Vol. 13 · pages 1136–1140

Shri Brajeshwar Prasad (Bihar : General) : Sir, I would like to suggest that these two amendments No. 218 and 219 relating to articles 224 and 225 should be disposed of first, or the amendments standing in the name of honourable Members to these articles will also have to be moved. Mr. President : They have to be deleted. It does not take any time to dispose them of. [Article 224 was deleted from the Constitution.] ARTICLE 306B *Mr. President : Amendment No. 222 : Dr. Ambedkar. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : I have already moved that. ***** The Assembly re-assembled after Lunch at Four of the Clock, Mr. President (the Honourable Dr. Rajendra Prasad) in the Chair. (13th October 1949). ARTICLE 3 (REOPENED) †Mr. President : We shall now take up those consequential amendments No. 226 etc. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : I would ask Mr. T. T. Krishnamachari to move the amendments on my behalf. ***** ARTICLE 296 ‡Mr. President : We shall now take up article 296; amendment No. 15. We have got a large number of amendments. Some of the amendments are amendments to the amendment to be moved on behalf of the Drafting Committee. Some are amendments to other amendments which are to be moved by other Members. Many of them overlap. Therefore, I think Members will themselves exercise a certain amount of discretion in not insisting upon amendments which are only overlapping and which are covered by other amendments. Shri H. V. Kamath (C. P. & Berar: General) : We shall abide by your ruling, Sir. Mr. President : I do not want to give any ruling if I can help it. *CAD, Vol. X, 13th October 1949, p. 183. †Ibid., p. 210. ‡Ibid., 14th October 1949, p. 229. 1103DRAFT CONSTITUTION

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar (Bombay : General) : Sir, I move : “That with reference to amendment No. 3163 of the List of amendments for article 296 the following article be substituted:— ‘296. The claims of the members of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes shall be taken into consideration consistently with the maintenance of efficiency of administration, in the making of appointments to services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or of a State.’ ” ***** *Mr. President :... The next amendment which purpoorts to substitute is No.23, which stands in the name of Dr. Ambedkar. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : I do not propose to move it. Mr. President : Then No. 24. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Not being moved. [The amendment of Dr. Ambedkar mentioned above was adopted Article 296, as amended, was added to the Constitution.] ***** ARTICLE 299 ***** †Sardar Hukam Singh : My question has not been answered. Have these four Sikh Classes been included in the Scheduled Castes. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Of course, they will be. Shri K. M. Munshi : The President is empowered to issue, under article 300-A, a list of Scheduled Castes. In that, these Scheduled Castes will find a place. Sardar Hukam Singh : Where is the guarantee that the President will include these people in that list ? We have given up all safeguards to secure this in the Constitution. That has not been done. Shri K. M. Munshi : The President has that power. The President is sure to keep to the pledge which has been given. This decision finds a place in the Advisory Committee’s Report that the Sikh Scheduled Castes will form part of the Scheduled Castes and provided with the safeguards under article 296 which we have already passed. There is no question of going back upon that pledge, you may take it from me. I repeat the Sikh Scheduled Castes will be included in the list of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the Punjab. [Article 299, as amended, was added to the Constitution.] Claims of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes to services and posts *CAD, Vol. X, 14th October 1949, pp. 236-237. †Ibid., p. 262. 1104 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

ARTICLE 48 *Shri H. V. Kamath : Dr. Ambedkar was quite clear when he gave his answer to me the other day, but now he seems to have some doubt in his own mind, and he has come now with an amendment seeking to provide residences to Governors and the President, without payment of rent. We should, proceed logically, provide rent-free accommodation to Ministers also. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Sir, if I may say a word. This amendment is merely consequential or analogous to the provision we have made with regard to the Rajpramukhs. In the clauses that were moved the other day with regard to the residences of Rajpramukhs, we have definitely stated that they will be rent-free. On comparing the similar clauses relating to the Governors, we found that somehow there was a slip and we did not mention rent-free houses. It is to make good that lacuna, and to bring the cases of the Governors and the President on the same footing as the Rajpramukhs that this amendment is needed. With regard to the question of Ministers, that will be regulated by law made by Parliament. Whether Parliament will be prepared to give them salary with house, and if with house, whether it will be free of rent or with rent, are all matters that will be regulated by Parliament, because the offices of Ministers are political offices dependent upon the goodwill and the confidence of the House, and it seems to me that Mr. Kamath will very easily understand that it would be not proper to remove the Ministers from the purview and jurisdication of Parliament. Mr. President: I would like to put it to vote. The question is : “That in clause (3) of article 48, for the words ‘The President shall have an official residence, the words ‘ The President shall be entitled to the use of the Government House without payment of rent’ be substituted.” [The amendment was negatived.] Mr. President : Then I put the amendment moved by Shri T. T. Krishnamachari. The question is : “That in clause (3) of article 48, for the words ‘The President shall have an official residence’ the words ‘The President shall be entitled without payment of rent to the use of his official residences’ be substituted.” The amendment was adopted. Shri T. T. Krishnamachari : Sir, I move amendment No. 360. “That clause (5a) of article 62 be omitted.” *CAD, Vol. X, 14th October 1949, p. 268. 1105DRAFT CONSTITUTION

The reason for this is, as I told the House the other day on behalf of Dr. Ambedkar, that we do not propose to move Schedule IIIA and also the Schedule which deals with Instructions to Governors. The clause in question reads thus : “( 5a) In the choice of his ministers and in the exercise of his other functions under this constitution, the President shall be generally guided by Instructions set out in Schedule IIIA.” Actually, since Schedule IIIA is not moved, this clause becomes superfluous. Therefore I have moved for its omission. Shri H. V. Kamath : Sir, you might remember that some months ago you raised the important point whether the President would always be bound to accept the advice of his Council of Ministers. Our Constitution is silent on that point. It only says that there shall be a Council of Ministers to aid and advise the President. Dr. Ambedkar at that time undertook to insert some provision somewhere in the Constitution in order to make this point clear. That is my recollection. The President will kindly say whether I am right or wrong. Nowhere in the Draft Constitution has this point been clarified. I hope Dr. Ambedkar will do so, and not leave it vague as at present. *The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Sir, I wish I had notice of this, so that I could give the necessary quotations. But I can make a general statement. The point whether there is anything contained in the Constitution which would compel the President to accept the advice of the Ministry is really a very small one as compared with the general question. I propose to say something about the general question. Every Constitution, so far as it relates to what we call parliamentary democracy, requires three different organs of the State, the executive, the judiciary and the legislature. I have not anywhere found in any Constitution a provision saying that the executive shall obey the legislature, nor have I found anywhere in any Constitution a provision that the executive shall obey the judiciary. Nowhere is such a provision to be found. That is because it is generally understood that the provisions of the Constitution are binding upon the different organs of the State. Consequently, it is to be presumed that those who work the Constitution, those who compose the Legislature and those who compose the executive and the judiciary know their functions, their limitations and their duties. It is therefore to be expected that if the executive is honest in working the Constitution, then the executive is bound to obey the Legislature without any kind of compulsory obligation laid down in the Constitution. Similarly, if the executive is honest in working the Constitution, it must act in accordance with the judicial decisions given by the Supreme Court. *CAD, Vol. X, 14th October 1949, pp. 269-70. 1106 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

Therefore my submission is that this is a matter of one organ of the State acting within its own limitations and obeying the supremacy of the other organs of the State. In so far as the Constitution gives a supremacy to that is a matter of constitutional obligation which is implicit in the Constitution itself. I remember, Sir, that you raised this question and I looked it up and I had with me two decisions of the King’s Bench division which I wanted one day to bring here and refer in the House so as to make the point quite clear. But I am sorry I had no notice today of this point being raised. But this is the answer to the question that has been raised. No constitutional Government can function in any country unless any particular constitutional authority remembers the fact that its authority is limited by the Constitution and that if there is any authority created by the Constitution which has to decide between that particular authority and any other authority, then the decision of that authority shall be binding upon any other organ. That is the sanction which this Constitution gives in order to see that the President shall follow the advice of his Ministers, that the executive shall not exceed in its executive authority the law made by Parliament and that the executive shall not give its own interpretation of the law which is in conflict with the interpretation of the judicial organ created by the Constitution. Shri H. V. Kamath : If in any particular case the President does not act upon the advice of his Council of Ministers, will that be tentamount to a violation of the Constitution and will he be liable to impeachment? The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : There is not the slightest doubt about it. The Honourable Shri K. Santhanam (Madras : General): I may add to Dr. Ambedkar’s statement, and point out that there are certain marginal cases in which the President may not accept the advice of the Ministers. When a Ministry wants dissolution it will be open to the President to say that he will instal another Ministry which has the confidence of the majority and continue to run the administration. There are some marginal cases where he may have in the interests of responsible government itself to over-ride the advice of his responsible Ministers. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : I would only like to say one thing in reply. That was once the position. It has been defined very clearly in Macaulay’s History of England what the King can do. But I say that these are matters of convention. In Canada this question arose when Mr. Mackenzie King wanted dissolution. The question was whether the Governor-General was bound to give a decision or wheher he was free 1107DRAFT CONSTITUTION