Vol. 13 · pages 516–520

deep, that he has been persisting in moving the other amendments which, as he himself knows, are only consequential and have no substance in themselves. I therefore do not mind the dig that he has had at the Drafting Committee, The other proposition which Prof. K. T. Shah has sought to introduce in the Constitution is that there should be a concurrence of the other House. He has evidently decided to accept the main scheme embodied in the Draft Constitution. What he wants is that even if the one House which has investigated the offence has come to a conclusion, that conclusion ought not to have effect unless it has been adopted by the other House. I cannot understand why, for instance, the verdict of a jury—and this is no doubt a sort of jury, which will investigate and come to a conclusion—I do not understand why the verdict of one House, which it would have come to after investigation should be submitted to another jury. I have never known of any such principle or percedent at all. Secondly, I do not understand what is to be the effect if the other House does not adopt. Is the other House required to adopt only by bare majority or two-thirds majority ? Supposing the other House does not adopt the conclusion which has been arrived at by one House, what is to be done ? Obviously there will be a tie. Prof. K. T. Shah provided in my judgment, no remedy for the dissolution of that tie. For these reasons, I am unable to accept any of the amendments moved by Prof. K. T. Shah. There is another amendment which I might deal with because it is analogous to the amendments moved by Prof. K. T. Shah, and that is amendment No. 1178 moved by my Friend, Mr. Mohd. Tahir. He says that it is unnecessary to provide for a two-thirds majority for a charge of being guilty of violation of the Constitution. He thinks that a bare majority is enough. Now, Sir, I think my Friend, Mr. Mohd. Tahir has not taken sufficient notice of the fact that a motion for impeachment is very different from a motion of no confidence. A motion of no confidence does not involve any shame or moral turpitude. A motion of no confidence merely means that the party does not accept or the House does not accept the policy of the Government. Beyond that no other censure is involved in a no confidence motion. But, an impeachment motion stands on a totally different footing. If a man is convicted on a motion for impeachment, it practically amounts to the ruination 483DRAFT CONSTITUTION

of his public career. That being the difference, I think it is desirable that such an important consequence should not be permitted to follow from the decision of a bare majority. It is because of this difference that the Drafting Committee provided that the verdict of guilty should be supported by a two-thirds majority. Now, Sir, I come to the amendments of my honourable Friend. Kazi Syed Karimuddin. His first amendment which I propose to take for consideration is amendment No. 1152. By this amendment he wants to add treason, bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanours after the words, ‘violation of the Constitution’. My own view is this. The phrase ‘violation of the Constitution’ is quite a large one and may well include treason, bribery and other high crimes or misdemeanours. Because treason, certainly, would be a violation of the Constitution. Bribery also will be a violation of the Constitution because it will be a violation of the oath by the President. With regard to crimes, the Members will see that we have made a different provision with regard to the trial of the President for any crimes or misdemeanours that he may have made. Therefore, in my view, the addition of these words, treason and bribery, are unnecessary. They are covered by the phrase “violation of the Constitution”. His other amendment is amendment No. 1170, whereby Mr. Karimuddin seeks to provide that when an investigation is being made into the charge of impeachment, the Chief Justice of India shall preside. I have no quarrel with his proposition that any investigation that may be undertaken by any House which happens to be in charge of the impeachment matter should have the investigation conducted in a judicial manner, having regard to all the provisions which are embodied in the Criminal Procedure Code and the Evidence Act. As I said, I have no quarrel with his objective ; in fact, I share it. The only point is this : whether this is a matter which should be left for the two Houses to provide in the Rules of Procedure or whether it is desirable to place this matter right in the Constitution in a definite and express manner. My friend Mr. Karimuddin will see that in sub-clause (3) it is provided that the House shall investigate, and therefore it is quite clear that both the Houses of Parliament in making the rules of procedure will have to embody in it a section dealing with the procedure relating to impeachment. Because, it may be, at one time the initiation may take 484 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

place in the Upper Chamber and trial may take place in the Lower Chamber, and vice versa. So, both the Houses will have to have a section dealing with this matter in the procedure of each House. That being so, there is nothing to prevent the legislature from setting out in that part of the procedure of the two Houses that wherever that investigation is made, either the Chief Justice shall preside or some other judicial officer may preside, and therefore it seems to me that his object will be achieved if what I submit is carried out by the procedural part of the Rules of the two Houses. This provision is therefore quite unnecessary. I come to his third amendment, No. 1187. He wants that the Constitution should lay down the disqualifications which must necessarily arise out of a charge of guilt on impeachment. The language that he has borrowed I see is from the United States Constitution. My view with regard to this matter is this. So far as membership of the legislature is concerned, as I pointed out on an earlier occasion, the matter is covered by the provision contained in article 83 which lays down the disqualifications for membership of the legislature. As I then stated, it would be perfectly posssible for Parliament in laying down additional disqualifications to introduce a clause saying that a person who has been impeached under the Constitution shall not be qualified to be a member of the legislature. Therefore, by virtue of article 83, it would be perfectly possible to exclude a President who has been impeached from membership of the legislature. The only other matter that remains is the question of appointment to office. It seems to me that there are several considerations to be borne in mind. It is quite true that the provisions of the Draft Constitution leave this matter open. But, I think it would be perfectly possible for Parliament, when enacting, a Civil Servants Act, as I have no doubt the future Parliament will be required to do, to lay down the qualifications for public service, their emoluments and all other provisions with regard to public service. Obviously, it would be open to Parliament to say that any person who has been impeached under the law of the Constitution shall not be a fit person to be appointed to any particular post, either an ambassadorial post, outside the Government, or inside the Government in any particular department. Therefore, that matter, I see, can also be covered by parliamentary legislation. 485DRAFT CONSTITUTION

Shri H. V. Kamath : Am I to understand that Dr. Ambedkar is personally in favour of this amendments ? The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Yes ; I think there is nothing in this amendment except the fact that this was met by other ways. Now, Sir, the other question is this : is it necessary to have these disqualifications laid down specifically and expressly in the Constitution ? It seems to me that there is no necessity, for two reasons. One is that no person who has been shamed in this manner by a public trial and declared to be a public enemy would ever have the courage to offer himself as a candidate for any particular post. Therefore, that possibility, I think, is excluded by this consideration. The second is this : whether the people of this country would be so wanting in sense of public duty and public service to elect any such person, if he, as a matter of fact, stood. I think it would be too shameful an imputation to the people of this country to say that it is necessary to make an express provision of this sort in the Constitution because the people of this country are likely to elect persons who are criminals, who have committed breach of trust and who have failed the public in the performance of their public duties. I think these weaknesses are inherent in all societies and no good purpose will be served by advertising them by putting them in the Constitution. I therefore think that the amendments, however laudable they are, are not necessary to be embodied in the Constitution. Mr. Vice-President: The amendments which have been moved will now be put to vote. [Following amendments were accepted by Dr. Ambedkar and adopted by the House.] ***** *Mr. Vice-President : I now put to vote amendment No. 1160 as modified by the amendment of Mr. T. T. Krishnamachari. The question is : “That is sub-clause (a) of clause (2) of article 50. for the words ‘thirty members’. the words ‘one-fourth of the total number of members’ be substituted.” The amendment was adopted. Mr. Vice-President : The question is : “That in sub-clause (a) of clause (2) of article 50. for the words ‘after a notice’ the words ‘after at least 14 days notice’ be substituted.” The amendment was adopted. * CAD, Vol. VIII, 28th December 1948, p. 1083. 486 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

Mr. Vice-President : The question is : “‘That in sub-clause (b) of clause (2) of article 50, for the words ‘supported by’ the words ‘passed by a majority of’ be substituted.” The amendment was adopted. [In all 15 amendments were negatived. One of them was discussed as under.] ***** *Mr. Vice-President : The question is : Amendment No. 1185. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : Sir, no reply has been given to my amendment by Dr. Ambedkar. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Sir, I said I oppose it. Mr. Vice-President : The question is : “That in clause (4) of article 50. for the words ‘date on which’ the words ‘time when’ be substituted.” The amendment was negatived. [Article 50, as amended was adopted and added to the Constitution.] ***** ARTICLE 51 ***** †Mr. Vice-President : Amendments Nos. 1195, 1196 and 1197 are disallowed, being verbal ones. Dr. Ambedkar. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Sir, I am sorry I cannot accept the amendment moved by Prof. K. T. Shah. His amendment seems to be covered altogether by article 54 (1). I fail to find any difference between the amendment that he has moved and the provision contained in sub-clause (1) of article 54. I think if he considers this article, he will find that his amendment is unnecessary and superfluous. With regard to the other amendment, the point of difference is that any one who is elected as a result of the resignation and so on, should only occupy the Chair of the Presidentship during the balance of the term, while the provision contained in the Constitution is to the effect that if a person is elected as a result of resignation, death and so on, he should continue to be the President for the full term perscribed by the Constitution. I see no reason why the term of office of a person who has been elected to the office should not be the full term prescribed by the Constitution and why he should be limited only to the balance of the term. I therefore, see no justification for the amendment at all. [All the three amendments were negatived. Article 51 was adopted to the Constitution. The motion was adopted. Article 51 was added to the Constitution.] *CAD, Vol. VII, 28th December 1948, p. 1084. †Ibid., p. 1087. 487DRAFT CONSTITUTION