Vol. 13 · pages 501–505

Prof. K. T. Shah’s amendment requires that if a person is holding the office of a Minister and wishes to contest an election, the first condition must be that he shall resign his office as a Minister. In other words, ministership by itself would be a disqualification for election. It seems to me that Prof. K. T. Shah has not devoted sufficient attention to his amendment. In the first place, if a Minister resigns then this amendment is unnecessary. The second point which I think Prof. Shah has not considered and which seems to me to be very crucial is this. Supposing we accept his amendment that a Minister shall resign before he stands as a candidate for Presidentship, it is quite clear that between the period of the dissolution of the old Parliament and the time when the new Parliament assembles there can be no Ministers at all in charge of the administration. And the question that we have to consider is this. What is to happen to the administration during the period which is involved between the dissolution of the old Parliament and the assembly of the new Parliament ? Are we to hand over the administration to the bureaucrats or the heads of the administratiave departments to carry on until the new Parliament is elected ? Or is there to be some kind of expedient whereby we are to go about and find a set of temporary Ministers who would take charge of Government during this short period of two or three months and thus forego the opportunity of contesting elections and becoming Ministers themselves in a new Parliament for the full period of their term 7 It seems to me that the amendment of Prof. K. T. Shah, if accepted, would create complete administrative chaos in the Government of the country and therefore I submit........* Shri L. Krishnaswami Bharathi (Madras : General): It does not refer to all Ministers : it only refers to one minister. Shri Mahavir Tyagi (United Provinces : General): And to Deputy Minister also. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Supposing every Minister wants to contest the election and therefore every Minister will have to resign. Prof. K. T. Shah referred to the fact that the Ministers generally monkeyed with the election or may manipulate or exercise their influence over the administration. That of course, to some extent, is probably true. But in order to eliminate the influence which Ministers *Dots in the original debates indicate interruption. 468 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

exercise or might exercise on the elections the draft Constitution has provided under certain articles (articles 289 to 292) for a special machinery to be in charge of what are called Election Commissions both in the centre as well as in the Provinces, which would take charge of the elections to Parliament as well as to the State legislatures. They are to have complete superintendence, control and management of elections, so that whatever possibility that there exists of Ministers exercising their influence over elections has been sought to be eliminated and consequently the fear which Prof. K. T. Shah entertains has really no place at all. I am therefore, for these reasons, unable to accept his amendment. Coming to his amendments which deal with the President, his first amendment No. 1108 sets out certain disqualifications such us conviction for treason, any offence against the State or any violation of the Constitution, etc. The reason why, for instance, we have not specifically mentioned in this particular article under discussion these disqualifications, will be obvious if the Members recall that we have made other provisions which would have the same object which Prof. Shah has in his mind. In this connection I would like to draw the attention of the House to sub-clause (c) of article 48 which requires that “the President shall be a person who shall be qualified for election to Parliament”. Now the qualifications for election to Parliament are laid down in article 83. Sub-clause ( e) of article 83 leaves it to the Parliament to add any disqualifications which Parliament may think it necessary or desirable to add. It is therefore possible that the Parliament when it exercises the powers which are given to it under subclause ( e) of article 83 may think it desirable to include in the list of disqualifications (it is empowered to add to those already enumerated under article 83) some of the propositions which Prof. K. T. Shah has enunciated in his amendment. I therefore submit that, although this particular clause does not refer to the disqualifications mentioned by Professor Shah, it is quite possible and open to Parliament to add them by any law that it may make in sub-clause ( e) of 83. Shri H. V. Kamath : On a point of clarification, Mr. Vice-President, if matters like ‘unsound mind’ and ‘undischarged insolvent’ are found important enough to be embodied in the article itself, what is the point 469DRAFT CONSTITUTION

in leaving this more vital and fundamental thing to Parliament and not giving it a place in the Constitution itself? The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : I do not know. It is a mere matter of logic. It is perfectly possible to say that every disqualification should be laid down here. It is perfectly possible to say that some essential things may be laid down here and the others left to the Parliament. I cannot see any inconsistency in that at all. Now coming to the last amendment of Professor Shah, No. 1125, I think a careful perusal of the language he has used is very essential. What the Professor wants is that every person who has to be a President shall, before assuming office, divest himself of his interest, right, title, etc. in any business or concern which is being sponsored by Government or carried on by Government either itself or through any agency, and secondly that the Government should buy that interest from the President. In regard to this, the first thing that strikes me is that this is one of the most novel propositions that I have ever seen. I do not remember that there is any Constitution anywhere in the world which lays down any such condition. I should have thought that if any such condition was necessary it is in the Constitution of the United States where the President has got an opportunity of exercising administrative control, and administrative discretion and therefore the greatest opportunity of personal aggrandisement exists there. And yet, the Constitution of the United States is absolutely silent about any such condition at all. Professor Shah no doubt has tabled his amendment because he looks upon it as a merely consequential amendment to the original proposition which he had enunciated in the form of his amendment, namely, that the President should have the same position as that of the President of the United States. But our Constitution has completely departed from the position which has been assigned to the President of the United States. As I have stated over and over again, our President is merely a nominal figurehead. He has no discretion ; he has no powers of administration at all. Therefore, so far as our President is concerned, this provision is absolutely unnecessary. If at all it is necessary it should be with regard to the Prime Ministers and the other Ministers of State, because it is they who are in complete control of the administration of the State. If any person under the Government of India has any opportunity of aggrandising himself, it 470 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

is either the Prime Minister or the Ministers of State and such a provision ought to have been imposed upon them during their tenure and not on the President. The third question that arises—I think it is a very concrete question—is this. Supposing we laid down any such condition ; is it possible in the circumstances in which we are living, to obtain any candidate who would offer himself for the Presidentship and subject himself to the conditions which have been laid down by Professor Shah ? I doubt very much whether even Professor Shah would offer himself to be President of the Indian Union if these conditions are laid down. Prof. K. T. Shah : It is not my custom to interrupt speakers at all. But may I give him this categoric assurance that as far I myself am concerned, he can rest assured that there will be complete fulfilment of these conditions. (Laughter). The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : I am glad. But this country could not carry on under the assumption that Professor Shah would be the only candidate who would offer himself for Presidentship. (Laughter) Safety lies in multiplicity of candidates. Therefore we have to consider whether, from a practical point of view, we should have a sufficient number of candidates offering themselves for this particular post. And I have not the least doubt about it that, notwithstanding the very virtuous character of this amendment we should practically be suspending this particular provision from the Constitution if we accept this amendment. For these reasons I do not accept any of the amendments. Shri H. V. Kamath : Is Dr. Ambedkar opposed even to the disclosure of the candidate’s interest or share ? Is he opposed even to a declaration like that ? The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : But that is not the amendment. Shri H. V. Kamat: That is part of the amendment. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: But that is not the amendment. Mr. Vice-President: I will now put the amendments to vote one by one. [Following two amendments were adopted ; three amendments were negatived.] 471DRAFT CONSTITUTION

Mr. Vice-President: The question is : “That ill clause (2) of article 47, and in Explanation to clause 2, for the words ‘any office or position of emolument’, wherever they occur, the words ‘any office of profit he substituted”. Mr. Vice-President: The question is : That for sub-clause (a) of Explanation to clause (2) of article 47, the following he substituted : ‘(a) he is the Governor of any State for the time being specified in Part I of the First Schedule or is a minister either for India or for any such State; or’.” Article 47, as amended, was adopted and added to the Constitution. ***** ARTICLE 47-A *Mr. Tajamul Hussain : .......... Now. Sir, in my opinion, this is a fair amendment but I am afraid that this amendment will not be accepted by the Honourable Dr. Ambedkar. Professor Shah comes forward with beautiful amendments but they are all lost because the honourable Member in charge of the Draft Constitution is not in favour of them. Therefore, with your permission, I want to move a verbal amendment to this. Mr. Vice-President: I cannot allow you to do that. In that case other people would also come forward with verbal amendments. You may make a suggestion for the acceptance of Dr. Ambedkar. Mr. Tajamul Hussain : My suggestion is this : Mr. Shah’s amendment does not say that when a person is elected President he should declare and divest himself of all his personal property. He only says that he should divest himself of his rights, shares or interests in any concern aided or supported by government and that such rights, etc. should be taken over and held in trust for him by the Government of India. I say that as it would come to the Government of India, I thought that Dr. Ambedkar would accept it. If, Dr. Ambedkar as the Law Minister of the Government of India is not going to accept it, then instead of the ‘Government of India’, let it go to the President’s wife and children. That is a very simple matter ............ I support the amendment and I move my oral amendment. Mr. Vice-President : There is no amendment to be moved. The Honourable Dr. B.R. Ambedkar : Sir, I have nothing to say. [Amendment of Prof. K. T. Shah was put to vote but was negatived by the House.] *CAD. Vol. VII. 27th December 1948, p. 1040 472 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES