CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY OF INDIA - Volume VIII


Friday, the 10th June 1949

The question has been raised as to excess grants. The difficultly, I think, is natural. Members have said that when it is stated that no moneys can be spent by the executive beyond the limits fixed by the Appropriation Act, how is it that a case for excess grants can arise? That, I think, is the point. The reply to that is this: We are making provisions in the terms of an amendment moved by my Friend, Pandit Kunzru, which is new article 248-B on page 27 of List I, where there is a provision for the establishment of a Contingency Fund out of the Consolidated Fund of India. Personally myself, I do not think that such a provision is necessary because this question had arisen in Australia, in a litigation between the State of New South Wales and the Commonwealth of Australia, and the question there was whether the Commonwealth was entitled to establish a Contingency Fund when the law stated that all th revenues should be collected together into a Consolidated Fund, and the answer given by the Australian commonwealth High Court was that the establishment of a Consolidated Fund would not prevent the legislature of the Parliament from establishing out of the Consolidated Fund any other Fund, although that particular fund may not be spent during that year, because it is merely an appropriation although in a different form. However, to leave no doubt on this point that it would be open to parliament, notwithstanding the provision of a Consolidated Fund to create a Contingency Fund, I am going to accept the amendment of my Friend, pandit Kunzru, for the incorporation of a new article 248-B. It is, therefore, possible that apart from the fund that is issued on the basis of an Appropriation Act to the executive, h executive would still be in possession of the Consolidated Fund and such other fund as may be created by law from time to time. It would be perfectly possible for the executive without actually having any intention to break the Appropriation Act to incur expenditure in excess of what is voted by Parliament and draw upon the contingency Fund or the other fund. Therefore a breach of the Act has been committed and it is possible to commit such an act because the executive in an emergency thinks it ought to be done and there is provision of fund for them to do so. The question, therefore, is this: when an act like this is done, are you not going to make a provision for the regularisation of that act? In fact, if I may say so, that passing of an excess grant is nothing else but an indemnity Act passed by Parliament to exonerate certain officers of Government who have in good faith done something which is contrary to the law for the time being. There is nothing else in the ides of an excess grant and I would like to read to the Members of the House paragraph 230 from the House of Commons--Manual of Procedure for the Public business. this is what paragraph 230 says:-

"An excess grant is needed when a department has by means of advances from the Civil Contingencies Fund or the Treasury Chest Fund or out of funds derived from extra receipts or otherwise spent the money on any service during any financial year in excess of the amount granted for that service and for that year."

Therefore, there is nothing very strange about it. The only thing is that when there is a supplementary estimate the sanction is obtained without excess expenditure being incurred. In the case of excess grant th excess expenditure has already been incurred and the executive comes before Parliament for sanctioning what has already been spent. Therefore, I think there is no difficulty; not only there is no difficulty but there is a necessity, unless you go to the length of providing that when any executive officer spends any money beyond what is sanctioned by the Appropriation Act, he shall be deemed to be a criminal and prosecuted, you shall have to adopt this procedure of excess grant.

The Honourable Shri K Santhanam: May I ask if under th provisions of the law as stated in

the new article 95 (2) the three preceding article will have effect? Does it mean that every supplementary demand should be followed by a supplementary Appropriation Act?

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Yes; that would be the intention.

The Honourable Shri K. Santhanam: The appropriation will not be for the whole year?

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: There may be supplementary appropriation. That always happens in the House of Commons.

Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena: What about my amendment, Sir?

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: I am very sorry. Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena says that the financial year should be changed. Well, I have nothing to say except that I suspect that his motives are not very pure. He perhaps wants a winter session so that he can spin as long as he wants. If he wants longer session, he must sit during summer months as we are now doing.

Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena: You will then long for a holiday in the hills, not I. Summar will not influence my speeches at all.

Mr. President: The question is:

"That in amendment no. 12 of List I (Fourth Week), in clause (1) of the proposed article 95--

(i) in sub-clause (a) , the word 'or' occurring at the end, be deleted

(ii) sub-clause (b) be deleted; and

(iii) at the end of clause (1), the following words be added:

'and until both the House of Parliament pass such a demand, the expenditure shall not be incurred, and if incurred payment shall not be made.'"

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. President: The question is:

"That for article 95, the following article be substituted:-

'95. Supplementary additional or excess grants. (1) The President shall--

(a) if the amount authorised by any law made in accordance with the provisions of article 94 of this Constitution to be expended for a particular service for the current financial year is found to be insufficient for the purpose of that year or when a need has arisen during the current financial year for supplementary or additional expenditure upon some new service not contemplated in the annual financial statement for that year, or

(b) if any money has been spent on any service during a financial year in excess of the amount granted for that service and for that year,

cause to be laid before both the Houses of Parliament another statement showing the estimated amount of that expenditure or cause to be presented to the House of the People a demand for such excess, as the case may be.

(2) The provisions of the last three preceding articles shall have effect in relation to any such statement and expenditure or demand and also to any law to be made authorising the appropriation of moneys out of the Consolidated Fund of India to meet such expenditure or the grant in respect of such demand as they have effect in relation to the annual financial statement and the expenditure mentioned therein or to a demand for a grant and the law to be made for the authorization of appropriation of moneys out of the Consolidated Fund of India to meet such expenditure or grant.'"

The amendment was adopted.

Mr. President: The question is:

"That in amendment No. 12 of List I (Fourth Week), after clause (2) of the proposed now article 95, the following new clause be added:-

'(3) After the first Parliament elected under this Constitution comes into being, the financial year, shall commence on the first November and end with the 31st of October.'"

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. President: The question is:

"That article 95, as amended, stand part of the Constitution."

The amendment was adopted.

Article 95, as amended, was added to the Constitution.

-------

*Article 96

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

"That for article 96, the following article be substituted:-

96. (1) Votes on account votes on credit and exceptional grants. Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing provisions of this Chapter, the House of the People shall have power--

(a) to make any grant in advance in respect of the estimated expenditure for

a part of any financial year pending th completion of the procedure prescribed in article 93 of this Constitution for the voting of such grant and the passing of the law in accordance with the provisions of article 94 of this Constitution in relation to that expenditure:

(b) to make a grant for meeting an unexpected demand upon the resources of India when on account of the magnitude or the indefinite character of the service the demand cannot be stated with the details ordinarily given in an annual financial statement;

(c) to make an exceptional grant which forms no part of the current service of any financial year;

and to authorise by law the withdrawal of moneys from the Consolidated Fund of India for the purposes for which the said grants are made.

(2) The provisions of articles 93 of this Constitution shall have effect in relation to the making of any grant under clause (1) of this article and to any law to be made under that clause as they have effect in relation to the making of a grant with regard to any expenditure mentioned in the annual financial statement and the law to be made for the authorisation of appropriation of moneys out of the Consolidated Fund of India to meet such expenditure.'"

(Amendment No. 1720 was not moved.)

The Honourable Shri K. Santhanam: Sir, I do not want to reopen the general principle which has been accepted; but I wish to say that the drafting of this article is rather defective.

For instance, in clause (1) it says, " the House of the People shall have power", and this is followed by, after sub-clause (c), "and to authorise by law....." I think according to the Constitution, the House of the People cannot authorise by law.

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: I should say, Sir, that the Drafting Committee reserves to itself the liberty to re-draft the last three lines following sub-clause (c).

The Honourable Shri K. Santhanam: Sir, I am unable to understand this. In the House here we pass something which is obviously wrong and unconstitutional and then leave it to the Drafting Committee. I do not think we can leave it to the Drafting committee to temper with the provisions we are making unless there in some lacuna or a mistake. We do not want to be faced with a new Constitution altogether and subjected to the trouble of looking at it article by article again. I do not think it is right for this House to pass a clause which is obviously wrong. Either he must say Parliament shall have power......

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: I am prepared to accept the amendment right now. You may suggest it. "Parliament shall have power to authorise by law......."

The Honourable Shri K. Santhanam: Sir, the amendment may be, "and Parliament shall have power to authorise by law the withdrawal of moneys from the Consolidated Fund of India for the purposes for which the said grants are made.

Coming to clause (2), it says "that the provisions of article 93 and 94 of this Constitution shall have effect in relation to the making of any grant......" I want to know if this means that there will have to be an Appropriation Act for this and that Appropriation Act will also show all the divisions, charged and non-charged, votable and non-votable as stated in the previous articles. If that is the implication..................

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: That cannot be.

The Honourable Shri K. Santhanam: Article 93 says.........

Shri T. T. Krishnamachari: If it will help honourable Member, we can say, there will be a Consolidated Fund Bill No. I before an Appropriation Act. which will give the main skeleton.

The Honourable Shri K. Santhanam: What I want to know is whether the Consolidated Fund Bill No. I will also consist of the charged and non-charged amount and voted and non-voted amounts, or will give only the votable portion.

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: The charged portion occurs only in the final Appropriation Act. This voting account gives what in the technical language of the House of Commons are called Supply services as distinct from

services charged on the revenues.

The Honourable Shri K. Santhanam: The article says that the provisions of article 93 and 94 will have to be compiled with.

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Article 93 and 94 mean the voting of Appropriation Act.

The Honourable Shri K. Santhanam: Article 93, first part, says that the charged portion would be shown and the second part says that such portion as is votable shall be presented to the vote. I want to know whether both these portions will be applicable to the voting account.

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Article 93 says that the vote of the House is not necessary for services charged on the revenues of India.

The Honourable Shri K. Santhanam: But, they will have to be shown in the Appropriation Act.

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: When passed. This is what is called Consolidated Fund Act I.

The Honourable Shri K. Santhanam: Article 94 does not deal with Consolidated Fund Act.

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: That is also the Appropriation Act. As I stated before, there is no distinction. The Appropriation Act shows the details while the Consolidated Fund Act does not show details.

The Honourable Shri K. Santhanam: I do not think Dr. Ambedkar's explanations can override the precise provisions of an article. As the article stands,

all the provisions of articles 93 and 94 will apply to this Consolidated Fund as to the other. Therefore, the entire budget procedure will have to be duplicated.

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: It the honourable Member will read carefully sub-clause (2), he will see what sub-clause it deals with. It says, "The Provisions of articles 93 and 94 of this Constitution shall have effect in relation to the making of any grant under clause (1).

The Honourable Shri K. Santhanam: Please read on.

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: As I stated, there is no question of grant will regard to service charged on the revenues.

The Honourable Shri K. Santhanam: .

.........."and to any law to be made under that clause as they have effect in relation to the making of a grant with regard to any expenditure............"

Therefore the Consolidated Fund Act I will be a duplicate--of course it may be of smaller dimensions--of the Final Consolidated Fund Act. It must contain the charged and non-charged, the voted and non-voted and everything. That to my mind, is what we are going in for if we adopt the provision as it is.

Shri T. T. Krishnamachari: Mr. President, Sir I quite realise that the wording has given room for some misconception, but I may assure my honourable Friend Mr. Santhanam that the whole budget procedure would have to be gone through though in a very cursory manner. For instance, the convention so far as the Consolidated Fund Bill No. I in Parliament is concerned is that the executive does not demand payment for supply service which is in considerable variance with what was obtained in the previous year. After all, that is only for a period of three or four months that Parliament makes the grant. Undoubtedly, if there is going to be a Bill, there must be a Schedule and the Schedule must give the details probably in the same set-up as the Schedule that will be attached to the Appropriation Bill. If my honourable Friend reads article 94 again which the House has accepted, he will find that reference to payment out of the Consolidated Fund is there and he will be able to realise better the explanation given by Dr. Ambedkar that after all, the Appropriation Bill is the same thing as the Consolidated Fund Bill. The initial Bill will be the Consolidated Fund Bill No. I and the Schedule attached to the main Bill will comprise all that was contained in the Consolidated Fund Bill No. I. The validity of the initial Bill will cease the moment the main Bill is passed. The exact procedure that has got to be followed will depend on the temper of the Parliament and the nature of the demand made. If they would accept a token Schedule giving the various heads and giving roughly the total amount needed, as being

sufficient, the labour involved would be negligible. But, if they want all the items that are now enumerated in the Book of Demands, even that possibly could be done, because it would only be pro rata of the total estimates placed before Parliament but there may be a certain amount of clerical work necessary; it all depends upon the demands made by Parliament. The matter is one of procedure and as my honourable Friend has accepted the principle, I do not think there need be any further difficulty about accepting this suggested procedure. The mere fact that mention is made of article 93 and 94 that procedure having to be followed therein does not raise, in my view at any rate, insuperable difficulties. I may assure my honourable friend Mr. Santhanam that what we have aimed at right through is to avoid creating a procedure which would be difficult for Parliament to follow, and at the same time avoid creating a situation which will alter the present state of things all of a sudden. Parliament might change these things as it wants later on. Perhaps, Sir, it may be necessary in the first budget session after this Constitution has been passed when the provisional Parliament will be sitting, we may have to allow Parliament a certain amount of elasticity in either following or varying the rigid provisions mentioned in these articles which are now being discussed. Every care will be taken in regard to making the transitory period easy. This is a mere matter of procedure and I see no difficulty in meeting the wishes of Parliament as may be indicated by them from time to time.

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Sir, I do not think there is any necessity to say anything more. I am only moving an amendment:

"That after sub-clause (c), of clause (1), the following words be added after 'and' and before 'to':-

'Parliament shall have power.'"

Mr. President: The question is:

"That for article 96, the following article be substituted:--

'96. Votes on account, votes on credit and exceptional grants. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing provisions of this Chapter, the House of the People shall have power--

(a) to make any grant in advance in respect of the estimated expenditure for a part of any financial year pending the completion of the procedure prescribed in article 93 of this Constitution for the voting of such grant and the passing of the law in accordance with the provisions of article 94 of this Constitution in relation to that expenditure;

(b) to make a grant for meeting an unexpected demand upon the resources of India when on account of the magnitude of the indefinite character of the service the demand cannot be stated with the details ordinarily given in an annual financial statement;

(c) to make an exceptional grant which forms no part of current service of any financial year;

and Parliament shall have power to authorise by law the withdrawal of moneys from the Consolidated Fund of India for the purposes for which the said grants are made.

(2) The provisions of article 93 and 94 of this Constitution shall have effect in relation to the making of any grant under clause (1) of this article and to any law to be made under that clause as they have effect in relation to the making of a grant with regard to any expenditure mentioned in the annual financial statement and the law to be made for the authorisation of appropriation of moneys out of the Consolidated Fund of India to meet such expenditure.'"

The amendment was adopted.

Mr. President: The question is:

"That article 96, as amended, stand part of the Constitution."

The motion was adopted.

Article 96, as amended, was added to the Constitution.

Mr. President: There is notice of amendment by Professor Shah to add a new article 96-A. No. 1721.

Prof. K. T. Shah: After the vote on Mr. Saksena's amendment of the same kind, I do not know that it would be proper to move this. But if you will permit me i will make one submission apropos the remarks made by Dr. Ambedkar in reply thereto ascribing motives by saying that

such amendments as this were inspired by people who wanted longer sessions. I have expressed that view twenty-five years ago in my books, and if Dr. Ambedkar says it is a bad motive, I think it most unfair.

Mr. President: I think he did not mean it seriously. We go to article 97. Mr. Kamath--1722.

*Article 97

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

"That in clause (1) of article 97, the words `and a Bill making such provision shall not be introduced in the Council of States:' be deleted."

This clause is another instance among several other of tautology or mere repetitious performance. If the House will turn to articles 89 and 90 and read them together, the House will see that there is no need for a clause like this here. Article 89 clause (1) provides that a Money Bill shall not be introduced in the Council of States. Article 90 defines what a Money Bill is for the purpose of this Chapter. Putting these two articles together it is clear and it needs no repetition whatever. There is absolutely no valid reason whatever for repeating this provision in this article. Sir, I move.

Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena: Then no Bill can be moved even in the House of People without President's permission.

Shri H. V. Kamath: I do not think that that interpretation can be put on my amendment.

Mr. President: No. 1723.

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

"That in clause (3) of article 97, after the word `India' the words `outside the frontiers of India in war-like operations' and; before the word `passed' the words `considered or' be inserted; and the following proviso be added at the end of the clause :-

`Provided that whenever the President makes any such recommendations he shall give his reasons for the same in writing.'"

The amendment clause would read:

"A bill which, if enacted and brought into operation, would involve expenditure from the revenues of India outside the frontiers of India in war-like operations shall not be considered or passed by either House of Parliament unless the President has recommended to that House the consideration of the Bill."

Sir, I have been induced to move this amendment in view of our past experience under British rule. The greatest waste of Indian money used to occur in connection with the war-like operations of the preceding Government, and those operations outside the frontiers of India, in support of the imperialist or aggressive wars of Britain. There had been a provision in the previous Government of India Act 1915, which precluded the then Government from spending a single pie in war-like operations outside the frontiers, without the authority of Parliament which was then the trustee so to say, or had made itself the trustee, of the welfare of the Indian people. Not that it ever objected of Indian money being spent in this way; but still it was a healthy check.

In the present provision I would like to insert a corresponding safeguard against similar misuse or excessive use of Indian revenues in war-like operations outside the frontiers of India. This article relates to excess grants; and if such money is used outside the frontiers of India, then I would like to provide a safeguard of some kind. I do not mean that such funds shall not be used, nor that India will not be able to engage in defensive or even offensive wars outside the frontier of India, and spend money in connection therewith but that, if that necessity arises, then the President must bring the matter before the House, and give his reasons in writing. The House of the People will then have an opportunity to consider whether the expenditure now required is justified in the interest of India, and then, knowing the full position give its authority for the same.

I repeat that it is not my intention by this amendment to handicap in any way the executive in their necessary action on matters of national defence.

But it is necessary in my opinion-in view of past experience that some such safeguard be inserted, lest the tendency we all have to spend money freely be utilised to our own disadvantage.

Sir, I move.

Mr. President: Mr. Shibban Lal Saksena, No. 231 of the List of Amendments to Amendments.

Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena: Sir, I move only the last part of my amendment No. 231:

"That in article 97,-clause (3) be deleted."

Mr. President: You are not moving the other amendment?

Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena: No, Sir.

Sir, I have not seen the necessity of this clause in this article. It is already said that money Bills have to go through a particular procedure. After that I do not see the necessity for this clause. In fact if it is strictly interpreted, there is no Bill which any House may pass or Parliament may pass which will not involve the Government in some expenditure. Even if it is an ordinary Bill, there too if enforced and brought into operation, it will involve an expenditure from the revenues of India unless of course it is intended to mean that any such expenditure will be an expenditure will be an expenditure which is non-votable as contemplated in article 92. Then of course it is a different matter but as it stands at present, I think it will mean that any Bill which involves any expenditure may not be moved in any House. Sir, I move.

Mr. President: All amendments have been moved and the clause and the amendments are open for discussion.

Shri T. T. Krishnamachari: I have only one word to say in regard to the last amendment moved by Professor Saksena. He wants to cut out the initiative of the executive which has been preserved right through in these articles dealing with the financial provisions so far as expenditure and taxation are concerned. Actually it is a tradition which we have been following in this country which we have also incorporated in this Draft Constitution from the British model which has all through the centuries made it a matter of pure executive responsibility to initiate motions which involve taxation or expenditure. If it happens that a private member of Parliament can initiate Bills which will involve taxation and expenditure then the responsibility of the executive will be blurred for one thing and then it will be difficult for them to devise the ways and means to cover the expenditure. It is a principle well accepted in all constitutions that this initiative must rest with the executive. Of course I see that Professor Shibban Lal Saksena has not moved his other amendments wherein he wanted to give power to the Legislature to move amendments which would have had the effect of permitting Parliament to raise the rates of taxes in Bills seeking to impose fresh taxation or alter the existing tax structure. Apparently he has seen the unreasonableness of an amendment of that nature and he has given it up. But I do feel that if he follows the same line of thought he will find that a provision of this nature which he seeks to amend is already in the Government of India Act today and is to be other Legislature following this method of parliamentary system of Government, that the initiative must be kept absolutely without any dilution in hands of the executive. Therefore there has been no attempt in any of the Dominion Legislatures to take away this particular power that has been given to the executive. I think the amendment of Professor Shibban Lal Saksena cannot therefore be accepted and the clause must remain as it is.

So, far as Professor Shah's amendment is concerned I do not know If I need anticipate Dr. Ambedkar. The reasons that he has adduced are fairly clear, namely, that he does not want to give the President or the executive any powers for initiating any Bill which will involve expenditure to be incurred outside India for the reason that he does not want the future Government of India to participate in any Imperial wars. It is quite possible that a future Government of India may have to take some steps to safeguard the frontiers of India the operations in respect of which might take it just & little beyond the frontiers, and the very purpose of his wanting to preserve the integrity of this Government in the future will be defeated if Professor Shah's

amendment is accepted and the hands of the executive are tied by a provision of his nature. It might be very reasonable from a point of view which considers that all ware are Imperialistic. Sometime countries have got to participate in were for purely defensive purpose and even that purpose will be jeopardized by accepting the amendment moved by Prof. Shah. I therefore suggest to the House that these two amendments have no validity so for as the particular article is concerned and they have to be rejected.

Honourable Dr. B.R. Ambedkar: I do not think any reply is called for, but I would like, Sir, with your permission to move one amendment myself. I move:

"That with reference to amendment No. 1723 of Amendments, in clause (3) of article 97, for the words 'revenues of India' the words 'Consolidated Fund of India' be substituted."

Shri H.V. Kamath: The words at the end of the clause have been needlessly repeated.

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

Mr. President: The question is:

"That in clause (1) of article 97, the words 'and a Bill making such provision shall not be introduced in the Council of State:' be deleted."

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. President: The question is:

"That for amendments Nos. 1722 or 1723 of the List of Amendments, the following be substituted:-

"That in article 97, clause (3) be deleted.'"

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. President: I shall put Prof. Shah's amendment which is in three parts. The question is:

"That in clause (3) of article 97, after the word 'India' the words 'outside the frontiers of India in war-like operations' be inserted."

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. President: The question is:

"That in clause (3) of article 97, before the word 'passed' the words 'considered or be inserted."

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. President: The question is:

"That the following proviso be added at the end of clause (3) of article 97.

'Provided that whenever the President makes any such recommendation he shall give his reasons for the same in writing'."

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. President: I shall now put Dr. Ambedkar's amendment.

The question is:

"That with reference to amendment No. 1723 of the List of Amendments, in clause (3) of article 97 for the words 'revenues of India' the words 'Consolidated Fund of India' be substituted."

The amendment was adopted.

Mr. President: The question is:

"That article 97, as amended, stand part of the Constitution."

The motion was adopted.

Article 97, as amended, was added to the Constitution.

Article 98

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

"That in clause (1) of article 98, for the words 'Each House of Parliament may make rules for regulating, subject to the provisions of this Constitution' the words 'Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, either House of Parliament may make rules for relating be substituted."

There are two separate amendments in this: one is the transposition of a phrase in one clause and other is substitution of the word 'each' by the word 'either'. These are amendments of a of a drafting nature but ion my humble judgment I believe that this is better English and it conforms more to the rules of syntax. I do not think there will be any objection or difficulty in the way of accepting this amendment and I hope the House will endorse my suggestion. Sir, I moved.

(Amendments Nos. 1725 and 1726 were not moved).

Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad: Sir, I have to move my amendment No. 1727 not because I want to move it but because on this hangs the amendment of another honourable Member. I move it to accommodate the honourable Members. I beg to move:

"That clause (4) of article 98 be omitted."

Shri Jaspat Roy Kapoor (United Provinces: General): Before moving my amendment, I would like to thank my Honourable Friend, Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad, for having moved his amendment No. 1727, for that enables me to move my amendment to this amendment.

Sir, I am not moving amendment No. 14. I am moving amendment No. 15

only.

I move:

"That with reference to amendment No. 1727 of the List of Amendments, in clause (4) of article 98, after the words 'absence' the words 'the Chairman of the Council of State, or in the absence of both' be inserted."

Thereafter clause (4) would read:

"At a sitting of two House the Speaker of the People, or in his absence the Chairman of the Council of States or in the absence of both such person as may be determined by rules of procedure made under clause (3) of this article, shall preside."

The Drafting Committee has appended a not to this clause (4) at the bottom of page 44, saying that the committee is of opinion that the Speaker of Parliament, as the House of the People is the more numerous body. That of the House of the People should preside at a joint sitting of the two House is good far as goes but when the speaker of the house of the People is absent I think the appropriate procedure would be to permit the Chairman of the Council of State to preside. The Chairman of the Council of State is an elected person, elected by both House of Parliament, and I see no reason, Sir, when the Speaker of the House of the People is not present, why in his absence the Chairman of the Council of State should not be authorised to preside. Clause (4) as it stands says: That in the absence of the Speaker of the house of the People such other person shall preside as may be determined by rules of procedure made under clause (3) of this article."

Now this practically shuts out the chairman of the Council of States from presiding, for I think it will not be seriously contended that the Chairman of the Council of State may be permitted to preside over the joint sitting in accordance with rules that may be framed under clause (3). The President, when framing such rule in consultation with the Chairman of the Council of States, I am sure, will not have before him the proposal emanating from the Chairman of the Council of States himself that he should be authorised to preside in the absence of the Speaker of the House of the People, because he must be a very presumptuous Chairman of the Council State, a person who has absolutely no delicacies, who would be so audacious as to put forward such a suggestion to the President that he should be authorised to preside in such a contingency. I think it is necessary, therefore, that we should provide in clause (4) that when the Speaker of the House of the People is absent, the Chairman of the Council of the State should preside.

Sir, I beg to move.

(Amendment nos. 1728 and 1729 were not moved.)

Mr. President: So all the amendments have been moved of which we have received notice. does any one now like to speak?

Shri T.T. Krishnamachari: Sir, while I quite admit the logic of the amendment moved by Mr. Kapoor-I do not know what Dr. Ambedkar will do in the matter, but my own feeling is that the clause as it is had better stand rather than be amended by the suggestion of Mr. Jaspat Roy Kapoor for this reasons: The proper arrangement will be that either the Chairman of the Council of State should preside, and in his absence the Speaker should preside; or the arrangement should stand as it is, because the Chairman of the Council of States happens to be the Vice-President of India, and has a unique position, second only to that of the President, and perhaps the Premier or somebody like that. To put him in a position below the Speaker would mean a very invidious distinction-making a person who is likely to succeed the President or take over his duties under certain circumstances to be put below the Speaker of the House of the People.

Again there might be some objection to put the speaker below the Chairman of the council because that might involve a question of rivalry between the two House as to which House takes the first place. It is a very delicate and difficult position, and I think the Drafting Committee has solved the position by eliminating the Chairman of the Council of State who is the view-President from the picture altogether, and it is best from

all points of view that once the two House sit together, the Vice-President who is Chairman of the Council goes out completely from the picture and the Speaker presides. The acceptance of the suggestion of Mr. Jaspat Roy Kapoor though is might look logical, is, I think, likely to create a delicate situation which had better be avoided by the article being allowed to remain as it is.

Shri K.M. Munshi (Bombay: General): sir, I think it would be best to leave the article as it is, without incorporating the Chairman of the Upper House. The reason is very simple. The Chairman of the Upper House is also the Vice-President and if we put the Speaker in the first instance it would not be right to put the Chairman next after him; and it may be that it would not be advisable to have a person who would be acting as a President in some temporary capacity or the other as the Speaker or the Chairman of this Joint sitting. It is from that point of view that it would be very improper, and I think it must be left to the rules to decide whether he should preside or not: But putting him expressly in this manner would be stultifying his position as Vice-President of the Union and it is very advisable to keep it as it is.

The Honourable Dr. B.R. Ambedkar: All that I can say is that I cannot accept Mr. Jaspat Roy Kapoor's amendment. It is much better that the matter be left elastic to be provided for by rules. With regard to Mr. Kamath's amendment, I certainly feel drawn to it. But for the moment I cannot commit myself, but I can assure him that this matter will be considered by the Drafting Committee.

Mr. President: Then I do not put Mr. Kamath's amendment to the vote. I treat it as a drafting amendment which the Drafting Committee will consider.

With regard to Mr. Jaspat Roy Kapoor's amendment No. 15, I would like to draw Dr. Ambedkar's attention to one point. In clause (2) of article 98 we have the words:

"With respect to the Legislature of the Dominion of India."

In another place we have used the expression "Constituent Assembly of India". I suppose Dr. Ambedkar would like to have the same expression here also?

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

Mr. President: I was just pointing out that here in this clause (2) the expression "Legislature of the Dominion of India" occurs. Perhaps, the expression 'Constituent Assembly of India' will be better?

The Honourable Dr. B.R. Ambedkar: We have now got two Assemblies so to say, the Constituent Assembly sitting as Constituent Assembly and the Constituent Assembly sitting as legislature. We have rules on both sides. I think therefore it would be desirable to retain the words 'Dominion of India', so that we could adopt the rules which are prevalent on the other side.

Shri Jaspat Roy Kapoor: My submission is that for the words 'Legislature of the Dominion of India' we may have the words 'Constituent Assembly of India' and the word 'Legislative' within brackets. That is how we have describing our Constituent Assembly when it functions as Legislature.

The Honourable Dr. B.R. Ambedkar: We have to use the language of the Indian Independence Act. We have to restrict ourselves to the terminology of that Act.

Mr. President: If it will not create any difficulty, I do not mind it.

I will put the amendment moved by Shri Jaspat Roy Kapoor to vote.

Shri Jaspat Roy Kapoor: Sir, I seek leave of the House to withdraw it. I do not want it to have the fate of a defeated amendment.

Mr. President: If the House grants him leave to withdraw his amendment, it may be withdrawn.

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

Mr. President: The question is:

That article 98 stand part of the Constitution."

The motion was adopted.

Article 98 was added to the Constitution.

New Article 98-A

Mr. President: We have notice of an amendment to insert a new article by Dr. Ambedkar.

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

"That after article 98, the following new article be inserted:-

98-A. Regulation by law of procedure in Parliament in

relation to financial business. Parliament may, for the purpose of the timely completion of the financial business, regulate by law the procedure of and the conduct of business in, each house of Parliament in relation to any financial matter or to any financial matter or two any Bill for appropriation of moneys out of the Consolidated Fund of India, and if and in so far as the provision of any law so made is inconsistent with any rule made by a House Parliament under the last preceding article or with any rule or standing order having effect in relation to Parliament under clause (2) of that article, such provision shall prevail.'"

Mr. President: As no Member desires to speak on this amendment, I shall put the motion to vote.

The question is:

"That after article 98, the following new article be inserted:

98-A. Regulation by law of procedure in Parliament in relation to financial business. Parliament may, for the purpose of the timely completion of the financial business, regulate by law the procedure of and the conduct of business in, each house of Parliament in relation to any financial matter or to any financial matter or two any Bill for appropriation of moneys out of the Consolidated Fund of India, and if and in so far as the provision of any law so made is inconsistent with any rule made by a House Parliament under the last preceding article or with any rule or standing order having effect in relation to Parliament under clause (2) of that article, such provision shall prevail.'"

The motion was adopted.

Article 98-A was added to the Constitution.

*Article 173

Shri T.T. Krishnamachari: May I suggest that, in continuation of these financial provisions relating to the Union which the House has considered, we may take up the consideration of the appropriate provision relating to the States? If that is done continuity can be maintained.

Mr. President: I was myself going to make that suggestion. We may not take up the Financial Article in the States Part of the Constitution.

The House will now take up article 173 for discussion.

Amendment Nos. 2461 and 2462 are not moved. Dr. Ambedkar may move the next amendment, No. 2464.

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

"That in clause (4) of article 173, after the words 'deemed to have been passed' the words 'by both Houses in the form in which it was passed' be inserted."

Shri T.T. Krishnamachari: Sir, I formally move:

"That in clause (2) of article 173, for the word 'thirty' the word 'twenty-one' be substituted."

Shri B. M. Gupte: I beg to moved:

"That with reference to amendment No. 2463 of the List of Amendments in article 173, for the words 'thirty days' wherever they occur, the words ' fourteen days' be substituted."

This provision we have already adopted for the Central Legislature. In order to bring the State in line with that, this amendment may be accepted.

Mr. President: The question is:

"That with reference to amendment No. 2463 of the List of Amendments, in article 173, for the words 'thirty days' wherever they occur, the words 'fourteen days' be substituted."

The amendment was adopted.

Mr. President: The question is:

"That in clause (4) of article 173, after the words 'deemed to have been passed' the words 'by both Houses in the form in which it was passed' be inserted."

The amendment was adopted.

Mr. President: The question is:

"That article 173, as amended, stand part of the Constitution."

The motion was adopted.

Article 173, as amended, was added to the Constitution.

*Article 174

(Amendment No. 2465 was not moved.)

Mr. President: Dr. Ambedkar, there are two amendments in your name, Nos. 69 and 70 of List I. These are only to bring this article into line with the provision which we have already adopted.

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

"That for sub-clauses (c) and (d) of clause (1) of article 174, the following be substituted:

'(c) the custody of the Consolidated Fund or the Contingency Fund of the State, the payment of moneys

into or withdrawal of moneys from any such fund;

'(d) the appropriation of moneys out of the Consolidated Fund of the State.'"

and also-

"That in sub-clauses (e) and (f) clause (1) of article 174, for the words Revenues of the State' the words 'Consolidated Fund of the State' be substituted."

H.V. Kamath: Mr. President, Sir, there are two amendments in my name, Nos. 2466 and 2467. As regards 2467 I only formally move it, as it is only of a drafting nature. As regards amendment No. 2466, I move:

"That in sub-clause (e) of clause (1) of article 174, for the words 'the increasing of the amount of' the words 'varying amount of' or abolishing' be substituted."

I raised a similar point when discussing the corresponding article for the Union Parliament, and I think, and I still hold the view that that point was not satisfactorily answered. The House will see that article 177 provides for various items that shall be charged upon the Consolidated Fund of the State, among these various items being the emoluments and allowances of the Speaker and the Deputy speaker of the Legislative Assembly and in the case of a State having a Council, of the Chairman and the Deputy Chairman of the Legislative Council. There is no provision at all in this Constitution to the effect that the emoluments and allowances of these would not be diminished during their terms of office, as we have got in the case of the Governor of the State. Therefore it is likely that the legislature may at any time by law diminish the emoluments of the Speaker, the deputy Speaker, Chairman and the Deputy Chairman.

Shri B. Das: But these are all charged expenditure under article 177.

Shri H. V. Kamath: But there is no provision that they shall not be diminished during their term of office, and if a proposal arises for the diminution of such allowances and emoluments, should we allow the Council to have power to move such a Bill? Mr. Ananthasayanam Ayyangar replying to this on the last occasion said that so far increasing the amount is concerned, that will come within the scope of a money Bill, and therefore such money Bills should be introduced only in the Lower House, but the point that I want to raise is this: Suppose the legislature wishes to diminish the emoluments and allowances of the Speaker, the Deputy Speaker, the Chairman and the Deputy Chairman, should we not regard that also as a Bill coming within the scope of money Bills for purposes of article 174? Should we allow the Upper House the power to move a motion with regard to that matter? Should we not consider that also as falling within the scope of this article 174 and allow the Lower House the exclusive power to make such a motion?

Then, Sir, as regards abolition. There is one omnibus clause, a comprehensive clause in article 177, clause (f) which lays down that any other expenditure declared by this Constitution or by the Legislature of the State to be so charged shall also be charged to the Consolidated Fund of the State. Here also I do not know whether any occasion will arise at any time during the tenure of the legislature when it might consider that an expenditure which was previously declared as an expenditure chargeable to the State. In that case also, the point is whether the Upper House should be given the power to make such a motion, or the Lower House alone should have that power. Sir, I move.

As regard 2467, I only formally move it but would leave the matter to the wisdom of the Drafting Committee.

Mr. President: There are no other amendments to this article. I shall now put it to vote.

Shri H.V. Kamath: Does not Dr. Ambedkar want to say anything in the matter?

The Honourable Dr. B.R. Ambedkar: All I can say is that I shall look into the matter when we take up the revision of the Constitution.

Mr. President: The question is:

"That for sub-clauses (c) and (d) of clause (1) of article 174, the following be substituted:

(c) the custody of the Consolidated Fund or the Contingency Fund of the State, the payment of moneys into or the withdrawal of

money from any such fund;

(d) the appropriation of moneys out of the Consolidated Fund of the State;'"

The amendment was adopted.

Mr. President: The Question is:

"That in sub-clauses (e) and (f) of clause (1) of article 174, for the words 'revenues of the State' the words 'Consolidated Fund of the State' be substituted."

The amendment was adopted.

Shri H.V. Kamath: As Dr. Ambedkar has promised to look into that matter, I will leave it to his wisdom. He might exercise it at a later stage.

Mr. President: Both the amendments?

The Honourable Dr. B.R. Ambedkar: There is only one amendment.

Shri H.V. Kamath: May I ask which one he promised to look into? Perhaps he will make it clear.

Honourable Dr. B.R. Ambedkar: Amendment No. 2466.

Mr. President: Very well, than, I will not put them to vote.

The question is:

"That article 174, as amended, stand part of the Constitution."The motion was adopted.

Article 174, as amended, was added to the Constitution

Shri Honourable Dr. B.R. Ambedkar: I want article 175 to be held over.

Shri T.T. Krishnamachari: I suggest articles 175 and 176 may be held over as they affect some problems which the Drafting Committee are still considering. Article 177 may be taken.

Mr. President: Then we shall take up article 177.

*Article 177

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

"That in sub-clauses (a) and (b) of clause (2) of article 177, for the words 'revenues of the State', be substituted."

I move:

"That in clause (3) of article 177, for the words 'revenues of each State', the words 'Consolidated Fund of each State' be substituted."

Sir, I also move:

"That in sub-clause (b) of clause (3) of article 177, for the word 'emoluments' the word 'salaries' be substituted."

(Amendments Nos. 2486, 2487 and 2489 were not moved.)

Mr. President: The question is:

"That in sub-clauses (a) and (b) of clause (2) of article 177, for the words 'revenues of the State' the words 'Consolidated Fund of the State', be substituted.'"

The amendment was adopted.

Mr. President: The question is:

"That in clause (3) of article 177, for the word 'emoluments' the words 'Consolidated Fund of each State' be substituted."

The amendment was adopted.

Mr. President: The question is:

"That in sub-clause (b) of clause (3) of article 177, for the word 'emoluments' the word 'salaries' be substituted."

The amendment was adopted.

Mr. President: The question is:

"That article 177, as amended, stand part of the Constitution."

The motion was adopted.

Article 177, as amended, was added to the Constitution.

*Article 178

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

"That in clause (1) of article 178, for the words 'revenues of a State', the words 'Consolidated Fund of a State' be substituted."

(Amendment No. 2490 was not moved.)

Mr. President: The question is:

"That in clause (1) of article 178, for the words 'revenues of a State', the words 'Consolidated Fund of a State' be substituted."

The amendment was adopted.

Mr. President: The question is:

"That article 178, as amended, stand part of the Constitution."

The motion was adopted.

Article 178, as amended, was added to the Constitution

*Article 179

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

"That for article 179, the following be substituted:-

'179. (1) Appropriation Bills. As soon as may be after the grant under the last preceding article have been made by the Assembly there shall be introduced a Bill to provided for the appropriation out of the Consolidated Fund of the State all moneys required to meet-

(a) the grants so made by the Assembly; and

(b) the expenditure charged on the consolidated Fund of the State but not exceeding in any case the amount shown in the statement previously laid before the House or Houses.

(2) No amendment shall be proposed to any such bill in the House or either House of the Legislature of the State which will have the effect of varying the amount or altering the destination

of any grant so made or of varying the amount of any expenditure charged on the Consolidated fund of the State, and the decision of the person presiding as to the amendments which are admissible under this clause shall be final.

(3) Subject to the provisions of the next two succeeding articles no money shall be withdrawn from the Consolidated Fund of the State except under appropriation made by law passed in accordance with the provisions of this article.'"

Mr. President: There is no other amendment to this article.

The question is:

'179. (1) Appropriation Bills. As soon as may be after the grants under the last preceding article have been made by the Assembly there shall be introduced a Bill to provide for the appropriation out of the Consolidated Fund of the State all moneys required to meet-

(a) the grant so made by the Assembly; and

(b) the expenditure charged on the Consolidated Fund of the State but not exceeding in any case the amount shown in the statement previously laid before the House or Houses.

(2) No amendment shall be proposed to any such Bill in the House or either House of the Legislature of the State which will have the effect of varying the amount or altering the destination of any grant so made or of varying the amount of any expenditure charged on the Consolidated Fund of the State, and the decision of the person presiding as to the amendments which are admissible under this clause shall be final.

(3) Subject to the provisions of the next two succeeding articles no money shall be withdrawn from the Consolidated Fund of the State except under appropriation made by law passed in accordance with the provisions of this article.'"

The amendment was adopted.

Mr. President: The question is:

"That article 179, as amended, stand part of the Constitution."

The motion was adopted.

Article 179, as amended, was added to the Constitution.

*Article 180

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

"That for article 180, the following article be substituted :-'180. (1) The Governor shall-

(a) Supplementary, additional or excess grants. if the amount authorised by any law made in accordance with the provisions of article 179 of this Constitution to be expended for a particular service for the current financial year is found to be insufficient for the purposes of that year or when a need has arisen during the current financial year for supplementary or additional expenditure upon some new service not contemplated in the annual financial statement for that year, or

(b) if any money has been spent on any service during a financial year in excess of the amount granted for that service and for that year, cause to be laid before the House or the Houses of the Legislature of the State another statement showing the estimated amount of that expenditure or cause to be presented to the Legislative Assembly of the State a demand for such excess, as the case may be.

(2) The provisions of the last three preceding articles shall have effect in relation to any such statement and expenditure or demand and also to any law to be made authorising the appropriation of moneys out of the Consolidated Fund of the State to meet such expenditure or the grant in respect of such demand as they have effect in relation to the annual financial statement and the expenditure mentioned therein or to a demand for a grant and the law to be made for

the authorisation of appropriation of moneys out of the Consolidated Fund of State to meet such expenditure or grant.'"

Mr. President: The question is:

"That article 18C, the following article be substituted :-

"180. (1) The Governor shall -

(a) Supplementary additional or excess grants. if the amount authorised by any law made in accordance with the provisions of article 179 of this Constitution to be expended for a particular service for the current financial year is found to be insufficient for the purposes of that year or when a need has arisen during the current financial year for supplementary or additional expenditure upon

some new service not contemplated in the annual financial statement for that year, or

(b) if any money has been spent on any service during a financial year in excess of the amount granted for that service and for that year,

cause to be laid before the House or the Houses of the Legislature of the State another statement showing the estimated amount of that expenditure or cause to be presented to the Legislative Assembly of the State a demand for such excess,as the case may be.

(2) The provisions of the last three preceding articles shall have effect in relation to any such statement and expenditure or demand and also to any law to be made authorising the appropriation of moneys out of the Consolidated Fund of the State to meet such expenditure or the grant in respect of such demand as they have effect in relation to the annual financial statement and the expenditure mentioned therein or to a demand for a grant and the law to be made for the authorisation of appropriation of moneys out of the Consolidated Fund of the State to meet such expenditure or grant.'"

The amendment was adopted.

Mr. President: The question is:

"That article 180, as amended, stand part of the Constitution.

The motion was adopted.

Article 180, as amended, was added to the Constitution.

*Article 181

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

"That for article 181, the following article be substituted :

'181. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing provisions of this Votes on account, Votes on. Chapter, the Legislative Assembly of a State shall have credit and exceptional grants. power

(a) to make any grant in advance in respect of the estimated expenditure for a part of any financial year pending the completion of the procedure prescribed in article 178 of this Constitution for the voting of such grant and the passing of the law in accordance with provisions of article 179 of this Constitution in relation to that expenditure;

(b) to make a grant for a meeting an unexpected demand upon the resources of the State when on account of the magnitude or the indefinite character of the service the demand cannot be stated with the details ordinarily given in an annual financial statement;

(c) to make an exceptional grant which forms no part of the current service of any financial year;

and the Legislature of the State shall have power to authorise by law the withdrawal of moneys from the Consolidated Fund of the State for the purposes for which the said grants are made.

(2). The provisions of articles 178 and 179 of this Constitution shall have effect in relation to the making of any grant under clause (1) of this article and to any law to be made under that clause as they have effect in relation to the making of a grant with regard to any expenditure mentioned in the annual financial statement and the law to be made for the authorisation of appropriation of moneys out of the Consolidated Fund of the State to meet such expenditure.'"

Mr. President: The question is :

"That for article 181, the following article be substituted :

'181. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing provisions of this Chapter, the Legislative Assembly of a State shall have power-

Votes on account, votes on Credit and exceptional grants

(a) to make any grant in advance in respect of the estimated expenditure for a part of any financial year pending the completion of the procedure prescribed in article 178 of this Constitution for the voting of such grant and the passing of the law in accordance with the provisions of article 179 of this Constitution in relation to that expenditure;

(b) to make a grant for meeting an unexpected demand upon the resources of the State when on account of the magnitude or the indefinite character of the service the demand cannot be stated with the details ordinarily given in an annual financial statement;

(c) to make an exceptional grant which forms no part of the current service of any financial year;

and the Legislature of the State shall have

Power to authorise by law the withdrawal of moneys from the Consolidated Fund of the State for the purposes for which the said grants are made.

(2) The provisions of articles 178 and 179 of this Constitution shall have effect in relation to the making of any grant under clause (1) of this article and to any law to be made under that clause as they have effect in relation to the making of a grant with regard to any expenditure mentioned in the annual financial statement and the law to be made for the authorisation of appropriation of moneys out of the Consolidated Fund of the state to meet such expenditure.'"

The amendment was adopted.

Mr. President: The question is:

"That article 181, as amended, stand part of the Constitution."

The motion was adopted.

Article 181, as amended, was added to the Constitution.

*Article 182

Mr. President: The motion is:

"That article 182 form part of the Constitution."

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: With your permission, Sir, I seek to move a small amendment.

"That in article 182, for the words 'revenues of the State', the words 'Consolidated Fund of the State' be substituted."

Mr. President: There is no other amendment.

The question is:

"That in article 182, for the words 'revenues of the State', the words 'Consolidated Fund of the State' be substituted."

The amendment was adopted.

Mr. President: The question is:

"That article 182 as amended stand part of the Constitution."

The motion was adopted.

Article 182, as amended, was added to the Constitution.

*Article 183

Mr. President: The motion is:

"That article 183 form part of the Constitution."

There are some amendments to this article.

(Amendment No. 2496 was not moved.)

Shri R. K. Sidhva : Sir, I move:

"That in clause (1) of article 183, the word 'shall' be substituted for the word 'may and the following be added at the end :-

'within 6 months from the date of the first session of the Assembly'."

Sir, my amendment says that the legislature of the State shall make rules for regulating, subject to the provisions of this Constitution,its procedure and conduct of business within six months of the first session of the Assembly. In this article it is stated that until the rules are made-which is left to the choice of the Speaker of the House- the rules of procedure and standing orders in force immediately before the commencement of this Constitution shall prevail. I feel, Sir, that there should be a specific period fixed and the Speaker should be required to see that the rules are made within six months. Six months is a very long period. In view of the new set up and the new Constitution, it is just possible that the old rules may not properly fit in. We do not framed for an indefinite period. I have seen, Sir, that in some provinces, rules are not made for nearly eighteen months. I think this is a very reasonable amendment. Sir, I move.

(Amendments Nos. 2498 and 2499 were not moved.)

Mr. President: There is no other amendment.

Shri H. V. Kamath: Mr. President, Sir, I rise to support the amendment that has been brought before the House by my honourable Friend Mr. Sidhva.

It is very necessary, Sir, as Mr. Sidhva has stated, that the rules of procedure and conduct of business should be framed as expeditiously as possible. This House is aware that in this very House sitting as legislature we have not yet finally adopted even today the rules of procedure and conduct of business so far as that House is concerned. We have only tentatively adopted and I do not think it is desirable state of affairs that such an inordinate delay should occur for framing the rules of procedure. There should not be any difficulty whatsoever in having this specific time-limit of six months-it is a fairly generous time limit and any legislature which means business and which proceed to business in a really expeditious manner should be able to have the rules ready within six months. I would put it at even three months but as the amendment specifically mentions six months, I

would support the amendment as it is and I hope it will commend itself to Dr. Ambedkar and the House.

There is one other observation which I would like to make and that is with regard to clause (1). I hope Dr. Ambedkar will bear in mind what he promised to do with regard to a similar amendment which I moved for the Union Parliament, and clause (1) as it appears here might be reconstructed in the light of the amendment I moved earlier.

Mr. President: Does anyone else wish to say anything?

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

Mr. President: The question is:

"That in clause (1) of article 183, the word 'shall' be substituted for the word 'may' and the following be added at the end :-

'within 6 months from the date of the first session of the Assembly.'"

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. President: The question is:

"That article 183 stand part of the Constitution."

The motion was adopted.

Article 183 was added to the Constitution.

*New Article 183-A

Mr. President: There is a new article 183-a proposed by Dr. Ambedkar.

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

"That after article 183, the following new article be inserted :-

183-A. Regulation by law of procedure in the Legislature of the state in relation to financial business. The Legislature of a State may, for the purpose of the timely completion of the financial business, regulate by law the procedure of, and the conduct of business in, the House or Houses of the Legislature of the State in relation to any financial matter or to any Bill for the appropriation of moneys out of the Consolidated Fund of the State, and, if in so far as the provision of any law so made is inconsistent with any rule made by the House or either House of the Legislature of the State under the last preceding article or with any rule or standing order having effect in relation to the Legislature of the State under clause (2) of that article, such provision shall prevail.'"

Mr. President: Does anyone wish to say anything?

The question is:

"That new article 183-A be added to the Constitution."

The motion was adopted.

Article 183-A was added to the Constitution.

*Article 184

Mr. President: We go to article 184.

Shri T. T. Krishnamachari : Sir, we have not discussed article 99 which is analogous. This may be held over. Article 185 and 186 have not got many amendments and they might be taken up.

*Article 185

Mr. President: We pass over article 184. We go to article 185.

(Amendments Nos. 2518 and 2519 were not moved.)

Does anyone wish to speak?

Shri B. Das :Sir, I feel that the provincial Legislature should have the right to question the conduct of the High Court Judges. Regarding the Supreme Court, the Parliament is there which will be very alert and if they find the Supreme Court Judges are misbehaving, the Parliament will find its own way to correct them and to bring the Government, the President and the Cabinet under censure so that they control properly the Supreme Court Judges. I am not happy with 185 (1). I do not think and appeal to Dr. Ambedkar-the Drafting Committee has been very fair and if they have been fair, why do they want to stifle discussion about the High Court Judges in the provincial Legislatures? That is all I want to say.

Mr. President: A similar provision has been passed with regard to Supreme Court and High Court in article 100. Does anyone else wish to speak?

Shri T. T. Krishnamachari : Mr. President, if the Chair will permit me and the house agrees, I would like to move-

"That clause (2) of this article may be omitted."

The reason is that right through in the States Chapter we have been omitting specific reference to States in Part III of the First Schedule and it would only be following the same practice which we have hitherto followed. I hope the House will agree to this and omit clause (2). Sir, I move.

Shri R. K. Sidhva : Mr. President, I know, as you have rightly pointed out, that in the previous clauses as far as the Supreme Court

is concerned, we have passed a similar article. But I do not understand why the Judge of a High Court should be above criticism as far as his conduct is concerned. Sometimes he misbehaves, he is not a super-man, his conduct also should be subject to question somewhere and if you do not allow the House to discuss his conduct, you know sometimes what happens. We know what happened in a recent case. While I say that his judgment should not be under discussion of the House, his conduct should be certainly subject to discussion. There is nothing wrong and it does not in any way derogate from his position. If you have some kind of restriction upon a judge, I think it will be a very healthy procedure.

Shri T. T. Krishnamachari : May I point out that we have accepted 101 which is practically the same so far as Parliament is concerned and we are applying the same provision with regard to Legislatures of the States?

Mr. President: The question is:

"That clause (2) of article 185 be deleted."

The amendment was adopted.

Mr. President: The question is:

"That article 185, as amended, stand part of the Constitution."

The motion was adopted.

Article 185, as amended, was added to the Constitution.

*Article 186

Mr. President: We go to No. 186.

(Amendment No. 2520 was not moved.)

Mr. President: The question is:

"That article 186 stand part of the Constitution."

The motion was adopted.

Article 186, was added to the Constitution.

The Assembly then adjourned till Eight of the Clock on Monday, the 13th June, 1949.