


Thursday, the 2nd June 1949

Then, with regard to the amendment of Professor K. T.Shah about literacy, I think that is a matter which might as well be left to the Legislatures. If the Legislatures at the time of prescribing qualifications feel that literacy qualification is a necessary one, I no doubt think that they will do it.

Sir, there is only one point about which I should like to make a specific reference. Sub-clause (c) is in a certain manner related to articles 290 and 291 which deal with electoral matters. We have not passed those articles

If during the course of dealing with articles 290 and 291, the House comes to the conclusion that the provision contained in clause (c) should be prescribed by the law made by Parliament, then I should like to reserve for the Drafting Committee the right to reconsider the last part of sub-clause (c).Subject to that I think the article, as amended, may be passed.

Mr. President: I shall now put the article with the various amendments to vote: first is the amendment of Shrimati Purnima Banerji-No. 38 of List I.

The question is:

"That in amendment No. 2311 of the List of Amendments, in clause (b) of the proposed article 152, for the word `thirty-five' the word `thirty' be substituted."

The amendment was adopted.

Mr. President: The question is:

"That for article 152, the following be substituted:-

`152 Qualification for membership of the State Legislature.- A person shall not be qualified to be chosen to fill a seat in the Legislature of a State unless he-

(a) is a citizen of India;

(b) is, in the case of a seat in a Legislative Assembly, not less than twenty-five years of age and in the case of a seat in the Legislative Council, not less than thirty years of age, and

(c) possesses such other qualifications as may be prescribed in this behalf by or under any law made by the Legislature of the State.'"

The amendment was adopted.

Mr. President: The question is:

"That in article 152, after the word `age' where it occurs for the first time the words is literate, and is not otherwise disqualified from being elected; and after the word `age' where it occurs for the second time, the words `is qualified to vote in the constituency from which he seeks election, and is not otherwise disqualified from being elected' be added."

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. President: The question is:

"That article 152, as amended, stand part of the Constitution."

The motion was adopted.

Article 152, as amended, was added to the Constitution.

Mr. President: Then we have notice of another article, No. 152-A, which I think is covered by the article which we have just passed; so, that need not be taken up.

Then we go to article 153.

*

Article 153

Mr. President: Article 153 is for the consideration of the House.

With regard to the very first amendment, No. 2321, as we had a similar amendment with regard to article 69 which was discussed at great length the other day, does Professor Shah wish to move it?

Prof. K. T. Shah: If I am in order I would like to move it. But if you rule it out, it cannot be moved.

Mr. President: It is not a question of ruling it out. If it is moved, there will be a repetition of the argument once put forward.

Prof. K. T. Shah: I agree that this is a similar amendment, but not identical.

Mr. President: I have not said it is identical.

Prof. K. T. Shah: All right. I do not move it, Sir.

Mr. President: Amendment Nos. 2322, 2323, 2324, 2325 and 2326 are not moved, as they are verbal amendments.

Prof. K. T. Shah: As my amendment No. 2327 is part of the amendment not moved, I do not move it.

Mr. President: Then amendments Nos. 2328, 2329 and 2330 also go, Amendment No. 2331 is not moved.

Mr. Mohd. Tahir (Bihar: Muslim): Mr. President, I move:

"That at the end of sub-clause (c) of clause (2) of article 153, the words "if the Governor is satisfied that the administration is failing and the ministry has become unstable' be

inserted."

In this clause certain powers have been given to the Governor to summon, prorogue or dissolve the Legislative Assembly. Now I want that some reasons may be enumerated which necessitate the dissolution of a House, I find that to clause (3) of article 153 there is an amendment of Dr. Ambedkar in which he wants to omit the clause which runs thus: "(3) the functions of the Governor under sub-clause (a) and (c) of clause (2) of this article shall be exercised by him in his discretion." I, on the other hand, want that some reasons should be given for the dissolution. Nowhere in the Constitution are we enumerating the conditions and circumstances under which the House can be dissolved. If we do not put any condition, there might be difficulties. Supposing in some province there is a party in power with whose views the some reasons to dissolve the Assembly and make arrangements for fresh elections. If such things happen there will be no justification for a dissolution of the House. Simply because a Governor does not subscribe to the views of the majority party the Assembly should not be dissolved. To avoid such difficulties I think it is necessary that some conditions and circumstances should be enumerated in the Constitution under which alone the Governor can dissolve the House. There should be no other reason for dissolution of the House except maladministration or instability of the Ministry and its unfitness to work. Therefore this matter should be considered and we should provide for certain conditions and circumstances under which the Governor can dissolve the House.

Mr. President: The next amendment, No. 2333, is not moved, Dr. Ambedkar may move amendment No. 2334.

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

"That clause (3) of article 153 be omitted."

This clause is apparently inconsistent with the scheme for a Constitutional Governor.

Mr. President: Amendment No. 2335 is the same as the amendment just moved. Amendment No. 2336 is not moved.

Shri H.V. Kamath: Mr. President, Sir, may I have your leave to touch upon the meaning or interpretation of the amendment that has just been moved by my learned Friend, Dr. Ambedkar? If this amendment is accepted by the House it would do away with the discretionary powers given to the Governor. There is, however, sub-clause (b). Am I to understand that so far as proroguing of the House is concerned, the Governor acts in consultation with the Chief Minister or the Cabinet and therefore no reference to it is necessary in clause (3)?

Mr. President: He wants clause (3) to be deleted.

Shri H.V. Kamath: In clause (3) there is references to sub-clauses (a) and (c). I put (a) and (b) on a par with each other. The Governor can summon the Houses or either House to meet at such time and place as he thinks fit. Then I do not know why the act of prorogation should be on a different level.

Mr. President: That is exactly what is not being done now. All the three are being put on a par.

Shri H. V. Kamath: Then I would like to refer to another aspect of this deletion. That is the point which you were good enough to raise in this House the other day, that is to say, that the President of the Union shall have a Council of Ministers to aid and advise him in the exercise of his functions.

The corresponding article here is 143:

"That shall be a Council of Minister with the Chief Minister at the head to aid and advise the Governor in the exercise of his functions......"

Sir, as you pointed out in connection with an article relating to the President vis-a-vis his Council of Ministers, is there any article, is there any provision, in the Constitution which binds the Governor to accept or to follow always the advice tendered to him by his Council of Ministers? Power is being conferred upon him under this article to dissolve the Legislative Assembly. This is a fairly serious matter in all democracies. There have been instances in various democracies, even in our own provinces sometimes, when a Cabinet seeking to gain time against a motion of

censure being brought against them, have sought the Governor's aid, in getting the Assembly prorogued. This of course is not so serious as dissolution of the Legislative Assembly. Here the article blandly says, "subject to the provisions of this article." As regards clause (1) of the article, I am glad that our Parliament and our other Legislatures would meet more often and for longer periods. I hope that will be considered and will be given effect to at the appropriate time. Clause (2) of this article is important because it deals with the dissolution of the Assembly by the Governor of a State and in view of the fact that there is no specific provision-of course it may be understood and reading between the lines Dr. Ambedkar might say that the substance of it is there, but we have not yet decided even to do away with the discretionary powers of the Governor to accept the advice tendered to him by his Council of Ministers, there is a lacuna in the Constitution. Notwithstanding this, we are conferring upon him the power to dissolve the Legislative Assembly, without even mentioning that he should consult or be guided by the advice of his Ministers in this regard. I am constrained to say that this power which we are conferring upon the Governor will be out of tune with the new set-up that we are going to create in the country unless we bind the Governor to accept the advice tendered to him by his Minister. I hope that this article will be held over and the Drafting Committee will bring forward another motion later on revising or altering this article in a suitable manner.

Shri Gopal Narain (United Provinces: General): Mr. Present, Sir, before speaking on this article, I wish to lodge a complaint and seek redress from you, I am one of those who have attended all the meetings of this Assembly and sit from beginning to the end, but my patience has been exhausted now. I find that there are a few honourable Members of this House who have monopolised all the debates, who must speak on every article, on every amendment and every amendment to amendment. I know, Sir, that though I see from your face that also feel sometimes bored, but you cannot stop them. I suggest to you, Sir, that some time-limit may be imposed upon some Members. They should not be allowed to speak for more than two or three minutes. So far as this article is concerned, it has already taken fifteen minutes, though there is nothing new in it, and it only provides discretionary powers to the Governor. Still a Member comes and oppose it. I seek redress from you, but if you cannot do this, then you must allow us at least to sleep in our seats or do something else than sit in this House. Sir, I support this article.

Mr. President: I am afraid I am helpless in this matter. I leave it to the good sense of the Members.

Shri Brajeshwar Prasad: (Rose to speak).

Mr. President: Do you wish to speak after this? (Laughter).

The Honourable Dr. B.R. Ambedkar: I do not think I need reply. This matter has been debated quite often.

Mr. President: Then I will put the amendments to vote.

The question is:

"That at the end of sub-clause (c) of clause (2) of article 153, the words `if the Governor is satisfied that the administration is failing and the ministry has become unstable; be inserted."

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. President: The question is:

"That clause (3) of article 153 be omitted."

The amendment was adopted.

Mr. President: The question is:

"That article 153, as amended, stand part of the Constitution."

The motion was adopted.

Article 153, as amended, was added to the Constitution.

*

New Article 153-A

Mr. President: There is notice of a new article by Professor Shah.

Prof. K.T. Shah: I am told that this matter came up before but I am not aware of it. Perhaps the honourable Chairman of the Drafting Committee would inform me. If it has already been decided, then I would not move this, but I do not think it has come up.

Mr. President: (after referring to amendment No. 1483). That has

nothing to do with the right of members.

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

"That after article 153, the following new article 153-A be added:-

`153-A. If at any time when the Assembly is not sitting, it appears necessary to more than half of the total membership of the State Legislative Assembly that a situation has arisen in the State which calls for the Assembly to be sitting and consider the situation, they may in writing signed by them address the Speaker of the Assembly to convene a meeting of the Assembly for considering the matter specified in the application; and on receipt of such a requisition the Speaker shall convene the meeting within not more than seven clear days after receipt of the Requisitioning members to bear the expenses of such a meeting, unless the Assembly specifically resolves to the contrary and exonerate the members concerned from the charge.'"

Sir, this right of Requisition is, in my opinion an important right which should be given to members of the Assembly provided they are in number more than half the total membership of any State Legislative Assembly. The entire framework of this Constitution, Sir, has been so designed as to vest all powers even in regard to the Legislature in the executive, I mean powers of convening, of dissolving, of proroguing or of adjourning the House. It seems to me therefore that within the safeguard. I have indicated in this amendment the right of Requisitioning and assent of the Speaker by more than half the total membership of the House is not only liable to be abused, but may be of great service.

As the House is aware, it is possible that between two sessions of a State Legislature there may be as much as six months. Within a period of six months, it is not inconceivable that a situation may arise, that could not be dealt with except by deliberation and action of the Legislature itself. There may be factors at work, however, whereby the executive is either unable or unwilling to call such a meeting. It becomes, therefore, important for the rest of the members or rather for the private members, if I may say so, of the Legislature, to request that a meeting be called. And hence my amendment providing for the right to requisition.

I have provided, I think, more than ample safeguards that a right of this kind shall not be abused. It has been laid down in the first instance that not a fraction, but a definite absolute majority of the House so considers necessary to convene a meeting. Secondly that if they do so,they will have to address the presiding authority in writing specifying the special situation which requires a meeting of this kind to be convened; Thirdly that they may have to bear, if the Speaker so thinks proper, the entire expenditure of the meeting being convened unless the Assembly when it meets realizes the gravity of the situation or the wisdom of those people who make such a request, and specifically resolve to exonerate them from the charge and causes the meeting to be convened in the ordinary manner.

Subject to these precautions or safeguards, I think the right of requisitioning is in no way likely to be abused; on the contrary it is possible that thereby a sense of responsibility may be created in the ordinary member; a sense of close interest by the average private member in the doings or happenings in the province may be generated, and as such the real training, if one may say so, of responsible Government may be induced in the Legislature as such.

I know that this demand is somewhat unusual, but I trust the mere "unusualness" of it will not be an argument to damn it. I trust the House will see the force of the arguments I have put forward and accept my motion.

Mr. President: Does any one wish to say anything about this amendment?

The Honourable Dr. B.R. Ambedkar: Sir, I do not accept the amendment.

Mr. President: The question is:

"That after article 153, the following new article 153-A be added :-

`153-A. If at any time when the Assembly is not sitting, it appears necessary to more than

half of the total membership of the State Legislative Assembly that a situation has arisen in the State which calls for the Assembly to be sitting and consider the situation, they may in writing signed by them address the Speaker of the Assembly to convene a meeting of the Assembly for considering the matter specified in the application; and on receipt of such a requisition the Speaker shall convene the meeting within not more than seven clear days after receipt of Requisition; provided that the Speaker may, if he deems proper, call upon such requisitioning members to bear the expenses of such a meeting, unless the Assembly specifically resolves to the contrary and exonerate the members concerned from the charge.'"

The amendment was negatived.

*

Article 154

Mr. President: I find that this article 154 is word for word the same as article 70, which we have already adopted with only this difference that one relates to the States and the other relates to the Union. Is it necessary to have any long discussion about this?

Many Honourable Members: No, Sir.

Mr. President: The question is:

"That article 154 stand part of the Constitution."

The motion was adopted.

Article 154 was added to the Constitution.

*

Article 155

Mr. President: This article also is word for word same as article 71 except that the present article refers to the State and the previous article refers to the Centre. The amendments to this also are of a verbal nature except the one by Mr. Sidhva-Amendment No. 2348.

Shri R. K. Sidhva: I do not wish to move that.

Mr. President: The question is:

"That article 155 stand part of the Constitution."

The motion was adopted.

Article 155 was added to the Constitution.

*

Article 156

Mr. President: This article is also the same as article 72, which we have already accepted. Of course there are some amendments.

(Amendments Nos. 2349 and 2352 were not moved.)

The question is:

"That article 156 stand part of the Constitution."

The motion was adopted.

Article 156 was added to the Constitution.

*

Article 157

Mr. President: There is no amendment, to this article as far as I can see, which is of a very substantial nature. All are verbal amendments. This article is similar to article 76 relating to the Union.

The question is:

"That article 157 stand part of the Constitution."

The motion was adopted.

Article 157 was added to the Constitution.

Mr. President: Then there is notice of another amendment to insert a new article-157-A, given by Prof. Shah.

Prof. K.T. Shah: Sir, this matter has been discussed in the past and it has been rejected. Therefore, I do not wish to move it.

(Amendment No. 2359 was not moved.)

*

Article 158

Mr. President: The motion is:

"That article 158 form part of the Constitution."

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

"That in article 158, for the words `A member holding office as' the word `The' be substituted and in clause (b) of article 158, for the words `such members' the word `he' and for the words `to the Deputy Speaker' the words `the member of the Legislative Assembly be substituted respectively."

If the amendment is accepted, it will run as follows:

"The Speaker or Deputy Speaker of an Assembly-

(a) shall vacate his office if he ceases to be member of the Assembly;

(b) may at any time by writing under his hand addressed if he is the Speaker to the members of the Legislative Assembly and if he is the Deputy Speaker, to the Speaker, resign his office, and ....."

I will say a few words in this connection. The Speaker of the Assembly must necessarily be a member of the House. He is resigning or vacating the office, not as a member, but as the Speaker of the Assembly. Therefore, the wording, "A member holding office as", I think is redundant and it should be, "Speaker or Deputy Speaker of the Assembly." So far as the addressing Assembly is elected by the members of the House. The Speaker is the highest official in the Assembly. If he resigns he must

address to the members of the Assembly and not to the Deputy Speaker. He may hand over the resignation letter to the Deputy Speaker: that is a different matter. So far as the addressing of the application for resignation is concerned, he must address it to the members of the Assembly who have elected his as such. Therefore, I think that this provision should be amended like this. With these few words, I commend this amendment to the House for acceptance.

(Amendment No. 2361 was not moved.)

Mr. President: Amendment No. 2362.

Shri H.V. Kamath: A similar amendment has been lost earlier, Sir, and I am not anxious to see the same fate overtake this amendment as well.

(Amendment Nos. 2363 and 2364 were not moved.)

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

"That in clause (c) of article 158, for the words `all the then members of the Assembly' the words `the members of the Assembly present and voting' be substituted."

Clause (c) runs as follows:

"(c) may be removed from his office for incapacity or want of confidence by a resolution of the Assembly passed by a majority of all the then members of the Assembly."

Sir, so far as I can understand the meaning of the wording, "all the then members of the Assembly", it includes all the members of the Assembly. Supposing a House is composed of 300 members then, it will mean all the members of the Assembly, that is 300. Supposing fifty members of the House are not present in the House, then, those members will not have the right to give their votes so far as this question is concerned. Therefore, I think that it would be better that this matter should be considered by only those members who are present in the Assembly and who can vote in the matter. If this phrase "all the then members of the Assembly" means the members who are present in the Assembly, then, I have no objection. If it means all the members of which the House is composed, I think it is not desirable to keep the clause as it stands.

With these few words, I move my amendment.

(Amendment Nos. 2366, 2367 and 2368 were not moved.)

Mr. President: Amendment No. 2369.

Shri T.T.Krishnamachari (Madras: General): May I ask, Sir, if Mr. Jaspat Roy Kapoor is going to move another amendment which stands in his name, article 159-A, which is another version of the amendment which is now before the House. If he is going to move that amendment, I think there is no point in moving this amendment. I think the latter amendment will serve the purpose he has in mind more adequately.

Shri Jaspat Roy Kapoor (United Provinces: General): I may assure my honourable Friend Mr. T.T. Krishnamachari that I will move all the relevant amendments. In order to enable me to move the amendment. I think it is necessary that I should move amendment No. 2369. Otherwise it will be permissible for me to move any other amendment which is an amendment to this amendment.

Mr. President: You may formally move this and then go to the amendments to this amendment.

Shri Jaspat Roy Kapoor: Is it your suggestion, Sir, that I need not read this?

Mr. President: Yes.

Shri Jaspat Roy Kapoor: Mr. President, I beg to move amendment No. 2369 in the printed List of Amendments, Volume I:

"That at the end of article 158, the following new clause be inserted :-

`(2) When a resolution for the removal of the Speaker is under discussion the Deputy Speaker shall preside and when the resolution for removal of the Deputy Speaker is under consideration and the Speaker is absent such other person shall preside as under the rules of procedure of the Assembly is authorised to preside during the absence of the Deputy Speaker.'"

To improve upon this amendment I have given notice of amendments to this amendment. I will first move amendment No. 138 which runs thus :

`That for amendment No. 2369 of the List of Amendment, the following be substituted :-

That after article 158, the following new article be inserted :-

158-A. At any sitting of the Legislative Assembly of a State, while any resolution for the removal of the

Speaker from his office is under consideration, the Speaker, or while any resolution for the removal of the Deputy Speaker from his office is under consideration, the Deputy Speaker, shall not, though he is present, preside, and the provisions of clause (2) of the next succeeding article shall apply

in relation to every such sitting as they apply in relation to a sitting from which the Speaker or, as the case may be, the Deputy, Speaker, is absent.'"

There is yet another amendment to this amendment, No. 195:

"That with reference to amendment No. 2369 of the List of Amendment and No. 138 of List II (Third Week), after article 159, the following new article be inserted :-

`159-A. The Speaker and the Deputy Speaker not to preside at sittings of the Assembly while a resolution for his removal from office is under consideration. At any sitting of the Legislative Assembly of a State, while any resolution for the removal of the Speaker from his office is under consideration, the Speaker, or while any resolution for the removal of the Deputy Speaker from his office is under consideration, the Deputy Speaker, shall not, though he is present, preside, and the provisions of clause (2) of the last preceding article as they apply in relation to a sitting from which the Speaker or, as the case may be, the Deputy Speaker, as absent.

Perhaps it is unnecessary to read amendment No. 195. The only change that it seeks to make in amendment No. 138, is that the location of this new article should be after 159 and not after 158.

Sir, the principle and propriety of the procedure suggested in this amendment has already been agreed to by this House on a previous occasion in dealing with the procedure in respect of the two Houses of Parliament. This amendment is on the same lines as article 75-A and 78-A which the House has already adopted. This amendment only seeks to lay down the same procedure as we have laid down in the case of the two Houses of Parliament. Obviously it would be unfair to the Legislative Assembly and it would be embarrassing to the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker to preside over the deliberations in the Assembly when a motion of no-confidence is being moved against him, and I think that, in order to be fair to the House and also to relieve the Speaker or the Deputy Speaker of the embarrassing position in which he would find himself when such a motion of no-confidence against him is being discussed in the House, it is necessary that the Speaker or the Deputy Speaker, as the case may be should not preside over the sitting of the Assembly and somebody else should preside in his place as is provided in this amendment. I need not say anything more on this subject because it has already been discussed on a previous occasion and I simply commend it for the acceptance of the House.

Mr. President: I think this should come after 159. It is moved and we shall reserve voting after article 159 is disposed of.

I will put article 158 to vote. I will first put the amendments of Mr. Tahir to vote.

Mr. President: The question is:

"That in article 158, for the words `A member holding office as' the word `The' be substituted and in clause (b) of article 158, for the words `such member' the word `he' and for the words `to the Deputy Speaker' the words `the member of the Legislative Assembly' be substituted respectively."

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. President: The question is:

"That in clause (c) of article 156, for the words `all the then members of the Assembly' the words `the members of the Assembly present and voting' be substituted."

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. President: The question is:

"That article 158 stand part of the Constitution."

The motion was adopted.

Article 158 was added to the Constitution.

*

Article 159

Mr. President: We take up article 159.

(Amendment Nos. 2370 and 2371 were not moved.)

Mr. President: The question is:

"That article 159 stand part of the Constitution."

The motion was adopted.

Article 159 was added to the

Constitution.

*

New Article 159-A (contd.)

Mr. President: I now take vote on the amendment moved by Mr. Kapoor.

"That with reference to amendment No. 2369 of the List Amendment and No. 138 of List of List II (Third Week), after article 153 the following new article be inserted :-

`159-A. The Speaker and the Deputy Speaker not to preside at sittings of the Assembly while a resolution for his removal from office is under consideration. At any sitting of the Legislative Assembly of a State, while any resolution for the removal of the Speaker from his office is under consideration, the Speaker, or while any resolution for the removal of the Deputy Speaker from his office is under consideration, the Deputy Speaker, shall not, though he is present, preside, and the provisions of the clause (2) of the last preceding article shall apply in relation to a sitting from which the Speaker or, as the case may be, the Deputy Speaker, is absent.'"

The amendment was adopted.

New Article 159-A was added to the Constitution.

*

Article 160

Mr. President: We take up article 160.

There is no amendment to this either.

Mr. Naziruddin Ahmed: No.2373, Sir. Sir, I beg to move:

"That in article 160 for the word `another' the word `a' be substituted."

I move the second part only. This amendment has been twice last in another connection, but I still venture to submit it for the reconsideration of the House so that the other context may be reconsidered by the Drafting Committee. The article provides that if the Deputy Chairman or the Chairman of the Council loses his seat or so often as the office as the office of the Chairman or Deputy Chairman becomes vacant `another' member shall be elected. The question is about another member. I submit that when the Chairman or the Deputy Chairman loses his then of course for that election that Chairman or Deputy Chairman is not eligible for election because he is not a member, but there is a provision that as many times as the office of the Chairman or Deputy Chairman becomes vacant, another member should be elected. Supposing that a Deputy Chairman loses his seat, there is a first vacancy. For that election the late Deputy Chairman will not be eligible because he would not be member but then if there is a second vacancy and, meanwhile, let us suppose that the Deputy Chairman is re-elected a member of the Council, the question is, would you allow him to contest or not? At the time of the second or subsequent vacancy he may have been re-elected and for all that I know he would be quite eligible; but the effect of the wording would be, if you say `another member,' I beg to ask whether that member if he is otherwise qualified in the meantime, would he be shut out? If it is a desired to shut out, that is a different matter; but I do not think there is a desire to shut him out. On the other hand there is a belief that as soon as a man loses his seat, he cannot possibly be a candidate because he is not a member but the very supposition which is the basis of the amendment is that meanwhile he may be re-elected. The question is whether you will allow him to contest. I submit that on re-consideration possibly the amendment may be accepted. It is not a verbal amendment but a substantial amendment. It gives a right to a member who has been meanwhile re-elected although he has lost his seat before.

Mr. President: Dr. Ambedkar.

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: I have nothing to say.

Mr. President: The question is:

"For the word `another' the word `a' be substituted."

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. President: The question is:

"That article 160 stand part of the Constitution."

The motion was adopted.

Article 160 was added to the Constitution.

Mr. President: Prof. Shah has given notice of a new Article.

Prof. K. T. Shah: This has already been covered.

*

Article 161

Mr. President: Article 161. Mr. Jaspat Roy Kapoor's amendment No. 196 will come in as a separate article.

Shri T.T. Krishnamachari: Somebody may raise some procedural

objection later on. So, better it is moved now.

Mr. President: Mr. Kapoor may move No. 2381.

Shri Jaspat Roy Kapoor: Sir, I beg to move:

"That after article 161, the following new clause be inserted :-

`(2) When a resolution for the removal of the Speaker is under discussion the Deputy Speaker shall preside and when the resolution for removal of the Deputy Speaker is under consideration and the Speaker is absent such other person shall preside as under the rules of procedure of the Assembly is authorises to preside during the absence of the Deputy Speaker.'"

To this I move another amendment, No. 139 in the List of Amending to Amendments, Third Week. I beg to move:

"That for amendment No. 2381 of the List of Amendments, the following be substituted :-

`That after article 161, the following new article be inserted :-

161-A. At any sitting of the Legislative Council of a State, while any resolution for the removal of the Chairman from his office is under consideration, the Chairman, or while any resolution for the removal of the Deputy Chairman from his office is under consideration, the Deputy Chairman shall not, though he is present, preside, and the provisions of clause (2) of the next succeeding article shall apply in relation to every such sitting as they apply in relation to a sitting from which the Chairman, or, as the case may be, `the Deputy Chairman, is absent.'"

To this again. I beg to move another amendment No. 196 in the same List

of Amendment to Amendments. I beg to move:

"That with reference to amendment No. 2381 of the List of Amendment and No. 139 of List II (Third Week) after article 162 the following article be inserted :-

`162-A. The Chairman or the Deputy Chairman not to preside at sittings of the Legislative Council while a resolution for his removal from office is under consideration. At any sitting of the Legislative Council of State, while any resolution for the removal of the Chairman from his office is under consideration, the Chairman, or while any resolution for the removal of the Deputy Chairman from his office is under consideration, the Deputy Chairman, shall not, though he is present, preside, and the provisions of clause (2) of the last preceding article shall apply in relation to every such sitting as they apply in relation to a sitting from which the Chairman or, as the case may be, the Deputy Chairman is absent.'"

I need hardly say anything in support of this. It is just on the same lines as article 159-A which we have just adopted and we might readily adopt this amendment.

(Amendment Nos. 2376 to 2380 were not moved.)

Mr. President: I put article 161 to vote and put this last amendment 196 separately.

Mr. President: The question is:

"That article 161 stand part of the Constitution."

The motion was adopted.

Article 161 was added to the Constitution.

*

Article 162

Mr. President: Then I take up article 162. Now article 162-A will come later.

(Amendment Nos. 2383, and 2384 and 2385 were not moved.)

Then there is no amendment to article 162.

The question is:

"That article 162 stand part of the Constitution."

The motion was adopted.

Article 162 was added to the Constitution.

*

Article 162-A

Mr. President: Now I put article 162-A which has been moved as amendment No. 196, List VI, by Mr. Kapoor.

The question is:

"That with reference to amendment No. 2381 of the List of Amendment and No. 139 of List II (Third Week) after 162 the following article be inserted :-

`162-A. The Chairman or the Deputy Chairman not to preside at sittings of the Legislative Council while a resolution for his removal from office is under consideration. At any sitting of the Legislative Council of a State, while any resolution for the removal of the Chairman from his office is under consideration, the Chairman from his office is under consideration, the Chairman, or while any resolution for the removal of the Deputy Chairman from his office is under consideration, the Deputy Chairman, shall not,though he is

present, preside, and the provisions of clause (2) of the last preceding article shall apply in relation to every such sitting as they apply in relation to a sitting from which the Chairman or, as the case may be, the Deputy Chairman, is absent.'"

The amendment was adopted.

New Article 162-A was added to the Constitution.

*

Article 163

Mr. President: We go to article 163.

(Amendment Nos. 2386, 2387 and 2388 were not moved.)

There is then no amendment to article 163.

The question is:

"That article 163 stand part of the Constitution."

The motion was adopted.

Article 163 was added to the Constitution.

*

New Article 163-A

Mr. President: There is the new article 163-A which has to be moved. That is amendment No. 39 List I.

The Honourable Dr. B.R. Ambedkar: Sir, it has to be held over.

Shri T.T. Krishnamachari: Sir, quite a similar article-article 79-A has been tabled and it is being held over, and conditions relating to this new article 163-A are more or less the same as those of article 79-A.

Mr. President: Then it is passed over. Article 164.

Shri T. T. Krishnamachari: I suggest that this particular article might be held over for this reason. We have difficulties in regard to making up our minds about joint sittings which also occur in subsequent articles. We have not yet made up our mind really how to fit it in with some of the new ideas that have come into being by the acceptance by the House of certain amendments. I suggest, therefore, that this article may be held over.

Mr. President: Is it the wish of the House this should be held over?

Honourable Members: Yes.

*

Article 165

Mr. President: Article 165; to this there is the amendment No. 2397 by Mr. Tahir.

(Amendment Nos. 2397, 2398 and 2399 were not moved.)

There is then No. 2400, but that is a verbal amendment.

Shri T.T. Krishnamachari: The Chair has on previous occasions permitted Dr. Ambedkar to move such amendments, and I think the same practice may be continued and it may be move formally.

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

"That in article 165 for the words `a declaration' the words `an affirmation or oath' be substituted."

Mr. President: The question is:

"That in article 165 for the words `a declaration' the words `an affirmation or oath' be substituted."

The amendment was adopted.

Mr. President: Now article 165, as amended, is before the House.

The question is:

"That article 165, as amended, stand part of the Constitution."

The motion was adopted.

Article 165, as amended, was added to the Constitution.

Shri H. V. Kamath: Sir, how does this article find a place under this Chapter which is headed " Disqualifications of Members"? Article 165 deals not with disqualification but with a declaration.

Mr. President: That is a matter which may be looked into by Dr. Ambedkar.

*

Article 166

(Amendment No. 2401 was not moved.)

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

"That after clause (1) of article 166, the following new clause be inserted:-

`(1a) No person shall be a member of the Legislature of two or more States and if a person is chosen a member of the Legislatures of two or more States, then at the expiration of such period as may be specified in rules made by the President that person's seat in the Legislature of all the States shall become vacant, unless he has previously resigned his seat in the Legislatures of all but one of the States'."

This is a clause which provides for a case where a person is a member of the Legislatures of two States; the former clause dealt with a person who is a member of the Legislature of a State and of Parliament.

Mr. President: There is the amendment of Mr. Naziruddin Ahmed, No. 2403, but that is covered by the one now moved. No. 2404.

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

"That clause (2) of article 166 be deleted."

Mr. President: No. 2405 is covered by the previous one, I think.

(Amendment Nos. 2405 and 2406 were not moved.)

Mr. Mohd. Tahir: Sir,

I move:

"That sub-clause (a) of classes (3) of article 166 be deleted."

Sub-clause (a) says that if a member of a House becomes subject to any of the disqualifications mentioned in clause (1) of the next article, that is, article 167, his seat shall become vacant. But if a men is subject to the disqualifications mentioned under clause (1) of article 167, how can he become a member of the Legislature? It is not necessary to retain this clause because a Member cannot be a Member if he is disqualified under clause (1) of article 167.

(Amendment No. 2408 was not moved.)

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

"That in clause (3) of article 166, the following new sub-clause be inserted:

`(c) or is recalled by the electors in his constituency for failure to properly discharge his duties;

(d) or dies.'"

May I just mention one or two points about the second part of the amendment relating to the death of a Member? When I moved a similar amendment on an earlier occasion, my query remained unanswered. The point that

I raised then was whether a vacancy arises or not in the event of the death of a member. If we turn to articles 51 and 55 regarding the vacancy arising in the office of the President or Vice-President, it is explicitly laid down there that a vacancy will arise by reason of death, resignation or otherwise. here clause (a) refers to "otherwise" and (b) of course refers to resignation. here no mention is made about a provision in the event of death by which a seat becomes vacant. I do not see why for the President and the Vice-President such a thing is mentioned and we omit any such mention in the case of a Member of Parliament. We have such a provision in the Rules of Procedure in the Assembly which we adopted two years ago. The relevant portion of Rule 5 of those Rules reads:

"When a vacancy occurs by reason by death, resignation or otherwise."

I do not know whether it is sheer consideration of prestige that stands in the way of the Drafting Committee or Dr. Ambedkar accepting this amendment of mine. Speaking on my previous amendment, Mr. Sidhva said that if a member dies the "office" knows about it. I do not know which office he meant or which office will know it. Therefore, it is better to say in this article that a vacancy will arise also in the event of death of a member of the House.

Shri R. K Sidhva: I said-who will intimate to the office after his death.

Shri H. V. Kamath: That is what the honourable Member said. But which office will know it? where you have definitely stated that a vacancy will arise in the event of the death of the President or the Vice-President and it is also stated in the Rules of our Assembly, I do not understand why an omission should occur with respect to this article.

(Amendment Nos. 2410 to 2414 were not moved.)

Mr. President: I shall put the amendments moved by Dr. Ambedkar, one by one.

Shri H. V. Kamath: Will not Dr. Ambedkar answer the point raised by me?

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: I do not consider it necessary.

Mr. President: The question is:

"That after clause (1) of article 166, the following new clause be inserted :-

`(1a) No person shall be a member of the Legislature of two or more States and if a person is chosen a member of the Legislatures of two or more States, then, at the expiration of such period as may be specified in rules made by the President that person's seat in the Legislatures of all the States shall become vacant, unless he has previously resigned his seat in the Legislatures of all but one of the States.'"

The amendment was adopted.

Mr. President: The question is:

"That clause (2) of article 166 be deleted."

The amendment was adopted.

Mr. President: The question is:

"That sub-clause (a) of clause (3) of article 166 be deleted."

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. President: The question is:

"That in clause (3) of article 166, the following new sub-clauses be inserted:-

`(c) or is recalled by the electors in his constituency for failure to properly discharge

his duties;

(d) of dies.'"

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. President: The question is:

"That article 166, as amended, stand part of the Constitution."

The motion was adopted.

Article 166, as amended, was added to the Constitution.

*

Article 167

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

"That in sub-clause (a) of clause (1) of article 167, after the word `profit' the following be inserted :-

`or contract of building or of supply of any article, or is a shareholder in any joint stock company which has such a contract of building or of supply of any article.'"

The amendment portion would read :

"A person shall be disqualified for being chosen as, and for being, a member of the Legislative Assembly or Legislative council of State-

(a) if he holds any office of profit or contract of building or of supply of any article, or is a shareholder in any joint stock company which has such a contract of building or of supply of any article under the Government, etc....."

The old-time disqualification, arising out of the possibility of conflict of interests between one's own private interests and that of public service, had led to the insertion as a disqualification the holding of any office of profit. Under present conditions, however, the mere holding of an office of profit, that is to say, any post carrying some salary or allowance attached to it is scarcely a temptation to at least many likely candidates who have attained prominence in their business or profession, and whose other source of income may be much greater than Government salaries can possibly be.

This, however, does not make holding of a post of profit under Government the less a disqualification. I want, however, to add certain other things, which are, as we notice, far more likely to be sources of temptation to sacrifice public interest to private advantage, than mere holding of an office of profit. Whatever may have been the conditions in the days of Walpole, today a Government office as such hardly suffices to tempt a legislator or a candidate for the Legislature, who has a flourishing private profession, trade or business, wherein much greater prospects of gain can be had by contact with Government or membership of the House.

One of the most considerable sources of temptation or corruption in these days of great building activity is that of a building contract. The possibility of enormous profits being obtained through large building and development projects, in which the State is interested directly or indirectly-and every day the State becomes more interested in those projects-will be a source of gain to such an extent that those who have it in their power to grant, and those who have such contracts, can afford to subsidise to any extent, if only people can canvass for them sufficiently, or help to obtain such contracts for them on easy terms from Government. The same applies to supply of nother materials on a large scale needed by a modern Government. A Member of the Legislature should, I think, be free any such temptation; and anyone therefore who holds such contracts, or who is interested as a shareholder even in a joint stock Building or Construction or Manufacturing company, or who is interested as a shareholder in a company which is supplying articles on a large scale-articles of building materials or for any other needed by Government, should be disqualified from membership of the Legislature. The number of such interests in very varied and large, and any one so interested ought to be, in my opinion, disqualified.

I am therefore, suggesting that if you wish your Legislators to be free from temptation, if you wish them to serve the public disinterestedly, and solely with an eye on public service, then I think it is necessary that you should accept this suggestion to disqualify any one interested, of the kind I have mentioned. It must be disqualification for candidature to the Legislature of the Centre as well as of a State. Sir, I move:

(Amendment No. 2416 was not moved.)

Mr. Mohd. Tahir:

Mr. President, Sir, I would like to move only the latter part of my amendment. Sir, I move:

"That after the words `Legislature of the State' the words `or any Local Authority of such State' be inserted."

Sir, the intention of my amendment is quite clear and obvious. I do not want to make any speech. If my honourable Friend wants to accept it, he may accept it.

(Amendment No. 2418 was not moved.)

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

"That for sub-clause (d) of clause (1) of artless 167, the following be substituted :-

`(d) if he has ceased to be a citizen of India or has voluntarily acquired the citizenship of a foreign State or is under any acknowledgement of allegiance or adherence to a foreign State.'"

Shri Mahavir Tyagi: What will be our position in regard to England, now that we are in the Commonwealth? Will our allegiance to the King be also a disqualification ?

Mr. President: That is a matter of interpretation of the Constitution.

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: That will be dealt with by the Nationality Act.

Shri Mahavir Tyagi: But we must know what it is....

(Amendment Nos. 2420 to 2423 were not moved.)

Shri H. V. Kamath: I think my amendment No. 2424 is a purely verbal amendment and I leave it to the Drafting Committee.

Mr. President: I think it is of a substantial nature.

Shri H. V. Kamath: If that be so, I will move it.

I move:

"That in sub-clause (d) of clause (1) of article 167, after the semi-colon at the end, the word `or' be added."

Sir, in a similar article dealing with disqualifications of members (article 83) the word `and' has been substituted by the word `or'. I think, Sir, the Drafting Committee will follow its own precedent and make a similar change here. That is why I said that it is a drafting amendment. Whether the word `and' is deleted, or in its place `or' is substituted, more or less comes to the same wise men of the Drafting Committee, because I am a mere novice in these matters. I thought `or' would be more appropriate, because if any one of these disqualifications arises-if a person is disqualified for any of these reasons-then the article will apply.

Mr. President: Dr. Ambedkar might consider it.

Shri H. V. Kamath: As I said, I leave the decision to the wise men of the Drafting Committee.

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: I think it is perfectly all right, Sir.

Mr. President: Won't they read cumulatively?

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: No, Sir, they won't read cumulatively.

Mr. President: If `or' is added it will put it beyond all doubt.

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: I do not think it necessary.

(Amendments No. 2425, 2426 and 2427 were not moved.)

Mr. Mohd. Tahir: I beg to move:

"That after sub-clause (e) of clause (1) of article 177, the following new sub-clause be inserted :-

`(f) if he is not registered as voter.'"

Sir, clause (a) to (e) of this article enumerate the disqualifications for being a member. I want that this should be included in this article so that if a man is not a registered voter he cannot become a member of the Assembly. If candidature is not restricted to persons whose names are on the roll, every man could come and file his nomination paper for election. Therefore it is necessary that a clause of this kind should be added.

Mr. President: The Honourable Member may move his other amendments, 2430 and 2432 also now.

Mr. Mohd. Tahir: Sir, in this amendment I move only the latter part. I move:

"That in clause (2) of article 167, after the words `Government of any State', the words for an local or other Authority subject to the control of such State', be inserted."

I am not making any speech.

Sir, as you have suggested I shall move this amendment 2432 also now. I am not moving the first part of it. The second part which I move runs thus:

"That in sub-clause (a) of clause (2) of article 167, after the words 'for any State', the words 'or a Chairman, a Vice-Chairman, a President, or a Vice-President of any Local or other Authority of

such State' be inserted."

I am not moving 2433.

Shri T.T. Krishnamachari: Sir, with reference to amendments Nos. 2419 and 2430 of the List of Amendments, I beg to move:

"That for sub-clause (a) and (b) of clause (2) of article 167, the following be substituted :-

`He is a minister either for India or for any such State.'"

Sir, the wording really follows the wording of a similar sub-clause in article 83 which has been accepted by the House. This is necessary because the reference in sub-clause (2)(b) to Part III of the first Schedule is one we are trying to obliterate, because we do not visualise the contingency of having to make a separate provision of this nature so far as the States in Part III of this Schedule are concerned. Any necessary provision to that effect will be made in a separate Chapter.

There are certain obligations imposed in the wording of sub-clause (b) as it stands which we would like to avoid and we feel that the wording "he is a minister either for India or for any such State" will be adequate for all purposes.

I hope the House will accept the amendment.

Shri Mahavir Tyagi: Sir, I hope you will not mind my saying a few words on this article-we have already passed a number of them today. I would like to ask Dr. Ambedkar to make it expressly clear as to what the expression `allegiance or adherence to a foreign State' occurring in his amendment signifies. Sir, `adherence' is a very wide term. Its meaning is not very exact." I wonder if our adherence to the Commonwealth will disqualify many of us, particularly our Prime Minister who was instrumental in our agreeing to some little adherence to a foreign State like England. We have recognised a foreign king to some extent by becoming a member of the Commonwealth. Now, will not that adherence disqualify a lot of us? If it does, then it is only Dr. Ambedkar who will remain in the House. We would all be disqualified. We have adhere to the Commonwealth and to the King of England who is a foreigner. Since the word `adherence' is extremely ambiguous I think some change in the wording of the amendment should be made or a promise be given by the Drafting Committee that it will not be left so ambiguous. Our relation with the Commonwealth and other Dominions may be interpreted as with a foreign State. This is not a matter of treaty. It is a question of permanent relationship that we have established. A treaty is a contract. Here it is not a treaty. It is actual adherence to foreign dominions. I would like Dr. Ambedkar to throw light on this issue. Either the wording should be changed so as to enable us to remain in the Commonwealth, or an assurance be given that the Commonwealth countries will not be deemed to be foreign States for the purpose of this article.

I am glad that Shri Mohanlal Gautam has not moved his amendment; otherwise many of us who have not passed the matriculation examination would have been disqualified. I would be treated as disqualified if the matriculation qualification were there. My education is hardly equal to the primary school. I only desire that such of our countrymen as are illiterates like me be not disqualified by these provisions.

Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena: Sir, I want to draw attention to two things. Sub-clause (e) says, `if he is so disqualified by or under any law made by the Legislature of the State".

In another article we have laid down that the Legislature of the State is empowered to lay down qualifications and here we empower it to lay down disqualifications. But then Dr. Ambedkar has assured us that Parliament will lay down qualifications and not the Legislature of the State. So I request Dr. Ambedkar to tell us whether this power will also be exercised by the Parliament or not. Here we say that the Legislature of the State can declare the public office the holding of which will not disqualify a person from being a member of the Legislature of the State. I think this thing should also be left to Parliament. The Parliament should lay down the public office such as

parliamentary Secretaries, Deputy Ministry etc., the holding of which will not disqualify the holders of these offices in a State from continuing to be member of the legislature. The laws disqualifying persons from being candidates for the legislature should also be uniform in all the States. Otherwise the result will be that every State will pass different laws and a person who can be a candidate for the membership of the Bombay legislature may not be able to be a candidate for the membership of the legislature in the United Provinces. This lacuna should be removed, and instead of `State legislature' we should empower `Parliament' to make uniform laws for all provinces.

Shri Brajeshwar Prasad: Sir, I am sorry that Mr. Mohanlal Gautam has not moved his amendment. I feel that there should be some educational qualifications for a member of the legislature. The impression has become prevalent that is not necessary to have any educational, administrative or judicial experience for a member of the legislature. A doctor, or an engineer or a lawyer has to undergo certain specific periods of specialised training. I consider that the role of the legislator is far more important that either that of a doctor, a lawyer or an engineer. But in order to become a legislator, it is considered to be enough if he is a demagogue, a loudtongued orator, a professional political dancer, a man with hundred faces and a confirmed scoundrel. I feel, Sir, that if we want to build up a decent system of government, some educational qualifications for legislators must be considered necessary. Sir, I have nothing more to say.

Shri M. Thirumala Rao ( Madras: General): May I know,Sir, if the honourable Member used the word `scoundrel'? I should not hear him well. If he has used the word, is the word parliamentary?

Mr. President: That word should not have been used, if it has been used.

Shri T. T. Krishnamachari: It only follows the saying that politics is the last refuge of the scoundrel.

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: i rise only for the sake of my Friend, Mr. Tyagi, as he has asked me one or two pointed questions. As he himself says that he is an illiterate, I can very well understand hid difficulty in understanding the word `adherence'. I would therefore explain to him what the word `adherence' means. When one country is invaded by another country, what happens is this that the local people either out of fear or out of martial law sometimes give obedience to the laws made by the military governor who acts in the name of the invading country. Such a conduct is often excused while the invasion continues and the military occupation continues. It often happens that when there is no real necessity to obey the invader or the military governor, either because there has been a relaxation of control or because the hostility has ceased, certain people still continue to render obedience to the military governor or the invader. Their conduct under law is referred to as `adherence'. It is distinct from acknowledging. It is to protect this kind of case that the word `adherence' has been used.

My Friend, Mr. Tyagi, was also very much agitated over the question of who are to be regarded as foreign countries. I am sure about it that it is not the intention of my Friend, Mr. Tyagi, to involve me in any discussion about Commonwealth relationship which is a matter which has already been discussed and disposed of in the House, but I would like to tell him that I propose to introduce an amendment to article 303, sub-clause (1), to define what would be regarded as foreign country, and if my Friend, Mr. Tyagi has got Volume II of the printed List of Amendment gives power to the President to declare what are not foreign country. For the benefit of my Friend, Mr. Tyagi, I would also like to add one word of explanation. Many people seem to be rather worried that when a country is declared not to be a foreign country under the proposed amendment, or the Commonwealth Agreement, all such people who are inhabitants of those countries would ipso facto

acquire all the rights of citizenship which are being conferred by this Constitution upon the people of this country. I want to tell my friends that no such consequence need follow. The position under Commonwealth relationship would be this; In all the Dominion countries, the residents would be divided into three categories, citizens, aliens and a third category of what may be called Dominion residents residing in a particular country. All that would mean in this, that the citizens of the Dominions residing in India would not be treated as aliens, they would have some rights which aliens would not have, but they would be giving to the people of our country. I hope my Friend, Mr. Tyagi, has got something which will remove the doubts which he has in his mind.

Shri Mahavir Tyagi: I heartily thank you for the interesting speech that you have made.

Mr. President: The question is:

"That in sub-clause (a) of clause (1) of article 167, after the word `profit' the following be inserted :-

`or contract of building or of supply of any article, or is a shareholder in any Joint Stock Company which has such a contract of building or of supply of any article.'"

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. President: The question is:

"That in sub-clause (a) of clause (1) of article after the words 'Legislature of the State' the words 'or any Local Authority of such State' be inserted."

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. President: The question is:

"That for sub-clause (a) of clause (1) of article 167, the following be substituted:-

`(d) if he has ceased to be a citizen of India or has voluntarily acquired the citizen ship of a foreign State, or is under any acknowledgment of allegiance of adherence to a foreign State.'"

The amendment was adopted.

Mr. President: The question is :

"That in sub-clause (d) of clause (1) of article 167, after the semi-colon at the end, the word 'or' be added."

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. President: The question is:

"That in sub-clause (d) of clause (1) of article 167, the following new sub-clause he inserted :

`(f) if he is not registered as voter.'"

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. President: The question is:

"That in clause (2) of article 167, after the words `Government of any State', the words `or any local or other Authority subject to the control of such State, be inserted."

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. President: The question is

"That for sub-clause (a) and (b) of clause (2) of article 167, the following be substituted :-

`He is a minister either for India or for any such State.'"

The amendment was adopted.

Shri T. T. Krishnamachari: The other two amendments of Mr. Mohd. Tahir fall to the ground because those clause are eliminated by the acceptance of the amendment I had moved.

Mr. President: Yes amendment Nos. 2432 and 2433 fall to the ground.

Mr. President: The amendment moved by Dr. Ambedkar and the other moved by Mr. Krishnamachari have been carried and I would put the article, as amended to vote.

Mr. President: The question is:

"That article 167, as amended, stand part of the Constitution."

The motion was adopted.

Article 167, as amended, was added to the Constitution.

Mr. President: We adjourn till 8 o'clock tomorrow morning.

The Assembly then adjourned till Eight of the Clock on Friday the 3rd June 1949.