Vol. 13 · pages 526–530

*Mr. Vice-President : The next two amendments Nos. 1232 and 1233 are disallowed as being verbal. Amendments Nos. 1234 standing in the name of Dr. Ambedkar, 1235 and 1239 standing in the name of Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad are of similar import and I am, therefore asking Dr. Ambedkar to move his amendment, which seems to me the most comprehensive one. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Sir, I move : “That in clause (4) of article 55, for the words ‘or position of emolument’ wherever they occur the words ‘of profit’ be substituted.” Mr. Vice-President : Amendment No. 1235 stands in the name of Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad. Does he want me to put this to the vote ? Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : No, Sir, the previous amendment will cover it. Mr. Vice-President : What about amendment No. 1239 ? Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : The same consideration would apply. (Amendment No. 1236 was not moved.) Mr. Vice-President : Amendments Nos. 1237 and 1238 are verbal and are, therefore, disallowed. Amendment No. 1240 stands in the name of Dr. B. R. Ambedkar. He may move it. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Sir, I move : “That for sub-clause (a) of the Explanation to clause (4) of article 55, the following be 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, of’.” This matter has already been debated last time. ***** †Mr. Vice-President : Dr. Ambedkar. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar (Bombay : General) : Mr. Vice-President, Sir, I regret that I cannot accept any of the amendments which have been moved, to this article. So far as the general debate is concerned, I think there are only two amendments which call for any reply. The first is the amendment moved by Mr. Tahir, No. 1215. Mr. Tahir’s amendment proposes that the same system of election which has been prescribed for the President should be made applicable to the election of the Vice-President. Now, Sir, the difference which has CAD, Vol. VII, 28th December 1948, p. 1096. †Ibid., 29th December 1948, pp. 1100-02. 493DRAFT CONSTITUTION

been made in the Draft Constitution between the system of election to the Presidentship and the system of election for the Vice-Presidentship is based upon the functions which the two dignitaries are supposed lo discharge. The President is the Head of the State and his powers extend both to the administration by the Centre as well as of the Slates. Consequently, it is necessary that in his election, not only Members of Parliament should play their part, but the Members of the State Legislatures should also have a voice. But when we come to the vice-President, his normal functions are merely to preside over the Council of States. It is only on a rare occasion, and that too for a temporary period, that he may be called upon to assume the duties of a President. That being so, it does not seem necessary that the Members of the State Legislatures should also be invited to take part in the election of the Vice-President. That is the justification why the Draft Constitution has made a distinction in the modes of election of these two dignitaries. The second amendment which calls for a reply is the amendment moved by Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad. No. 1219. He has suggested that the word “assembled” should be dropped. Now, the reason why the word “assembled” has been introduced in this article is to avoid election being conducted by posting of ballot papers. We all know that the postal system, when used for the purpose of electioneering is liable to result in failure. Either the ballot papers posted may not reach the destination and may be lost in transit ; or it is perfectly possible for a candidate to send round his agents in order to collect the ballot papers so that he may obtain possession of them, sign them himself and send them on without giving any opportunity to the elector himself to exercise his freedom in the matter of election. It is for this reason that it was decided that the election should take place when the two Houses assemble, so as to prevent the misuse of posting. Now, I do not think that the calling together of a meeting of the Members of Parliament for this purpose is going to introduce in practice a difficulty, or is going to introduce any inconvenience. Alter all. Members of Parliament would be meeting together for the purposes of legislation, and it would be perfectly possible to have the election during one of those sessions. I, therefore, submit that the original language is the more justifiable one, in view of the circumstances I have mentioned. 494 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

Now, Sir, with regard to Prof. K. T. Shah’s amendment that the disqualifications, with regard to the Vice-President should be specified in the Constitution itself, that is a matter which I have already dealt with when replying to a similar amendment moved by him with regard to the President, and I said that this is a matter which could be provided for by law made by Parliament. With regard to the suggestion which has been made both by Mr. Bhurathi and Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad about the use of the words “alternative vote”, all I can say is this. If it is merely a matter of change of language, it might be possible for the Drafting Committee at a later stage, to consider this matter. But if—and I am not prepared to commit myself one way or the other—the alternative vote does involve some change of substance, then I am afraid it will not be possible for us to consider this matter at any stage at all. Mr. Vice-President : I am now going to put the different amendments to vote, one by one. [All the amendments except those moved by Dr. B. R. Ambedkar were negatived. Or. Ambedkar’s amendments are mentioned earlier.] Article 55, as amended, was adopted and added to the Constitution. ***** ARTICLE 56 ***** *The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Mr. Vice-President, Sir, I regret my inability to accept any of the amendments that have been moved to article 50. I should, however, like to meet some of the points that have been made by those who have moved the amendments. Sir, the first amendment was by Prof. Shah which laid down that provision should be made for pay and pension for the Vice-President. This is a matter which Prof. Shah has also raised in connection with the office of the President and I had stated my objection to making any such provision in the Constitution itself. The Honourable Shri K. Santhanam (Madras : General) : May I point out that in Second Schedule express provision has been made ? *CAD, Vol. VII, 29th December 1948, pp. 1113-15. 495DRAFT CONSTITUTION

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Having explained my position with regard to that point, I shall not repeat what I have said then. Coming to sub-clause (b) of article 56, various points have been raised. First of all a point has been raised that the words ‘bribery, corruption etc.’ should be added. Personally I do not think that any such particular phrase is necessary. Want of confidence is a very large phrase and is big enough to include any ground such as corruption, bribery etc. Therefore that amendment, in my judgment, is not necessary. The second point that has been made is that the removal of the Vice-President should be governed by the same rules as the removal of the President viz., that there should be a majority of two-thirds. Now, Sir, with regard to that point. I would like to draw the attention of the House that although the Constitution speaks of Vice-President, he really is a Chairman of the Council of States. In other words, so far as his functions are concerned, he is merely an opposite number of the Speaker of the House of People. Consequently in making a comparison or comment upon the provisions contained in sub-clause (b) of article 56 those provisions should be compared with the articles dealing with the removal of the Speaker and they are contained in article 77(c). If this article 56(b) is compared with the article 77(c), members will find that the position is exactly identical. The same rules which are made applicable to the removal of the Speaker are also made applicable to the removal of the Vice-President who, as I have stated, is really another name for the Chairman of the Council of States. Consequently, the requirement of two-thirds majority is unnecessary. And then my friend Mr. Kamath has raised what I might call a somewhat ticklish question. He said that sub-clause (b) of this article speaks of a majority, while when the reference is made to the House of the People, no such phraseology is used. Now, the matter is quite simple. Whenever we have said that a certain resolution has to be passed, it is understood that it has to be passed by a majority of the House. It is only when a special majority is mentioned that a reference is made to a majority and not otherwise. Now, I quite agree that his argument is that although we do not mention or specify any particular majority with respect to the Council of States, we have still used the phraseology— passed by a majority. Why is this distinction made ? Why is this distinction between the phraseology used in regard to the Council 496 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

of States and in regard to the House of the People ? Now, the difference has been made because of the word “then” occurring there. That word “then” is important. The word “then” means all members whose seats are not vacant. It does not mean members sitting or present and voting. It is because of this provision, that all members who are members of Parliament and whose seats are not vacant, that their votes also have to be counted, that we have said—passed by a majority of the then members. Shri H. V. Kamath : Does it mean the total number of members of the Council of States ? The Honourable Dr. B, R. Ambedkar : Yes, The word ‘then’ is necessary. Shri H. V. Kamath : On a point of clarification, Sir. Yesterday in article 50, we used the phraseology ‘passed by a majority ‘in place of the two-thirds majority. Should we not do the same thing here to make the meaning clearer ? The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : I shall explain it presently. The reason is due to the fact that we have to use the word ‘then’ which is intended to distinguish the case of members present and voting, and members who are members of the House whose seats are not vacant, and voting. Shri H. V. Kamath : Am I to understand that unless otherwise specified, when you say a resolution is passed or adopted, it means that it is by a simple majority ? The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Yes. Now, coming to the point raised by my friend Mr. Tahir, amendment No. 1266. If I understood him correctly, what he says is that the resolution of no confidence should require to be passed by two-thirds. This may be good or it may be bad. I cannot say. All I can say is that this provision is also on a par with the provision regarding the want of confidence in the Speaker. There also we do not require that it should be passed by two-thirds majority or two-thirds of the members of the House. Then, coming to the amendment of my friend Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad, who wants that in clause (c) after the word “term” words such as resignation etc. should be inserted. This amendment is absolutely unnecessary, because this article does not make any 497DRAFT CONSTITUTION