CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY OF INDIA - Volume VIII


Thursday, the 19th May 1949

The Constituent Assembly of India met in the Constitution Hall, New Delhi, at Eight of the Clock, Mr. President (The Honourable Dr. Rajendra Prasad in the Chair.)

DRAFT CONSTITUTION-(contd.)

*

New Article 72-A, B and C

Mr. President : We have now to proceed with the discussion of the articles of the Draft Constitution. The next thing to take up is amendment No. 1498 of Prof. K.T. Shah.

Prof. K.T. Shah : (Bihar : General) : Sir, I do not wish to move the new article 72-A, I shall move only 72-B and 72-C. There is, I find a small misprint in the amendment as printed here. The word cannot be "Minister" of Parliament, but "Member" of Parliament. With your permission I am making the correction.

Sir, I beg to move :

"That after article 72, the following new articles be inserted :-

`72-B. A Member of Parliament may vacate his seat by resignation in writing addressed to the Speaker of the People's House, or to the Chairman of the Council of States, as the case may be. Any Member of Parliament who accepts any office or post carrying a salary, shall be deemed forthwith to vacate his seat, and cease to be a Member of Parliament. No one shall continue to be a Member of either House who is convicted of any offence of-

(a) treason again the sovereignty, security, or integrity of the State,

(b) of bribery and corruption,

(c) of any offence involving moral turpitude, and liable to a maximum punishment of two years rigorous imprisonment.

72-C. All expenses in connection with Election to parliament of all Candidates, whether at the time of a General-Election or a Bye-Election shall be defrayed out of the Public Treasury, in accordance with a scale prescribed by Parliament; provided that any candidate securing less than 10 per cent of the votes cast at the election shall not be entitles to claim such expenses.'"

Sir, these two additions that I am suggesting lay down in the first place the manner in which Members of Parliament can resign their office or be relieved of it. Particularly, importance should attach to the disqualification for sitting and voting in Parliament even after a member is once elected, if guilty of any of the offences mentioned. Anybody convicted of treason, bribery or corruption or of any offence involving moral turpitude, would obviously be unfit to sit in Parliament. I think some machinery should be provided to allow automatically such persons to be excluded from membership of Parliament, even though they might have been elected in the regular way.

The second proposition is more important from the point of view of expenses. I suggest that all election expenses should be paid out of the public treasury, in accordance with a certain prescribed scale; and that anyone who fails to secure a given percentage of votes should not be entitled to claim such expenses. My purpose in laying down this is that one of the handicaps which makes democracy in actual practice a failure is the heavy cost of seeking representation, seeking election, to public bodies like the Central Parliament for a large country like this. The ordinary expenses may run to such amounts that only large Parties with large Party funds can alone carry on election campaigns, extending over months perhaps, and involving hundreds of workers to canvas votes. Private individuals who can afford to stand on their own must have very large bank balances to be able to do so. Now, it does not necessarily mean that persons who have considerable means of their own, or who are able to command influence in large well organised Parties with large funds at their disposal would be the best representatives of the people. I, therefore, suggest-that is the practice elsewhere too-that election expenses should be met from the public treasury, so that there may be no unfair or improper advantage to the richer candidates as against the poorer candidates.

I also suggest that the scale of expenditure should be laid down so that there is no abuse of this privilege.

I have suggested that election expenses be met out of the public treasury both at the general election and at the bye election. I have also added the safeguard that any candidate who secures less than 10 per cent. of the votes cast cannot claim such expenses. This is some guarantee, that the facility, the help. will not be abused by any candidate. The provision I suggest would be of substantial help to candidates who for lack of funds would otherwise not be able to come forward for such public service.

I think the principle is sufficiently sound for me to commend it to the House.

Mr. President : Does any Member wish to speak on this amendment of Prof. K. T. Shah?

Shri H. V. Kamath (O.P. & Berar : General) : Mr. President, I take it, Sir, that Professor Shah has not moved 72-A and that he has moved only 72-B and 72-C.

I submit, Sir, that as regards 72-B there is no need for a new article at the present stage. If Professor Shah would take the trouble of referring to an article which will come up before us shortly, namely, article 83, he will find that it provides for disqualifications of Members-either for being, chosen as Members of Parliament, or for continuing as Members. The various disqualifications have been laid down in sub-clauses (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e). sub-clause (e) is comprehensive in this sense, that a person shall be disqualified for being chosen as, and for being, a member of either House of Parliament if he is so disqualified by or under any law made by Parliament. It is true enough that sub-clauses (a), (b), (c) and (d) do not envisage the contingencies visualised by Professor Shah. But the new Parliament which will be elected under this Constitution will, I hope, Sir-in spite of the misgivings which you expressed yesterday as regards the dangers inherent in the adult franchise and the wider rights and privileges that are being conferred under the Constitution-be composed of persons imbued with wisdom and public spirit, and that in spite of all those handicaps and disadvantages we shall be able to elect persons to this Parliament who will discharge their duties to the electorate and the country with wisdom and sagacity. I am sure that this new Parliament under the new Constitution will frame such rules as will debar such Members from sitting or continuing in either House of Parliament as have been convicted of any of the offences which are mentioned by Prof. Shah in this new article 72-B. The case mentioned in the amendment is so obvious that nobody who is imbued with the right public spirit will say that a member convicted of treason, bribery or corruption or any other offence involving moral turpitude should be allowed to continue as a Member of either House of Parliament. It is derogatory not merely to the dignity of the Houses of Parliament but also derogatory to the good sense and wisdom of the people who elected them as members of Parliament. I therefore feel that the amendment of Prof. Shah 72-B is unnecessary at this stage and out of place here. As regards 72-C I think it is a mere matter of procedure which can be regulated later on when the procedure for the elections to Parliament and bye-elections comes up before Parliament. I therefore feel that both the amendments are out of place and need not be considered at this stage. I appeal to the House to reject both the amendments.

Mr. Tajamul Husain (Bihar : Muslim) : My honourable Friend Prof. Shah has moved two amendments-72-B and 72-C. I find that I am not prepared to agree with my honourable Friend and I therefore oppose both the amendments. Under 72-B my honourable Friend wants that if any member of Parliament is guilty of moral turpitude he should cease to be a member. As has been pointed out by Mr. Kamath, this is already mentioned in article 83. So this is absolutely redundant here. Apart from that, if he wishes to move this amendment he should move it at the proper place when we are discussing article 83, and so at this stage it should be thrown out.

As regards 72-C the point of my honourable Friend Prof. Shah is that

Government and the public treasury should meet the expenses of all the candidates who stand for Parliament. I oppose this also because this is not the practice in any civilised country in the world where there is a parliamentary system on democratic lines. We may have to spend crores of rupees. Also look at the number of people who will stand when they know that they will not have to spend out of their pockets for their elections. If Prof. Shah thinks that individual candidates should not spend money from their pockets let the party which sponsors their candidature spend the money and not the government. I oppose this amendment because at present our country is not rich enough to meet the individual expenses of a candidate.

Prof. K. T. Shah : I should like to withdraw my amendment 72-B, if I may.

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

Mr. President : The question is :

"That after article 72 the following new article be inserted :-

'All expense in connection with Election, to Parliament of all candidates whether at the time of a General-election or a Bye-Election shall be defrayed out of the Public Treasury, in accordance with a scale prescribed by Parliament; provided that any candidate securing less than 10 per cent of the votes cast at the election shall not be entitled to claim such expense.'"

The amendment was negatived.

*

Article 73

Mr. Tajamul Husain : Sir, before we proceed I would like to know whether you could now take up article 73 as we were given to understand that only those articles will be taken up for discussion which relate to election matters, so that the electoral rolls may be prepared as soon as possible. I submit that article 73 does not deal with election matters : it deals with the offices of the President, Vice-President and so on.

Mr. President : We wanted to take up the articles dealing with election matters but I was told that honourable Members were not yet quite ready and wanted a day or two before those articles could be taken up. That is why I have accommodated them and we shall go on with those articles from Monday next.

The motion is :

"The article 73 form part of the Constitution."

(Amendments Nos. 1499, 1500 and 1501 were not moved.)

Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad (West Bengal : Muslim) : Sir, I would like to move Amendment No. 1502. It is not a formal amendment.

Sir, I beg to move :

"That in clause (2) of article 73, for the words 'another member' the words a member be substituted."

The text as it stands rather favours the election of 'another member' and not the member who has ceased to be the Deputy Chairman. According to article 74, a Deputy Chairman shall vacate his office if he ceases to be a member or he may resign. When an election of a Deputy Chairman takes place he would be debarred from contesting for no fault of his. I submit that for the words 'another member' the words 'a member' be substituted, leaving it open to the outgoing Deputy Chairman to contest the seat if he has meanwhile been reelected.

There is however one contingency in sub-clause (c) of article 74 where the Deputy Chairman may be removed for want of confidence. I do not know whether it is desired to allow him also to contest. At any rate, this is a matter which requires consideration and I shall be content if it is considered by the Drafting Committee, because there is a complication in sub-clause (c). It may be desired that he may not be allowed to contest, but in the other case there is no reason why he should not be allowed to be a candidate.

There is one other thing which I would suggest here, if I am permitted. Clause (1) of article 73 is a repetition of what we have already accepted and it is a mere duplication. Clause (1) says : "The Vice-President shall be the ex-officio Chairman of the Council of State," I beg to draw the attention of the House to article 53. This is identical with clause (1) of article 73.

Article 53 also runs to the same effect. It says : "The Vice-President shall be ex-officio Chairman of the Council of States".

There are certain conditions and there is a proviso. I submit that the same provision, word for word, has already been accepted in article 53 which is fuller and more complete. At any rate we have made the same provision in identical terms in article 53. Therefore sub-clause (1) is a mere duplication. We certainly do not desire to have two Chairman of the Council of States. Therefore clause (1) should be deleted or the two clauses may be put separately and clause (1) ruled out. I hope that the Honourable Dr. Ambedkar will consider this and see whether we should provide for the same thing twice.

Mr. Tajamul Husain : Sir, Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad wants that instead of the words 'another Member' there should be the words 'a Member'. I oppose it. My reason is this : clause (2) of article 73 runs thus :

"The Council of States shall, as soon as may be, choose a member of the Council to be Deputy Chairman thereof, and so often as the office of Deputy Chairman becomes vacant the Council shall choose another member to be Deputy Chairman thereof."

The point is this. Supposing a Deputy Chairman has been removed from office for certain reasons, if the word 'another' is there the Council cannot choose him, but some other member. That is why the word 'another' is put in. When a Deputy Chairman resigns or if he is not wanted again-if he is removed we cannot have him again-another member will have to be chosen. If you have the words 'a member' there, the Council may choose the same member again. Therefore the words 'another member' are more appropriate and more correct and better than the words 'a member'. I oppose the amendment.

The Honourable Dr. B.R. Ambedkar (Bombay : General) Mr. President, Sir, I cannot help saying that the amendment moved by Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad is a thoroughly absurd one and is based upon an utter misconception of what the clause deals with. He does not seem to understand that there is a distinction between reelection of a person to the same office and a new election. What we are dealing with in article 73 is not reelection, but a new election. A new election is the result of a vacancy in the office by reason of the circumstances mentioned in article 74. By reason of article 74 the same person has ceased to be a member of the House, you cannot say that they may elect 'a member' which may mean the same person who previously held office. Consequently in order to meet this contingency, the proper wording is 'another member', which may mean the same person who previously held office. Consequently in order to meet this contingency, the proper wording is 'another member' because that member has become disqualified under article 74. Therefore the wording of article 73 is perfectly in order. I may state here that if a member ceases to be a member by efflux of time, he can be re-elected, because he is 'another member'.

Mr. President : The question is :

"That in clause (2) of article 73, for the words 'another member' the words 'a member' be substituted."

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. President : The question is :

"That article 73 stand part of the Constitution."

The motion was adopted.

Article 73 was added to the Constitution.

*

Article 74

Mr. President : Article 74 is for consideration. Amendment No. 1503 is covered by another already passed.

(Amendments Nos. 1504 to 1508 were not moved.)

Mr. President : As there are no amendments to article 74 I will put it to the House.

The question is :

"That article 74 stand part of the Constitution.'

The motion was adopted.

Article 74 was added to the Constitution.

*

Article 75

Mr. President : Article 75 is for consideration.

(Amendments Nos. 1509, 1510 and 1511 were not moved.)

There is an amendment to amendment No. 1511. As amendment No. 1511 is not moved, it does not arise.

The question is :

"That article 75 stand part of the Constitution."

The motion was adopted.

Article 75 was added to the Constitution.

Mr. President : There is notice of a new article 75-A-amendment No. 28 of List II.

*

New Article 75-A

Shri T. T. Krishnamachari (Madras : General) Sir, I beg to move :

"That after article 75, the following new article be inserted :-

'75-A. At any sitting of the Council of States, while any resolution for the removal of the Vice-President 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.'"

Sir, the reason for this new article is that in the event of proceedings being taken against the Chairman or the Deputy Chairman for their removal, the Chairman or the Deputy Chairman might be present in the House to answer the charges against him; and if he is present, unless it is expressly stated that he will not preside, the Chairman or, when he is absent, the Deputy Chairman, will have to preside. In order to obviate this particular difficulty, this new article is being moved.

Dr. P.S. Deshmukh (C.P. & Berar : General) : I cannot hear anything.

Shri T. T. Krishnamachari : This amendment is being moved to overcome the technical difficulty that will arise in the case of proceedings against the Chairman, or the Deputy Chairman, as the case may be, of the Council of States. The article is self-explanators and the difficulty that it seeks to overcome will be clear to any member who reads the article.

Shri H. V. Kamath : Mr. President, Sir, I feel that the article as has been moved before the House suffers from a slight lacuna. The lacuna has arisen because the article merely says that the Chairman or the Deputy Chairman shall not preside on any occasion when the question of his removal from office is under consideration. So long as the article does not provide specifically, does not lay down explicitly in so many words that somebody else from the House or outside the House shall preside on such occasions, the article as it stands, cannot to my mind be clear in its significance or its import. The article must at the same time state that the House shall elect somebody from within the House or appoint somebody else to preside on such occasions. Otherwise, it will mean that when the question of removal of the Chairman is under consideration, the Chairman shall not preside; but who will preside?

I feel that this lacuna must be removed before the article is passed by the House. The article as it stands cannot be accepted by the House.

The Honourable Dr. B.R. Ambedkar : Mr. President, Sir, no such difficulty as has been pointed out by Mr. Kamath is likely to arise, and there is, I submit , no lacuna whatsoever. The position will be this : If the Chairman is being tried, so to say-I am using the popular phrase-then, although he is present, the Deputy Chairman shall preside. If the Deputy Chairman is being tried, the Chairman will preside; and when the Deputy Chairman is being tried, if the Chairman is not present to preside, then what the new clause says is that clause (2) of article 75 will apply. Clause (2) of article 75 says that "During the absence of the Chairman or the Deputy Chairman from any sitting of the Council of States, such person as may be determined by the rules of procedure of the Council, or it no such person is present, such other person as may be determine by the Council shall act as Chairman." Therefore that difficulty is met by the application of clause (2) of article 75 to the case dealt with by this new article 75-A.

Mr. President : The question is :

"That after article 75, the following new article be inserted :-

'75-A. At any sitting of the Council of States, while any resolution for the removal of the Vice-President 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 motion was adopted.

Article 75-A was added to the Constitution.

*

Article 76

Mr. President : The motion is :

"That article 76 stand part of the Constitution."

(Amendment No. 1512 was not moved.)

Mr. President : Amendment Nos. 1513, 1514, 1515 are all verbal and therefore disallowed.

Amendment No. 1516 by Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad.

Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : I do not wish to formally move this amendment, but I want to make a few remarks. A similar amendment of mine was very kindly characterised by Dr. Ambedkar as absurd. I submit, Sir, my amendment was not absurd. There is yet time to reconsider the matter in the Drafting Committee. What I wanted to submit to the House was that if the Deputy Chairman loses his seat by resignation or by losing his membership, and if he is re-elected as a member, he should not be debarred from contesting. The only difficulty was in clause (c) of article 74. I think it is a very substantial matter that if a Deputy Chairman loses his seat but is re-elected, then he should not be debarred from contesting. That was the point I wanted to bring to the notice of the House. The House has already declared itself against the amendment, and so I do not wish to move it. I only submit that the amendment is not at all absurd but rather very reasonable.

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : We have already dealt with that amendment, and a similar was moved by my honourable Friend to article 73.

Mr. President : That has already been disposed of. As regards article 76 there is no amendment.

(Amendments Nos. 1517 and 1518 were not moved.)

Mr. President : The question is :

"That article 76 stand part of the Constitution."

The motion was adopted.

Article 76 was added to the Constitution.

*

Article 77

Mr. President : The motion is :

"That article 77 form part of the Constitution."

(Amendments Nos. 1519, 1520 and 1521 were not moved.)

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

"That in clause (b) of article 77, for the words 'to the Deputy Speaker' the words 'to the President' be substituted."

This amendment of mine relates merely to a matte of procedure. I feel that when the Speaker of the House of the People resigns his office, it will be far better if he addresses his resignation to the President and not to the Deputy Speaker, because the Deputy Speaker holds an office subordinate to him.

I am not suffering from any false sense of dignity, but procedure in these matters, as in others, must be regulated by what I may call decorum and the proprieties of the particular occasion and, therefore, it seems to me that when you have provided that when the Deputy Speaker resigns, he addresses the Speaker should sends his resignation to him, I feel that it is proper that the Speaker should address it, not to the Deputy Speaker, but to the President of the Union of India. I hope and trust that Dr. Ambedkar will see the propriety of a procedure like this and will accept this amendment of mine which provides that in the event of resignation by the Speaker, his resignation will be addressed to the President and not to the Deputy Speaker Sir, I therefore, move my amendment No. 1522 standing in my name and commend it to the acceptance of the House.

(Amendments Nos. 1523 and 1524 were not moved.)

Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : Amendment No. 1525 is verbal.

Mr. President : I also thought so.

(Amendments Nos. 1526, 1527 and 1528 were not moved.)

I think these are all the amendments to article 77. There is only one amendment moved to this article.

Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena (United Provinces : General) : Sir, I wish to oppose the amendment moved by Mr. Kamath. I feel that he has forgotten that the President is the Executive head and we want that the Speaker and the Deputy

Speaker should be completely independent of the Executive and when, therefore, it is provided that the Speaker should send in his resignation to the Deputy Speaker, it only means that the independence of the Speaker and the House over which he presides should be maintained. If we send it to the President, it means we send it to the Executive. It is a very healthy principle that the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker should be completely independent of the Executive. I therefore hope that Mr. Kamath will not press his amendment.

Mr. Tajamul Husain : Mr. President, Sir, I support the amendment moved by my honourable Friend Mr. Kamath and I think that when the Speaker wishes to resign, he should send his letter of resignation not to an office who has been working under him, but to someone higher in authority, i.e., the President of the Republic. This would be better, Sir, I think, for the dignity of the House. My honourable Friend Prof. Saksena said that he wants to keep the dignity of the House. The House of the People is intermingled with the President in many ways and you cannot separate one from the other; it is impossible; and the President of the Republic, after all, Sir de jure is the head of the House of the People. These are the two heads and it is really eight and proper that when he wishes to resign, the letter should go to the highest tribunal that is the President, than to his subordinate. With these words, I support the amendment moved by my honourable Friend Mr. Kamath.

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Sir, I am sorry I cannot accept the amendment moved by my honourable Friend, Mr. Kamath. The existing article is based upon a very simple principle and it is this, that a person normally tenders his resignation to another person who has appointed him. Now the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker are persons who are appointed or chosen or elected by the House. Consequently these two people, if they want to resign, must tender their resignations to the House which is the appointing authority. Of course, the House being a collective body of people a resignation could not be addressed to each member of the House separately. Consequently, the provision is made that the resignation should be addressed either to the Speaker or to the Deputy Speaker, because it is they who represent the House. Really speaking, in theory, the resignation is to the House because it is the House which has appointed them. The President is not the person who has appointed them. Consequently, it would be very incongruous to require the Deputy Speaker or the Speaker to tender their resignations to the President who has nothing to do with the House and who should have nothing to do with the House in order that the House may be independent of the executive authority exercised either through the President or through the Government of the day.

Shri H.V. Kamath : On a point of information may I know from Dr. Ambedkar what is the procedure prevailing in the case of the Speaker of the Central Legislative Assembly today?

The Honourable Dr. B.R. Ambedkar : The position today is so different. Does he ask about the present position or the position that he wants to create? Under the Government of India Act the Assembly and the Speaker are the creatures of the Governor-General. Consequently, the Speaker is required to address his resignation to the Governor-General. We do not want that situation to be perpetuated. We want to give the President as complete and as independent position of the executive as we possibly can.

Shri H.V. Kamath : Even under the Government of India Act, is not the Speaker elected by the Assembly?

The Honourable Dr. B.R. Ambedkar : That is wrong. He is no doubt elected; but his election is required to be approved by the Governor-General.

Shri H.V. Kamath : I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, Sir.

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

Mr. President : The question is :

"That article 77 stand part of the Constitution."

The motion was adopted.

Article 77 was added to the Constitution.

*

Article 78

Mr. President : The motion is :

"That article 78 form part of the Constitution."

(Amendments Nos. 1529 and 1530 were not moved.)

The amendment to amendment No. 1530 does not arise because the amendment itself is not moved.

(Amendment No. 1531 was not moved.)

There is no amendment that has been moved to article 78.

The question is :

"That article 78 stand part of the Constitution."

The motion was adopted.

Article 78 was added to the Constitution.

*

New Article 78-A

Mr. President : There is notice of an amendment by Mr. T. T. Krishnamachari to add a new article 78-A.

Shri T.T. Krishnamachari : Mr. President, Sir, I move :

"That after article 78, the following new article be inserted :-

'78-A. At any sitting of the House of the people, 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 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.'"

Sir, this new article is exactly the same in content as article 75-A Which the House was good enough to accept. The need for this article has been explained fully by the Honourable Dr. Ambedkar. I hope the House will have no difficulty in accepting this new article as it relates to the House of the People in the same way as the previous article 75-A relates to the Council of States. Sir, I move.

Mr. President : I desire to put this amendment straightaway as this is the same as a previous article adopted, with this difference that this relates to the House of the People whereas the previous article relates to the Council of States. I take it that no further discussion is necessary.

The question is :

"That after article 78, the following new article be inserted :-

78-A. At any sitting of the House of the People, 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 shall apply in relation to every such sitting from which the Speaker or, as the case may be, the Deputy Speaker, is absent.'"

The motion was adopted.

Article 78-A was added to the Constitution.

*

Article 79

Mr. President : The motion is :

"That article 79 form part of the Constitution."

(Amendment Nos. 1532,1533 and 1534 were not moved.)

Mr. President : There is no amendment moved to article 79.

The question is :

"That article 79 stand part of the Constitution."

The motion was adopted.

Article 79 was added to the Constitution.

*

New Article 79-A

Mr. President : There is article 79-A given notice of by Dr. Ambedkar and Shri Ghanshayam Singh Gupta.

The Honourable Dr. B.R. Ambedkar : I would like to stand over.

Mr. President : Article 79-A stands over. There is another article 79-A given notice of by Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad.

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

"That after article 79, the following new article be inserted :-

'79-A. (1) The Chairman shall preside at a meeting of the Council of States, and in his absence, the Deputy Chairman shall preside; and in his absence, any one of the panel of Chairmen appointed by the Chairman and selected by him for the purpose, shall preside; and in their absence any member of the Council of States elected by the Council shall preside.

(2) At a meeting of the House of the People the Speaker shall preside, and in his absence, the Deputy Speaker shall pride, and in his absence a member of the panel of Chairmen appointed by the Speaker and selected by him for the purpose, and in their

absence, any member elected by the House shall preside.

(3) At a joint.........'"

The Honourable Shri K. Santhanam (Madras : General) : On a point of order, Sir, this is already provided in article 75.

Mr. President : Clause (1) and (2) are already covered by articles 75 and 78.

Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : In that case, I shall move clause (3).

The Honourable Shri K. Santhanam : Even clause (3) has been provided for.

Mr. President : Clause (3) is covered by article 98 (4). If you want to move your amendment, you can take it up then. That would be the proper stage.

Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : But a duplicate provision has today already been accepted by the House.

*

Article 80

Mr. President : I remember that; it is not necessary to repeat that. We take it that that amendment is not moved. We may go to article 80.

The motion is :

"That article 80 form part of the Constitution."

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

"That in clause(1) of article 80, for the words "Save as provided in this Constitution' the words 'Save as otherwise provided in this Constitution' be substituted."

Sir, this is just a slip and it has to be corrected.

Mr. President : Amendment No. 1537. I take it this amendment is of a drafting nature. Amendment No. 1538. Mr. Kamath, this is covered by the amendment which has just been moved.

Shri H.V. Kamath : The second part is new, Sir.

Mr. President : You may move the second part.

Shri H.V. Kamath : Sir, may I at the very outset bring to your notice that I had sent five amendment separately, but they have been brought together, three in one amendment No. 1538 and two as amendment 1541. I do not wish to blame the office in any way; the office is working very hard and it is quite possible that on account of pressure of work this has happened. I would only crave your indulgence to move these amendments separately.

Mr. President : Yes.

Shri H.V. Kamath : I shall move only the last two portions in 1538, and, also by your leave, 1541 because that relates to the same clause.

Mr. President : Sir, I move :

"That in clause (1) of article 80, after the words 'at any sitting' the words 'of either House' be inserted and the words 'other than the Chairman or Speaker or person acting as such ' be deleted."

and further

"That in the second paragraph of clause (1) of article 80 before the words "The Chairman' the words 'Provided that' be inserted."

I am not moving the second half of the amendment 1541.

Shri T.T. Krishnamachari : May I point out that House has already adopted 68-A which is exactly the same as the amendment now sought to be moved by Mr. Kamath?

The Honourable Dr. B.R. Ambedkar : Yesterday we adopted 68-A which covers the same point.

Mr. President : He is dealing with 1538 and first part of 1541.

Shri T.T. Krishnamachari : I am sorry.

The Honourable Shri K. Santhanam : I suggest Mr. Kamath may move them separately. We may want to support one and oppose the other.

Shri H. V. Kamath : 1538 and 1541 go together; otherwise the picture will not be complete. If my amendments are accepted, the article would read thus-

"Save as otherwise provided in this Constitution, all questions at any sitting of either. House or joint sitting of the House shall be determined by a majority of votes of the members present and voting.

Provided that the Chairman or Speaker, etc."

I do not wish to expatiate upon this amendment. I think these amendments are fairly obvious because the first amendment seeks to insert the words 'of either House'. It stands to reason that we must make every-thing clear. There is the other clause subsequent to that which refers to joint sitting of the Houses.

As regards the other two amendments which in my view must be taken together or rejected together, I would only say that at times I feel that this Draft Constitution has been encumbered with needless verbiage, words which might have been reduced in number, words which might have been omitted. I am aware that the elephant is one of

our emblems but I am sure the House does not agree that the elephant is one of our emblems but I am sure the House does not agree that we should make the Constitution an elephantine one. Our sages and wise men have written sciences and philosophy in brief Sutras and one of our greatest men-I think it was Vyasa himself who took pride in his sloka when he said-

(Shlokardhena pravakshyami yaduktam granthakotibhih.)

[What crores of Granthas have said I will say in half a verse.]

But have we are repeating words which are absolutely unnecessary and which might have been easily, without any detraction of meaning or derogation to the propriety of the article, omitted. I wish we had a Constitution much less bulky. The other day some friends of mine who were students in a college wrote to me after they had perused the Draft Constitution-they are students of politics-they said half in jest and half in earnest that the future generation of students will curse many of us who have presented the country with such a bulky document.

Mr. President : Is all this necessary for this amendment?

Shri H. V. Kamath : I only wanted to make my point clear. I will come straight to the point, as you have been pleased to remark that it is not necessary for the amendment. I only with to say that here in clause (1) of article 80 we find that these words 'Chairman or Speaker or person acting as such' has been repeated in the first part as well as the second para. In the first para the meaning is quite clear without the incorporation of these words 'other than the Chairman or Speaker etc.' If they just add a proviso like 'Provided that' the meaning that the draftsmen have in mind will be clearly brought out and we will be saved the burden of at least 8 or 9 words in this one article. If we proceed in this fashion with many articles, I am sure that at least a thousand words might be omitted from this Constitution.

I therefore move the latter two-third portions of No. 1538 and the first half of No. 1541 and commend these for the acceptance of the House.

(Amendments Nos. 1542, 1543, 1544, 1545, 1546, 1547 and 1548 were not moved.)

Mr. President : No. 87 of Amendment to Amendments.

Acharya Jugal Kishore (United Provinces : General) :Sir, I move :

"That with reference to amendment No. 1536 of the List of Amendments, in clause (1) of article 80, after the word 'sitting' where it occurs for the first time, the words 'of either House' be inserted."

This is only a verbal change and I hope the House will accept the amendment.

Mr. President : The amendments and the article are open to discussion now.

Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : Mr. President, Sir, with regard to article 80, I have to point out one drafting lacuna for the consideration of the Drafting Committee. After clause (1) there is a complete paragraph which should bear a clause number. I think this is an isolated instance where a paragraph has not been numbered. This paragraph should be numbered 1(a) and the subsequent clauses re-numbered.

With regard to another aspect of drafting, I would suggest for the consideration of the Drafting Committee this : In certain places in articles 78, 79, 80, 81 and 82, the word "the" has been treated with considerable amount of affection. It has been used rather very freely. But in other places there is considerable amount of antipathy to the word "the"; as for instance in article 79, there is the expression "the Chairman" "the Deputy Chairman" "the Speaker", "the Deputy Speaker" etc. But in articles 78, 80 and 81, the word "the" in similar context does not appear. But the word again appears in article 82.

Shri M. Ananthasayanam Ayyangar (Madras. General) : On a point of order Sir, you have ruled out verbal amendments. Is it open to my Friend to speak on these verbal amendments? It is for the purpose of enabling us to get along with the substantial portion of the work and to confine ourselves to the substance and in order not to spend away time that you have ruled out verbal amendments. Then what is the use of taking up our time in

another form by speaking on them?

Mr. President : I only wanted to known on which side the Member's sympathies lay, whether in favour of or against the word "the". That apart, I would request the honourable Member to discuss it with the Members of the Drafting Committee.

Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : Sir, I have already finished. But let me point out that my honourable friend in taking up this point of order has taken up more time than I would have done. I have simply pointed out these two points for the kind consideration of the Drafting Committee and I have finished.

Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena : Mr. President, Sir, my objection to this article is with regard to the words "joint sitting of the Houses". In this Draft Constitution, it is article 88 that deals with joint sittings of both Houses. That is a question of principle, and I am one of those who think that there should be no joint sittings of the two Houses. Therefore, I hope that even if this article is passed just now as it is, and if article 88 is amended or dropped, I hope this portion of article 80 also will be dropped.

The Honourable Dr. B.R. Ambedkar : Sir, I am sorry I cannot accept the amendment of Mr. Kamath.

Shri H.V. Kamath : Which of my amendments? I moved three amendments, separately.

The Honourable Dr. B.R. Ambedkar : The one which he moved just now. I find in the book, one consolidated amendment. He might have spoken on different parts of it. But the amendments as it stands is a single one.

Shri H. V. Kamath : Sir, I sent them separately, and I spoke on them separately. With your leave, Sir, I may point them out. Firstly, adding "of either House" after the words "at any sitting". Secondly deleting of the words "other than the Chairman or Speaker or person acting as such". Thirdly inserting the words "provided that" at the commencement of the second para. I would like to know which of these three the honourable Member is accepting, whether he is rejecting all the three or two or one.

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : I am referring to the honourable Member's amendment No. 1538, which so far as the official document is concerned, appears to be a single amendment.

Shri H. V. Kamath : Sir, I asked your leave, to move them separately.

Mr. President : Mr. Kamath has moved these three things. But they can be separately taken also. As amended, the article would read like this :

"Save as otherwise provided in this Constitution, all questions at any sitting of either House or joint sitting of the House shall be..."

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : I find I can accept No. 87 in the consolidated list of amendments. It serves my purpose, and therefore I accept it.

Mr. President : That covers the first part of the your amendment. Then there is the second part of the amendment. I would rather begin with amendment No. 1536.

The question is :

"That in clause (1) of article 80, for the words 'Save as provided in this Constitution' the words 'Save as otherwise provided in this Constitution' be substituted."

The amendment was adopted.

Mr. President : Then we come to No. 87 on the List of Amendments to amendments, moved by Acharya Jugal Kishore.

The question is :

"That with reference to amendment No. 1536 of the List of Amendments, in clause (1) of article 80, after the word 'sitting', where it occurs for the first time, the words 'of either House' be inserted."

The amendment was adopted.

Mr. President : Then we come to the third amendment which is Mr. Kamath's amendment. It is to this effect.

"That the words in the first paragraph of clause (1) 'otherwise than the Chairman or Speaker or person acting as such' be deleted, and at the beginning of the second paragraph 'provided that' be added, with of course, necessary changes in the punctuation."

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. President : The I put the article, as amended to vote.

The question is :

"That article 80, as amended, stand part of the Constitution."

The article, as amended, was adopted.

Article 80, as amended, was added to the

Constitution.

*

Article 81

Mr. President : Then we come to the next article, article 81.

The motion is :

"That article 81 form part of the Constitution."

There is an amendment of which notice was given by Mr. Tahir and Mr. Jafar Imam. But they are not here and so it is not moved. Then there is amendment No. 1550, standing in the name of Mr. Kamath.

Shri H.V. Kamath : That does not arise now, in view of article 68-A adopted yesterday; and so I do not move it, Sir.

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

"That in article 81, for the words 'President, so some person appointed in that behalf by him' the words 'Speaker of the House of Representatives or Chairman of the Council of States, or some person appointed in that behalf by the Speaker or the Chairman of the Council of States, a declaration according to the form set out for the purpose in the Third Schedule."

The amended article would then read that :

"Every member of either House of Parliament shall, before taking his seat, make and subscribe before the Speaker of the House of Representatives or Chairman of the Council of States, or some person appointed in that behalf by the Speaker or the Chairman of the Council of States, a declaration according to the form set out for the purpose in the Third Schedule."

Sir, my purpose in submitting this amendment is to keep out the President of the Republic from taking part in what I regard to be a purely internal concern of the House. The President of the Republic should have no concern with such matters. I think it is a very simple matter relating to the internal autonomy of the House and as such ought to find no objection.

Sir, I commend the motion to the House.

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

"That in article 81, for the words 'a declaration', the words 'an affirmation or oath' be substituted."

Mr. President : All the amendments have been moved. They are open to discussion now. Does anyone wish to speak?

Mr. Tajamul Husain : Mr. President, Sir, I rise to oppose the amendment No. 1551 moved by my honourable Friend, Prof. K. T. Shah. At present the procedure is this. When the House is elected, one from amongst the Members of the House is appointed by the Governor-General to preside at their meetings and then the election of the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker takes place. Now, Sir, article 81 says that the affirmation or oath should be taken before the President or some person appointed in that behalf by him. The amendment is that it should not be taken before the President, but should be taken before the Speaker of the House of people or Chairman of the Council of States, or some person appointed by the Speaker or Chairman.

Now, Sir, I think, this has no meaning. I think the practice as it stands now is more reasonable than what is proposed in this amendment because before the oath there is no Speaker. With these words, Sir, I oppose the amendment moved by Professor Shah.

Shri H. V. Kamath : Mr. President, Sir, I have come here just to seek a little clarification from my honourable Friend, Dr. Ambedkar, in regard to his amendment No. 1554 which he has just now moved and which seeks to substitute for the words "a declaration", the words "an affirmation or oath". May I, Sir, invite your attention to the fact that the House has already adopted article 49 which provides for an affirmation or oath by the

President or person acting as or discharging the functions of the President before entering office. The affirmation or oath provided therein was amended to the effect that the President or person acting as or discharging the functions of the President, should before he enters upon his office take the oath or affirmation in the following form :-

"I. A, B. in the name of God, do swear", or "I, A, B, do solemnly affirm"...

May I have an assurance from my honourable Friend Dr. Ambedkar as well as from the House that the affirmation or oath referred to in article 81 will be on the same lines as provided for in the amended article 49 of the

Constitution?

Mr. President : I take it that it is obvious that the Schedule will have to be amended so as to fit in with the wordings of this clause.

There is a notice of an amendment to the Schedule also to bring it into conformity with the article. There is one difficulty which has struck me. Under article 81 every member of either House of Parliament has to affirm or take the oath before the President or some person appointed by him in that behalf. That will happen on the very first sitting of the Parliament when the members will take the oath or make the affirmation. Supposing a member joins in the middle of the session after a bye-election. Will he be able to take the oath or make the affirmation before the Speaker or the Deputy Speaker as the case may be?

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Sir, I am sorry to say that I cannot accept the amendment moved by my Friend Professor Shah. I think Prof. Shah has really misunderstood the sequence of events, if I may say so, in the life of a candidate who has been elected until the time that he becomes a member of the House. If Prof. Shah were to refer to article 81 and also note the heading "Disqualifications of Members" the first thing he will realise is that merely because a candidate has been elected to Parliament, does not entitle him to become a member of Parliament. There are certain, What I may call, ceremonies that have to be gone through before a duly elected candidate can be said to have become a Member of Parliament. One such thing which he has to undergo is the taking of the oath. He must first take the oath before he can take his seat in the House. Unless and until he takes the oath he is not a member and so long as he is not a member he is not a member he is not entitled to take a seat in the House. That is the provision. Unless candidates take their oath and take their seats they do not become members and they do not become entitled to elect the Speaker. That is the sequence of events,- election, taking of the oath, becoming a member and then becoming entitled to the election of the Speaker. Therefore the election of the Speaker must be preceded by the taking of the oath.

Having regard to this sequence of events it would be impossible to say that the oath shall be taken before the Speaker, because the Speaker is not there and the Speaker cannot be elected until the elected candidates become members. Therefore the authority to administer the oath must necessarily be vested in some person other than the Speaker. That being the position the question is in whom this power to administer the oath shall be vested. Obviously it can be vested only in the President or in some other person to whom the President may transfer his authority in this behalf. In accordance with this sequence of events the only course to adopt is to vest the authority to administer the oath either in the President or in some other person appointed in that behalf by him. It cannot be done by vesting the authority in the Speaker, because the Speaker does not exist at all then.

Now I come to the point raised by our President. What happens to a newly elected member in a bye-election with regard to the taking of the oath? Has he to go to the President or can he take the oath before the Speaker? The answer to that question is that the President will, after the Speaker has been elected, confer upon him by order the authority to administer the oath on his behalf, so that when a newly elected candidate appears in Parliament for the purpose of taking the oath, it will be administered to him by the Speaker as the person authorised by the President. Consequently in the case of a newly elected person it would not be necessary for him to go before the President or some other presiding authority appointed by the President.

That is the sequence of events and it would be seen that article 81 is so framed as to fit in with this sequence. Even today, if I may say so, the same procedure is followed. The President (or the Governor-General) appoints somebody when the House meets for the first time to

preside over it. Every member then take the oath or makes the affirmation before the presiding authority. After the oath is taken the presiding authority proceeds to conduct the election of the Speaker and when the election of the Speaker is completed, the person chosen as the presiding officer retires and the Speaker continues to occupy the place of the presiding officer with the authority of the President to administer the oath to any member who comes thereafter. Therefore, as I said, the original Draft is in keeping with the sequence of events and the provision which is usually made for the President to confer his authority on the Speaker will prevent the newly elected person from having to go to the President to take the oath.

Mr. President : Should it be necessary for the Speaker to derive his authority to administer the oath from the President?

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : I submit constitutionally it is, because the administration of the oath is an incident in the constitution of the House, over which the Speaker has no authority.......

Mr. President : I am not thinking of that stage. I am thinking of a subsequent stage after the Speaker has been elected.

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : I think there is nothing wrong or derogatory, for the simple reason that the constitution of the House, its making up, the legal form of the House is a matter which is outside the purview of the Speaker. The Speaker is in charge of the affairs of the Parliament when the Parliament is constituted and the Parliament is not constituted unless the oath is taken by the members. Therefore the taking up of the oath is really a part and parcel of constituting the House in accordance with the provision and so far as that is concerned I think that authority does not belong to the Speaker and need not belong to the Speaker.

Mr. President : Supposing at a subsequent meeting of the House the Speaker happens to be absent and a new member comes on a day when the Deputy Speaker or some other person is in the Chair.

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : The authority given to the Speaker becomes vested not only in the Speaker but also in the Deputy Speaker, in the Panel of Chairmen or any other person occupying the Chair for the time being.

Mr. President : The Speaker will have to depend upon the delegation of authority.

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : We have to depend upon the goodwill of all the functionaries created by the Constitution.

Maulana Hasrat Mohani : Unless and until all the members take the oath I should like to know how the Speaker can delegate his authority to any other person :

Mr. President : I will now put the amendments one by one to vote. The question is-

"That in article 81, for the words 'President, or some person appointed in that behalf by him' the words 'Speaker or the House of Representative or Chairman of the Council of States, or some person appointed in that behalf by the Speaker or the Chairman of the Council of State' be substituted."

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. President : The question is :

"That in article 81, for the words 'a declaration', the words 'an affirmation or oath' be substituted."

The amendment was adopted.

Mr. President : The question is :

"That article 81, as amended, stand part of the Constitution."

The motion was adopted.

Article 81, as amended, was added to Constitution.

*

Article 82

Mr. President : The motion is :

"That article 82 form part of the Constitution."

(Amendment No. 1555 was not moved.)

Mr. President : I suggest that 1556 and 1557 are covered by 1558. If it is moved and if Prof. Shah is not satisfied, he can move Amendment No. 1556.

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

"That after clause (1) of article 82, the following new clause be inserted :-

'1.(a) No person shall be a member both of Parliament and of the Legislature of a State for the time being specified in Part I or Part III of the First Schedule, and if a person in chosen a member both of

Parliament and of the Legislature of such a State, then at the expiration of such period as may be specified in rules made by the President that person's seat in Parliament shall become vacant unless he has previously resigned his seat in the Legislature of the State'."

Sir, it requires no comment. It is the ordinary rule.

Mr. President : I think that covers amendments Nos. 1556 and 1557. Mrs. Naziruddin Ahmad may move his amendment No. 1559 if he thinks that it is not of a drafting nature.

Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : Sir, I move :

"That in sub-clause (a) of clause (2) of article 82, for the words 'becomes subject to any disqualifications mentioned in', the words ' is disqualified under' be substituted."

Article 82(2) says :

"If a member of either House of Parliament -(a) becomes subject to any of the disqualifications mentioned in clause (1) of the next succeeding article;"

For these, I would substitute the words 'is disqualified under clause (1) of the next succeeding article'. The next succeeding article is to this effect that a person "shall be disqualified" under certain contigencies. If those contingencies really happen the disqualification is automatic and absolutely complete. The text says; if a member becomes "subject to any of the disqualifications." I say, "if he is disqualified under sub-clause (1)" of the next succeeding article, the expression 'subject to any disqualification' implies that the event is likely to happen and therefore I suggest 'is disqualified' which indicates a completed fact. The real clause which deals with disqualification 'implies that the event is likely to happen and therefore I suggest 'is disqualified' which indicates a completed fact. The real clause which deals with disqualification is very absolute and deals with this matter as a completed fact. I suggest therefore that my amendment be accepted. I do not deny that the amendment is somewhat of a drafting nature. But I submit that the implications would be different. If you do not think that this should be considered by the Drafting Committee, I desire that it should be put to vote.

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

"That in clause (2) of article 82, the following new sub-clauses be added :-

(c) or if he is recalled by the electors in his constituency for failure to properly discharge his duties,

(d) or if he dies.'"

As regards (d) I do not think need be said. I fail to see why this contingency was not provided for in this article. It may be that Dr. Ambedkar may say that when a member dies, it naturally follows that his seat will be vacant. But you may remember that this Constituent Assembly laid down in rule 2 or 3 that a seat will be declared vacant either on account of resignation, death or otherwise of a member. Therefore I feel that nothing would be lost if we provide in this article that upon a member's death his seat will fall vacant.

As regards the first part of my amendment, I may say that all democracies, at lest in theory, and some of them in actual practice, have provided for the recall of members or perhaps Ministers, in the event of their failing to discharge their duties to the constituency concerned. I think the Swiss Federal Constitution has incorporated a provision to this effect and some of the American States have also a similar provision. This provision, Sir, goes a long way to fulfil what, to my mind, an ideal democracy should be. I am not sure that we in this country will have an ideal democracy and you, Sir, yesterday rightly observed that there are many dangers inherent under the new dispensation. I feel and I am sure the House will agree that since adult franchise is being introduced by this Constitution, we should take early steps, vigorous steps, towards adult education also, because, to my mind, adult franchise without adult education will not work efficiently-I will not say it will be a failure-but it will not be in the best interests of the country. If it is visualised that there will be adult franchise with a duly and properly educated electorate, then it is

desirable that a member of Parliament should fulfil his duties to the satisfaction of his constituents, and the electorate must have the right, must have the feeling, must have the satisfaction, the conviction that, if their elected member does not so fulfil his duties, they have the right to recall him. It is common knowledge that in modern Parliamentary democracies, a member once elected has no responsibility to his constituents and he continues to sit in Parliament till the next election arrives and then he goes to the electorate asking for their votes. This is hardly a satisfactory state of affairs and I feel that there is no harm if an educated electorate is invested with the power to recall a member elected by them. I perfectly agree that as long as the electorate is not properly educated, there is every danger that the electorate, on considerations other than the right ones, out of pique or ignorance or malice or some such motive, might decide to recall him; but on the whole, by and large, the electorate that we are going to create is a huge electorate and if this principle is accepted, we might devise some sort of machinery to implement it, and we might also fix the proportion, whether two-thirds, three-fourths or four-fifths of the electors should be necessary before a member is recalled. This is a matter of detail which can be decided later on. I move this amendment and commend it for the acceptance of the House.