Vol. 13 · pages 551–555

as well as on the part of the minority party that party quarrels should stop during the period of the emergency, that there shall be no party Government, so that Government may be able to meet an emergency—in that event, again, no such situation can be met except by a coalition Government and if a coalition Government takes the place, ex hypothesi the members of a minority party must be entitled to become members of the Cabinet. Therefore, I submit that on both these grounds this amendment is not a practicable amendment, With regard to the educational qualification, notwithstanding what my friend Mr. Mahavir Tyagi has said on the question of literary qualification, when I asked him whether in view of the fact that he expressed himself so vehemently against literary qualification whether he has any conscientious objection to literary education, he was very glad to assure me that he has none. All the same, I wonder whether there would be any Prime Minister or President who would think it desirable to appoint a person who does not know English, assuming that English remains the official language of the business of the Executive or of Parliament. I cannot conceive of such a tiling. Supposing the official language was Hindi, Hindustani or Urdu— whatever it is—in that event, I again find it impossible to think that a Prime Minister would be so stupid as to appoint a Minister who did not understand the official language of the country or of the Administration and while therefore it is no doubt a very desirable thing to bear in mind that persons who would hold a portfolio in the Government should have proper educational qualification, I think it is, rather unnecessary to incorporate this principle in the Constitution itself. Now, I come to the third condition for the membership of a Cabinet and that is that there should be a declaration of the interests, rights and properties belonging to a Minister before he actually assumes office. Tins amendment moved by Prof. K. T. Shah is to some extent amended by Mr. Kamath. Now, this is not the first time that this matter has been debated in the House. It was debated at the time when similar amendments were moved with regard to the article dealing with the appointment and oath of the President and I have had a great deal to say about it at that particular time and I do not wish to repeat what I said then on this occasion. My Friend Mr. Kamath reminded me of what I said on the occasion when the article dealing with the President 518 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

was debated in this House and I do remember that I did say that such a provision might be necessary………* Shri H. V. Kamath : May I remind Dr. Ambedkar of what exactly he said? I am reading from the official type-script of the Assembly Secretariat. These are his very words : “If any person in the government of India has any opportunity of aggrandizing himself, it is either the Prime Minister or the Ministers of State and such a provision ought to have been imposed upon them for their tenure hut not upon the President.” The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : That is what I was saying. What I said was that such a provision might be necessary in the case of Ministers, and my Friend Mr. Kamath also read some section from the Factory Act requiring similar qualifications for a Factory Inspector. Now, Sir, the position that we have to consider is this : no doubt, this is a very laudable object, namely, that the Ministers in charge should maintain the purity of administration. I do not think anybody in this House can have any quarrel over that matter. We all of us are interested in seeing that the administration is maintained at a high level, not only of efficiency but also of purify. The question really is this? what ought to be the sanctions for maintaining that purity ? It seems to me there are two sanctions. One is this, namely, that we should require by law and by Constitution,—if this provision is to be effective—not only that the Ministers should make a declaration of ‘their’ assets and their liabilities at the time when they assume office, but we must also have two supplementary provisions. One is that every Minister on quitting office shall also make a declaration of his assets on the day on which he resigns, so that everybody who is interested in assessing whether the administration was Corrupt of not during the tenure of his office should be able to see what increase there is in the assets of the Minister and whether that increase can be accounted for by the savings which he can make out of his salary. The other provision would be that if we find that a Minister’s increases in his assets on the day on which he resigns are not explainable by the normal increases due to his savings, then there must be a third provision to charge the Minister for explaining how he managed to increase his assets to an abnormal degree during that period. In my judgment, if you want to make this clause effective, then there must be three provisions as I stated. One is a declaration at the outset; second is a declaration at the end of the quitting of this office; thirdly, responsibility for explaining as to how the assets have *Dots in the original debates indicate interruption. 519DRAFT CONSTITUTION

come to be so abnormal and fourthly, declaring that to be an offence, followed up by a penalty or by a fine. The mere declaration at the initial state…….* Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : How could you trace or check invisible assets or secret assets ? The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : The whole thing is simply good for nothing, so to say. It might still be possible, notwithstanding this amendment for the Minister to arrange the transfer of his assets during the period in such a manner that nobody might be able to know what he has done and therefore, although the object is laudable, the machinery provided is very inadequate and I say the remedy might be worse than the disease. Shri H. V. K a math : May I, Sir, presume that Dr. Ambedkar at least accepts the amendment in principle and that he has not resiled from the view which he propunded the other day, that he has not recanted,? The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : I do not resile from my view at all. All I am saying is that the remedy provided is very inadequate and not effective, and therefore, I am not in a position to accept it. Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena : Make it more comprehensive. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : I cannot do it now. It was the business of those who move the amendment to make the tiling foolproof and knave-proof, but they did not. Now, Sir, I was saying that nobody has any objection, nobody quarrels with the aim and object which is behind this amendment. The question is, what sort of sanction we should forge. As I said, the legal sanction is inadequate. Have we no other sanction at all ? In my judgment, we have a better sanction for the enforcement of the purity of administration, and that is public opinion as mobilised and focussed in the Legislative Assembly. My Honourable Friend. Mr. H. V. Kamath cited the illustration of the Factory Act. The reason why those disqualifications had been introduced in the case of the Factory Inspector is because public opinion cannot touch him, but public opinion is every minute glowing, so to say, against the Ministry, and if the House so desires at any time, it can make itself felt on any particular point of maladministration and remove the Ministry; and my *Dots in the original debates indicate interruption. 520 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

submission, therefore, is that there is far greater sanction in the opinion and the authority of the House to enforce purity of administration, so as to nullify the necessity of having an outside legal sanction at all. Shri Lokanath Misra (Orissa; General) : Is that not a more impossible task ? The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Democracy has to perform many more impossible tasks. If you want democracy, you must face them. Now, Sir, I come to the amendment of my Honourable Friend, Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad. He wants the deletion of the latter part of the amendment which I moved. His objection was that if the latter part of my amendment remained, it would nullify the earlier part of my amendment, namely, the obligation of the Minister to follow the directions given in the Instrument of Instructions. Yes, theoretically that is so. There again the question that arises is this. How are we going to enforce the injunctions which will be contained in the Instrument of Instructions ? There are two ways open. One way is to permit the court to enquire and to adjudicate upon the validity of the thing. The other is to leave the matter to the legislature itself and to see whether by a censure motion or a motion of no confidence, it cannot compel the Ministry to give proper advice to the President and impeachment to see that the President follows that advice given by the Ministry. In my judgment, the latter is the better way of effecting our purpose and it would be unfair, inconvenient, if everything done in the House is made subject to the jurisdiction of the court, so that any recalcitrant Member may run to the Supreme Court and by a writ of injunction against the Speaker prevent him from carrying on the business of the House, unless that particular matter is decided either by the Supreme Court or the High Court as the case may be. It seems to me that that would be an intolerable interference in the work of the Assembly. Even in England the Parliament is not subject to the authority of the Court in matters of procedure and in the conduct of its own business and I think that is a very sound rule which we ought to follow, especially when it is perfectly possible for the House to see that the Instrument of Instructions is carried out in the terms in which it is intended by the President and by the Ministry. Sir, I oppose this amendment. 521DRAFT CONSTITUTION

Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena : What about nominated members being in the Cabinet ? The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : I have dealt with that. Mr. Vice-President: I shall now put the amendments one by one to vote. (Amendments which were adopted are give below:- (Amendments by Dr. Ambedkar) (1) “That after clause (5) of article 62, the following new clause be inserted— ‘5 (a) In the choice of his Ministers and the exercise of his other functions under this Constitution, the President shall be generally guided by the Instructions set out in Schedule III-A but the validity of anything done by the President shall not be called in question on the ground that it was done otherwise than in accordance with such instructions.’” (2) That in clause (3) of article 62, after the word ‘Council’ the words ‘of Minister’ be inserted. Amendment No. 1326 as amended by amendment No. 71 of List V as further amended by Shri Krishnamachari and Shri Kamath. “That in clause (5) of article 62, for the words ‘for any period of six consecutive months, is’ the words ‘from the date of his appointment is for a period of six corrective months’, be substituted.” [Article 62, as attended was adopted and added to the Constitution.] ***** ARTICLE 66 *The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar (Bombay : General): I do not accept any of the amendments, nor do I think that any reply is called for. Mr. Vice-President: I shall now put the amendments one by one to vote. Amendment No. 1358. The question is: That in article 66 the words and two Houses tone know respectively as the council of State ‘be deleted.” The amendment was negatived. Mr. Vice-President: amendment No. 1356. The question is: “That in article 66 for the words ‘There shall be a Parliament for the Union which’ the words The Legislatures the Union shall be called the Indian National Congress and be substituted.” The amendment was negative. Mr. Vice-President: Amendment No. 1357. The question is : “That in article 66, the words ‘The President and’ be deleted.” The amendment was negative. *CAD, Vol. VII, 3rd January 1948, pp. 1199-1200. 522 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES