Vol. 13 · pages 1126–1130

1093DRAFT CONSTITUTION and in fixing the salary which we have fixed, namely Rs. 10,000 we have to consider, in coming to a conclusion, as to whether it is less or more than the salary that the Governor-General has been drawing. As every one knows, under the Government of India Act, 1935, the salary of the Governor-General was fixed at Rs. 2,50,800 a year which came to Rs. 20,900 per mensem. This salary was of course subject to income-tax. Under the recent Act passed by the Legislative Assembly the salary of the Governor-General was fixed at Rs. 5,500 but that salary was free of income-tax. I am told that if the salary of the Governor-General was subject to income-tax it would come to somewhere about Rs. 14,000. In fixing the salary of the President at Rs. 10,000 we have taken into consideration two factors. One factor is that the salary of the President should be subject to income-tax. It was felt by the Drafting Committee as well as by a large body of Members of this House that no person who is a functionary under the Constitution or a civil servant under the Constitution should be immune from any liability imposed by any fiscal measure for the general people of this country. Consequently, we felt that it was desirable to increase the salary of the president if we were to make it subject to income-tax. The other reason why we fixed the salary at Rs. 10,000 is to be found in the salary of the existing Chief Justice of the Supreme court, which is Rs. 7,000. It was the feeling of the Drafting Committee that since the President was the highest functionary in the State there ought to be no individual who would be drawing a higher salary than the President and if the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court was drawing a salary of Rs. 7,000 it was absolutely essential, from that point of view, that the salary of the President should be somewhat above the salary of the Chief Justice. Taking all these factors into consideration we thought that the proper salary would be Rs. 10,000. Then, the president’s salary carries with it certain allowances. With regard so these allowances I might mention that when the Government of India Act, 1935, was passed, the Act merely fixed the salary for the Governor-General. With regard to the allowances the Act says that His Majesty in Council shall fix the same by Order but unfortunately the provisions of Part II of the Government of India Act, 1935, were never brought into force and consequently no such Order was ever made by His Majesty in Council although a draft of such an order was prepared in the year 1937. So far therefore as the Government of India Act is concerned, there is nothing stated with regard to the allowances and therefore that Act

1094 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES did not furnish the Drafting Committee any material basis for coming to any definite conclusion. Consequently the Drafting Committee has left the matter with the provision that the President shall continue to get the same allowances which the Governor-General got at the commencement of the Constitution. Later on the Parliament may change the salary and allowances of the President subject to this, that they shall not be changed during the tenure of the President concerned. I should like to give the House some idea as to what are the allowances which the President would be entitled to get if the provision suggested by the Drafting Committee, that the allowances payable to the GovernorGeneral at the commencement of the Constitution should operate. I find from the budget estimates for 1949-50 the following figures were included in the budget under the heading “Allowances to the Governor-General”: (1) Sumptuary allowance of Rs. 45,000 per annum. (2) Expenditure from contract allowance Rs. 4,65,000. (3) State conveyance : Motor cars : Rs. 73,000. (4) Tour expenses : Rs. 81,000. Total allowances are Rs. 6,64,000 per annum, according to the budget estimate of 1949-50. I need not say, as I said, anything about the allowances, because the allowances are liable to be changed by Parliament at any time. The important question is about the salary and I submit that the salary of the President as fixed at Rs. 10,000 seems to me as also to the Drafting Committee to be a very reasonable figure, having regard to the circusmstances to which I have referred. I need not say much about the salary of the Governors. That has been fixed by an Order made recently by the Governor-General, and they appear to me to be quite reasonable and it also observes the same principle that in the provinces where the highest paid official is the Chief Justice the Governor should get something more than the Chief Justice of the province. It is from that point of view that the figure for the salary of the Governors has been fixed. The only other provision to which I would like to refer is that originally it was not proposed to make any provision with regard to the salary of the Comptroller and Auditor General. There again, the salary has been fixed at Rs. 4,000 by Schedule II, subject to the proviso that while the present incumbent continues to function as the Comptroller and Auditor General he will get as personal pay the difference between the salary fixed

1095DRAFT CONSTITUTION by Schedule II and the salary which he is at present getting. When that incumbent disappears and another is appointed he will get the salary that is fixed by the Schedule. I hope that the figures suggested by the Drafting Committee as salaries for the various functionaries dealt with in this Schedule will commend themselves to the House. ***** *Shri Prabhu Dayal Himatsingha : ...Sir, I support the article put forward by Dr. Ambedkar. Pandit Hirday Nath Kunzru : (United Provinces : General) : Mr. President, Sir, the Draft Constitution provided that the President should get a salary of Rs. 5,000 a month and the Governor of a State Rs. 4,500 a month. It was then proposed....‡ The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : President Rs. 5,500 a month. ***** †The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Sir, all I wish to say is that there are three points which have been raised and which require some reply. Mr. Kamath attacked the provision in Schedule II allowing the judges of the Supreme Court a free house. This question of providing for a house in the Constitution for the judges of the Supreme Court was decided upon after careful consideration. It was felt that a large number of judges who would be appointed to the Supreme Court would be coming from the far ends of this country to the capital city and that it would not be proper to throw them on their own resources to find a house which would be in keeping with the dignity of their office. That was the principal reason why the Drafting Committee felt that the Government should have the obligation to provide a house. With regard to the question of the house being free of rent, we thought that was a sort of compensation for the reduction in the salaries of the Supreme Court judges, which we had proposed in comparison with the salaries of the judges of the Federal Court. Personally I was somewhat surprised at the derisive remarks made by my honourable Friend Mr. Kamath on this particular point, because if he is objecting to a free house to anybody I should have expected him to say something about the free house which we provide both for the President as well as for the Governor-General and I personally....‡ Shri H. V. Kamath : I did not refer to rent and I do not know whether it is a free house or not. *CAD, Vol. X, 12th October 1949, p. 144. †Ibid., pp. 146-148. ‡Dots indicate interruption—Ed.

1096 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : I do not think there is any substance in this particular point made by Mr. Kamath. With regard to the question of the amount of salaries there have been a variety of views expressed in the House. My Friend Mr. Shibban Lal Saksena went to the length of saying that the President ought not to get more than one rupee. Well, I suppose, on that remuneration no one would be available to function as the President, except a wandering Sanyasi, and I have no doubt that a wandering Sanyasi would be the most unfit person to be the President of the Union, whatever may be his other virtures. With regard to the judges’ salary two questions have been raised. There are some here in this House who have said that the judges’ salaries should be at a higher level than what is fixed in the Schedule. There are others who have said that the standard of salary we have fixed has no relation to the capacity of the country to pay. In my judgement, the slogan that anything that we could fix in this country should have relation to the income of the people is a good piece of political slogan, but I am not prepared to say that it is practical politics. Salaries in this country, as well as in every other country, most depend upon the law of supply and demand. Unfortunately or fortunately, there are many number of people who can be found suitable to function as Members of the Legislature, consequently we fix their salaries at a much lower level. Fortunately or unfortunately, the supply of persons who can function as judges is very limited. I do not propose to say that it is a rarity. But certainly it is a very difficult commodity to obtain and consequently we are required to pay the market price. I am sure that in my judgment the salary fixed in this Schedule conforms to what might be called the market price. Therefore, I do not think that there can be any serious quarrel on the level of salary that we have fixed. Then I come to the amendment moved by my Friend, Mr. Himatsingka. I should like to say that he and I have the same case in mind and I have the greatest sympathy for the case he has in mind. But what he wants to do is to ask me to accept a general proposition, that is to say, a proposition saying “any judge appointed in any territory mentioned in Part I”. I think it is not desirable to introduce in these clauses an amendment in general terms, for the simple reason that after the 31st October 1948, having regard to the provisions of our Constitution, there can be no distinction in the salary of judges on a provincial basis. All judges have been placed on the same basis irrespective of the High Court of the area within which that High Court is situated. Therefore, a general provision to remove any anomaly is not necessary because such an anomaly is not likely to recur.

1097DRAFT CONSTITUTION The anomaly exists because in the Government of India Act certain provisions with regard to the salary of judges did make a distinction between province and province. What I would like to tell my Friend is this; that the Drafting Committee hopes that this particular case will be provided for in another manner. If that happened there would be no necessity of adopting this particular amendment and the individual affected thereby would also be benefited. But if the Drafting Committee finds that does not happen, then the Drafting Committee will reserve to itself the right of bringing in a specific amendment to remove the grievance of the specific individual we have in mind. Before I close, I would like to ask your permission to introduce one or two phrases in the clause which have been inadvertently omitted. I refer to Part IV, paragraph 11 of sub-paragraph (2). I would like to introduce after the word “shall” in the seventh line the following words : “In addition to the salaries specified in sub-paragraph (1) of this paragraph.” I have also another amendment in sub-paragraph 3 of paragraph 11.1 I would omit the first “such” and after the word “judge” I would add : “of the High Court.” Shri H. V. Kamath : That is my amendment. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : I accept it, and I now hope the House will accept the Schedule as amended. Shri R. K. Sidhva : What about my amendment regarding the salaries and allowances of the President and the Governor ? The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : That will be decided by Parliament. Mr. President : I shall now put the amendments to the Schedule according to the Parts. We are now on Part I of the Schedule. ***** Mr. President : The third part to amendment 270 was the one accepted by Dr. Ambedkar. As it is, the third part reads : “In sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 11 in proposed Part IV of the schedule, after the words ‘specified in sub-paragraph 4(1) of this paragraph, shall’ add the words in addition to the salary specified in sub-paragraph (1) of this paragraph.” The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : I would like to have my own words. †[All the amendments of Dr. Ambedkar were adopted. The second Schedule as amended, was added to the Constitution.] *CAD, Vol. X, 12th October 1949, p. 148. † Ibid.,