Vol. 13 · pages 546–550

to be under the influence of the Crown and do things in a manner not justified by public interest. The British themselves have now given up that system; by a statute they abrogated that rule and no person or Member of Parliament who is appointed a Minister is now required to seek re-election. That provision, therefore, is quite unnecessary. As I explained a little while ago, if the Prime Minister does happen to appoint a Minister who is not worthy of the post, it would be perfectly possible for the Legislature to table a motion of no confidence either in that particular Minister or in the whole Ministry and thereby get rid of the Prime Minister or of the Minister if the Prime Minister is not prepared to dismiss him on the call of the Legislature. Therefore, my submission is that the second proposition of Prof. K. T. Shah is also unnecessary. With regard to his third proposition, viz., that if a person who is appointed a member of the Cabinet is not a member of the Legislature, he must become a member of the Legislature within six months, I may point out that this has been provided for in article 62(5). This amendment is therefore unnecessary. His last proposition is that no person who is convicted may be appointed a Minister of the State. Well, so far as his intention is concerned, it is no doubt very laudable and I do not think any Member of this House would like to differ from him on that proposition. But the whole question is this : whether we should introduce all these qualifications and disqualifications in the Constitution itself. Is it not desirable, is it not sufficient that we should trust the Prime Minister, the Legislature and the public at large watching the actions of the Ministers and the actions of the Legislature to see that no such infamous thing is done by either of them ? I think this is a case which may eminently be left to the good-sense of the Prime Minister and to the good sense of the Legislature with the general public holding a watching brief upon them. I therefore say that these amendments are unnecessary. Shri H. V. Kamath : I am afraid Dr. Ambedkar has lost sight of amendment No. 47 in List IV of the fifth Week. Mr. Vice-President: He is not bound to reply to everything. The reply to that amendment has been given by Mr. Tajamul Husain. 513DRAFT CONSTITUTION

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : That does not require any reply. All that has to be left to the Prime Minister. Mr. Vice-President: I will now put the amendments, one by one, to vote. [All 5 amendments were negatived. Article 61 was adopted and added to the Constitution.] ***** ARTICLE 62 Mr. Vice-President: (Dr. H. C. Mookherjee) : We shall now resume discussion of article 62. (Amendments Nos. 1310 and 1311 were not moved.) Nos. 1312 and 1329 are of similar Import. No. 1329 may be moved. Dr. Ambedkar. *The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : (Bombay : General): Sir, I move : “That utter clause (5) of article 62 the following new clause he inserted ;—(5) (a) In the choice of his Ministers and the exercise of his other functions under this Constitution, the President shall he generally guided by the instructions set out in Schedule III-A, hut the validity of anything done by the President shall not he called in question on the ground that it was done otherwise than in accordance with such instructions.’” ***** †Shri Mahavir Tyagi : ...Then there is the amendment of Prof. Shah in which he says that Ministers should know the English language for ten years, and Hindi after the next ten years. I happen to be an anarchist by faith so far as literacy is concerned, I do not believe in the present-day education. I am opposed to the notion of literacy also, even though it has its own value. If I were a boy now, I would refuse to read and write. As it was, I practically refused to read and write and hence I am a semi-literate. The majority in India are illiterate persons. Why should they be denied their share in the administration of the country ? I wonder, why should literacy be considered as the supreme achievement of men. Why should it be made as the sole criterion for entrusting the governance of a country to a person, and why Art, Industry, Mechanics, Physique or Beauty be not chosen as a better criterion. Ranjit Singh was not literate. Shivaji was not literate. Akbar was not much of a literate. But all of them were administering *CAD, Vol. VII, 31st December 1948, p. 1167. †Ibid., p. 1184. 514 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

their States very well. I submit. Sir, that we should not attach too much importance to literacy. I ask Dr. Ambedkar, does he ever write ? Probably he has got writers to write for him and readers to read to him. I do not see why Ministers need read and write. Whenever they want to write anything, they can use typists. Neither reading nor writing is necessary. What is necessary is initiative, honesty, personality, integrity, intelligence and sincerity. These are the qualifications that a man should have to become a Minister. It is not literacy which is important. Shri H. V. Kamath : Does my redoubtable friend want to keep India as illiterate as she is today? The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Have you any conscientious objection against literacy ? Shri Mahavir Tyagi: No, Sir. ***** *The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Mr. Vice-President, of the amendments that have been moved I am prepared to accept amendment No. 1322 and 1326 as amended by No. 71 on List V. As to the rest of the amendments I should just like to make a sort of running commentary. These amendments raise three points. The first point relates to the term of a Minister, the second relates to the qualifications of a Minister and the third relates to condition for membership of a Cabinet. I shall take the first point for consideration, viz., the term of a Minister. On this point there are two amendments, one by Mr. Pocker and the other by Mr. Karimuddin. Mr. Pocker’s amendment is that the Minister shall continue in office so long as he continues to enjoy the confidence of the House, irrespective of other considerations. He may be a corrupt minister, he may be a bad minister, he may be quite incompetent, but if he happened to enjoy the confidence of the House then nobody shall be entitled to remove him from office. According to Mr. Karimuddin, the position that he has taken, if I have understood him correctly, is just the opposite. His position seems to be that the Minister shall be liable to removal only on impeachment for certain specified offences such as bribery, corruption, treason and so on, irrespective of the question whether he enjoys the confidence of the House or not. Even *CAD, Vol. VII, 31st December 1948, pp. 1185-89. 515DRAFT CONSTITUTION

if a minister lost the confidence of the House, so long as there was no impeachment of that Minister on the grounds that he has specified, it shall not be open either to the Prime Minister or the President to remove him from office. As the Honourable House will see both these amendments are in a certain sense inconsistent, if not contradictory. My submission is that the provision contained in sub-clause (2) of article 62 is a much better provision and covers both the points. Article 62, (2) states that the ministers shall hold office during the pleasure of the President. That means that a Minister will be liable to removal on two grounds. One ground on which he would be liable to dismissal under the provisions contained in sub-cluase (2) of article 62 would be that he has lost the confidence of the House, and secondly, that his administration is not pure, because the word used here is “pleasure”. It would be perfectly open under, that particular clause of article 62 for the President to call for the removal of a particular Minister on the ground that he is guilty of corruption or bribery or maladministration, although that particular Minister probably is a person who enjoyed the confidence of the House. I think honourable Members will realise that the tenure of a Minister must be subject not merely to one condition but to two conditions and the two conditions are purity of administration and confidence of the House. The article makes provision for both and therefore the amendments moved by my Honourable Friends, Messrs. Pocker and Karimuddin are quite unnecessary. With regard to the second point, namely, the qualifications of Ministers, we have three amendments. The first amendment is by Mr. Mohd. Tahir. His suggestion is that no person should be appointed a Minister unless at the time of his appointment he is an elected member of the House. He does not admit the possibility of the cases covered in the proviso, namely, that although a person is not at the time of his appointment a. member of the House, he may nonetheless be appointed as a Minister in the cabinet subject to the condition that within six months he shall get himself elected to the House. The second qualification is by Prof. K. T. Shah. He said that a Minister should belong to a majority party and his third qualification is that he must have a certain educational status. Now, with regard to the first point, namely, that no person shall be entitled to be appointed a Minister 516 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

unless he is at the time of his appointment an elected member of the House. I think it forgets to take into consideration certain important matters which cannot be overlooked. First is this.—it is perfectly possible to imagine that a person who is otherwise competent to hold the post of a Minister has been defeated in a constituency for some reason which, although it may be perfectly good, might have annoyed the constituency and he might have incurred the displeasure of that particular constituency. It is not a reason why a member so competent as that should be not permitted to be appointed a member of the cabinet on the assumption that he shall be able to get himself elected either from the same constituency or from another constituency. After all, the privilege that is permitted is a privilege that extends only for six months. It does not confer a right to that individual to sit in the House without being elected at all. My second submission is this, that the fact that a nominated Minister is a member of the cabinet, does not either violate the principle of collective responsibility nor does it violate the principle of confidence, because if he is a member of the Cabinet, if he is prepared to accept the policy of the Cabinet, stands part of the Cabinet and resigns with the Cabinet, when he ceases to have the confidence of the House his membership of the Cabinet does not in any way cause any inconvenience or breach of the fundamental principles on which parliamentary government is based. Therefore, this qualification, in my judgment, is quite unnecessary. With regard to the second qualification, namely, that a member must be a member of the majority party, I think Prof. K. T. Shah has in contemplation or believes and hopes that the electorate will always return in the election a party which will always be in majority and another party which will be in a minority but in opposition. Now, it is not permissible to make any such assumption. It would be perfectly possible and natural, that in an election the Parliament may consist of various number of parties, none of which is in a majority. How is this principle to be invoked and put into operation in a situation of this sort where there are three parties none of which has a majority ? Therefore, in a contingency of that sort the qualification laid down by Prof. K. T. Shah makes government quite impossible. Secondly, assuming there is a majority party in the House, but there is an emergency and it is desired both on the part of the majority party 517DRAFT CONSTITUTION