Vol. 13 · pages 506–510

ARTICLE 48 *Mr. Vice-President : On going through the amendments one by one. I find that amendments Nos. 1127, 1128 and 1130 are of similar import. Amendment No. 1130 seems to be the most comprehensive and may be moved. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Mr. Vice-President, Sir, I move: “That in clause (1) of article 48 :— ‘(a) for the words ‘either of Parliament or’ the words ‘of either House of Parliament or of a House’ be substituted ; (b) for the words ‘member of Parliament or’ the words ‘member of either House of Parliament or of a House’ be substituted ; (c) for the words ‘in Parliament of such Legislature, as the case may be,’ the words ‘in that House ‘be substituted’.” There was some defect in the original language and we have tried to improve it. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad (West Bengal : Muslim) : Mr. Vice-President, we have already decided by accepting certain rules that amendments which are intended to beautify the language of an article will not be allowed. Improving the language is not now one of the objectives of an amendment. Before the amendment was moved, it looked like an imposing amendment, but Dr. Ambedkar has clearly admitted that it was intended merely to improve the language of the article. In that view, although it has been moved, it need not be put to the vote. Mr. Vice-President : Certain powers have been given to the Chair and the Chair is going to exercise them in the way which seems best. ***** †The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Sir, I move : “That in clause (2) of article 48, for the words ‘or position of emolument’ the words ‘of profit’ be substituted.” Sir, this amendment is just for the sake of uniformity. Mr. Vice-President : Amendment No. 1134. Do you want me to put this lo the vote ? Shri H. V. Kamath : I have been forestalled by Dr. Ambedkar; But I would like to move amendment No. 1135. Mr. Vice-President : We have now only come up to amendment No. 1134. Amendment No. 1135. You can move it. *CAD, Vol. VII. 27th December 1948, p. 1040 . †Ibid p. 1042. 473DRAFT CONSTITUTION

Shri H. V. Kamath : I move, Sir, “That in clause (3) of article 4X, the words the President shall have an official residence and ‘he deleted.” That is to say, the clause will read thus, if the amendment is accepted. “There shall be paid to the President such emoluments and allowances, etc. etc………” In moving this amendment, Sir, I seek a little light from Dr. Ambedkar. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Which amendment ? Shri H. V. Kamath : Amendment No. 1135. My purpose in moving this amendment before the House is to request Dr. Ambedkar to throw a little light upon the necessity for incorporating such an insignificant, such a minor detail in our Constitution.... ***** *The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Mr. Vice-President, Sir, I regret I cannot accept the amendments which have been moved. Professor Shah’s amendment No. 1138 seems to be somewhat superfluous. It provides that the President shall be given Secretariat assistance. There is no doubt about it that it will be done whether there is any provision in the Constitution or not. With regard to his second amendment No. 1140 prescribing that a pension be given to the President on his retirement, I find that while I am agreeable to the sentiment that he has expressed that persons who serve the public by becoming members of Parliament undergo a great deal of personal sacrifice and that it is desirable that they should not be left unprovided for towards the end of their lives, it seems rather difficult to accept this particular armendment also. According to him, every person who becomes President and serves his term of office, which is 5 years, shall, at the end of 5 years, be entitled lo a pension. The second difficulty is that according to his amendment his pension shall not be altered during his life-time. Now supposing for instance one person who has been a President and has filled his full terms of years and has obtained a pension under the amendment of Professor Shah, suppose that he is again elected to be the President, what is the position ? The position is that he continues to get his salary as the President in addition to that he will also be entitled to his pension. *CAD, Vol. VII, 27th December 1948, pp. 1044-46. 474 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

We would not be in a position even to reduce the pension in order to bring it down to his salary. Therefore, in the form in which the amendment is moved, I do not think that it is a practical proposition for anyone to accept. But there is no doubt about the general view that he has expressed, that after a certain period of service in Parliament, Members, including the President, ought to be entitled to some sort of pension, and I think it is a laudable idea which has been given effect to in the British Parliament, and I have no doubt about it that our future Parliament will bear this fact in mind. Then with regard to the question raised by Professor Kamath about residential……..* Shri H. V. Kamath : Sir, I am not Professor Kamath. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : But he is quite entitled to be called Professor because he speaks so often. ( Laughter.) Shri H. V. Kamath : God forbid I should ever become a professor, (Laughter.) The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Well, my friend Mr. Kamath asked me to explain why we have included this provision here, with regard to the official residence of the President, and he also twitted me on the fact that I was burdening the Constitution by mentioning it and other small minutiae. It might be though that this is a small matter and might not have been included in the Constitution. But the question I would like to ask Mr. Kamath is this. Does he or does he not intend that the President should have an official residence and that Parliament should make provision for it ? And is there very much of a wrong if the proposition was stated in the Constitution itself? If the intention is that……. Shri H. V. Kamath : Sir, may I know whether the Prime Minister will or will not have an official residence 7 The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Yes, this is merely a matter of logic. I want to know if he does or does not support the proposition that the President should have an official residence. If he accepts that proposition, then it seems to me a matter of small import whether a provision is made in the Constitutiom itself or whether the matter is left for the future Parliament to decide. The reason why we have introduced this matter in the Constitution is that in the Government *Dots in the original debates indicate interruption. 475DRAFT CONSTITUTION

of India Act, in the several Orders in Council which have been issued by the Secretary of State under the authority conferred upon him by the Second Schedule of the Government of India Act, official residences, both for the Governor-General and the Governors have been laid down ; and we have merely followed the existing practice in incorporating this particular provision in the Constitution ; and I do not think we have done any very great violence either to good taste or done something which we do not intend to do. Shri H. V. Kamath : On a point of clarification, Sir, may I know whether this particular clause of article 48 will stand in the way of the President being provided with more than one official residence ? It speaks of the President having “an official residence. “ The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Not at all. There may be two official residences. Then, with regard to the amendment of Mr. Sarwate, No. 28,1 would like to say that this matter may have to be considered when we deal with the Constitution of the States which will accede to the Indian Union. Today the situation is so fluid that it is very difficult to make any provision of the sort which has been suggested by Mr. Sarwate. Mr. Vice-President: The amendments will now be put to vote, one by one. Amendment No. 1130, standing in the name of Dr. Ambedkar. [All amendments of Dr. Ambedkar as shown were accepted. Amendments standing in the name of Mr. Sarwate, Mr. Naziruddin Ahmed, Mr. Kamath and Prof. K. T. Shah were negatived. Article 48, as amended, was adopted and added to the Constitution. ] ***** ARTICLE 49 *Mr. Vice-President : We now come to article 49. Shri T. T. Krishnamachari : Mr. Vice-President, Sir, I move : “That in article 49 after the words ‘Chief Justice of India’ the words ‘or, in his absence the senior-most Judge of the Supreme Court available’ he inserted.” Sir, this is only making a provision in case the Chief Justice of India is not present, some other Judge should do his function, and it is but proper that the senior-most judge of the Supreme Court should do this function. Sir, I trust the House will accept the amendment because it needs no further explanation. *CAD, Vol. VII, 27th December 1948, p. 1047. 476 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

Mr. Vice-President : Dr. Ambedkar, do you accept that amendment ? The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Yes, I do. ***** *Mr. Vice-President : Dr. Ambedkar. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Mr. Vice-President, Sir, I am prepared to accept the amendment moved by Mr. T. T. Krishnamachari, that is No. 1144, and also amendment No. 1146 by Mr. Kaniath, as amended by Mr. Tyagi’s amendment. With regard to the first amendment, that moved by Mr. T. T. Krishnamachari, not much argument is necessary. His amendments is certainly better than the amendment that stood in my name. With regard to the second amendment, No. 1146, in view of the fact that 1 am prepared to accept it in the form amended by Mr. Tyagi, I do not think I am called upon to enter into the merits of the question. But perhaps, it might be as well that I should say a few words as to why the Drafting Committee itself did not introduce in its original draft, the words “in the name of God.” Sir, I do not think that this matter was considered fully by the Drafting Committee and therefore I cannot advance any adequate reason why they did not originally put in those words. So far as I am concerned, I feel that this was a matter which required some consideration. If the House will permit me, I would express my own views on the matter. The way I felt about it is this. The word “God” so far as my reading goes, has a different significance in different religious. Christians and Muslims believe in God not merely as a concept, but as a force which governs the world and which governs, therefore, the moral and spiritual actions of those who believe in God. So far as Hindu theology was concerned, according to my reading—and I may be wholly wrong, I do not pretend to be a student of the subject—I felt that the word “Eswara” or to use a bigger word, “Parameswara” is merely a summation of an idea, of a concept. As I said, to use the language of integral calculus, you put sums together and find out something which is common, and you call that “S” which is merely a summation. There is nothing concrete behind it. If in Hindu *CAD, Vol. VII, 27th December 1948, pp. 1060-62. 477DRAFT CONSTITUTION