Vol. 13 · pages 571–575

lakhs and not more than five members for every complete ten lakh; of the population of the state in excess of three hundred lakhs : Provided further that the total number of members in the Legislative Assembly of a state shall in no case be more than four hundred and fifty or less than sixty’.” *Mr. Vice-President : So much goodwill has been shown to me by the House, so much kindness is bestowed on me that I suggest that I do not call upon Dr. Ambedkar to make his reply today but that we pass on the some other business, so that all the parties concerned may have an opportunity of putting their heads together and arriving at an agreed solution. After all, framing the Constitution is a co-operative effort and we must do all that we can to make it a success. Some Honourable Members : Thank you. Sir. ***** ARTICLE 63 Mr. Vice-President : There are number of amendments to that amendment. ***** †Shri Prabhudayal Himatsingka (West Bengal : General): Sir, I beg to oppose the amendments moved by Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad and Prof. K. T. Shah. The article as it stands is what should be accepted by the House. There is certainly difference between the Advocate-General of a province and the Attorney-General of India. Sub-clause (4) provides that the AttorneyGeneral shall hold office at the pleasure of the President and I think that should serve the purpose. If there is a change in the Ministry that necessarily need not mean the going out of office of the Attorney-General also, but in the provinces with the change of ministry the Advocate-General should be required to retire unless he is appointed again. Therefore, I oppose the amendments moved and I support the article as it stands. Mr. Vice-President : Dr. Ambedkar. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : He has not listened. He is getting his instructions. Sir. Mr. Vice-President : That is hardly a charitable remark to make. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : It is not. I am forced to make the remark, Sir..... Mr. Vice-President: Will the Honourable Member kindly resume his seat ? The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar (Bombay : General): Sir, I do not know whether any reply is necessary. [All the amendments were negatived and Article 63 was added to the Constitution.] *CAD. Vol. VII, 7th January 1949, p. 1349. † Ibid., p. 1347. 538 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

ARTICLE 64 ***** *Shri Raj Bahadur (United State of Matsya): Mr. Vice-President, Sir, I come here to oppose the amendment that has been moved by Prof. K. T. Shah. From the various amendments that he has been moving from time to time, I am led to think that he is moving according to a set plan and that he wants the Presidential system of constitution instead of the Parliamentary system of democracy for the country. But, with all respect to his erudition and experience, I see that he has not been consistent even in that. When we discussed article 42, by which the entire executive power of the Union is vested in the President, he himself moved two amendments. Nos. 1040 and 1045 to that article and one of his amendment reads as follows :— “The sovereign executive power and authority of the Union shall be vested in the President, and shall be exercised by him in accordance with the Constitution and in accordance with the laws made thereunder and in force for the time being.” By implication it means obviously that all executive actions should be taken by and in the name of the President, which is exactly the import, meaning and the implication of article 64, under discussion. I therefore, fail to see any reason for Prof. K. T. Shah to go now behind the terms of his own amendment, which he moved to article 42. What we mean clearly enough is that the entire executive power of the Union vests in the President and all governmental orders, and instruments shall be made in the name of the President. It is no anomaly and no inconsistency under any known democratic principles to get the orders issued in the name of the President and as such, I submit, there is no reason for the house to accept the amendment which has been moved by Prof. Shah. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Mr. Vice-President, sir, I do not think any reply is called for. [Two amendments were negatived. None was adopted. Article 64 was adopted and added to the Constitution.] ARTICLE 65 ***** †Mr. Vice-President : There is only one amendment now before the House and the clause is open for general discussion. Dr. Ambedkar, would you like to say anything ? The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : No, Sir, I do not accept Mr. Kamath’s amendment. The amendment was negatived. Article 65 was added to the Constitution. ***** *CAD, Vol. VII, 7th January 1949, p. 1352. † Ibid., p. 1354. 539DRAFT CONSTITUTION

MOTION re PREPARATION OF ELECTORAL ROLL *Mr. Vice-President: Dr. Ambedkar. May I suggest that you read the resolution in the accepted form before you reply ? The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Yes; I will indicate the changes that I am going to accept. Shri Deshbandhu Gupta : May I know, Sir, before Dr. Ambedkar proceeds to reply whether you have given any ruling on the point of order raised by me. I had raised a point of order that, unless the word “already” goes, tills resolution will be of no use because article 149 ....... Mr. Vice-President: I think the word “already” has already been omitted. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Mr. Vice-President, Sir, with your permission, I propose to reply to the debate on behalf of the mover of the resolution was Mr. Vice-President. of this resolution. Before I proceed to deal with the detailed amendments, I should like to propose myself certain amendments in the Resolution as was moved by the Mover. The first amendment that I propose is, to delete the word “already” from paragraph 2. My second amendment is to delete clause (a) from sub-clause (1), and delete also the letter and brackets “(b)” in the beginning of the second sub-clause, so that sub-clause (1) will read thus : “That no person shall be included in the electoral roll of any constituency if he is of unsound mind and stands so declared by a competent court.” Then, in paragraph (4), I propose to make the following amendments. For the words “subject to the law of the appropriate legislature” in line of that paragraph, my amendment would be “notwithstanding anything in paragraph (3) above”. In line 5 of that paragraph, for the words “a constituency”, substitute the words “an area”. These are my amendments. I shall briefly explain my amendments. The amendment which I have moved to drop the word “already” meets the points of order that was raised by Shri Deshbandhu Gupta. ***** The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Sir, as I said, it is quite true that the word “already” raises the complications which Mr. Deshbandhu Gupta mentioned and it is only right that his objection should be removed by the deletion of the word “already”. *CAD. Vol. VII. 8th January 1949, pp. 1382-86. 540 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

With regard to the second amendment dropping clause (1), it seems to be quite unnecessary, because, the purport of that clause is embodied in paragraphs (3) and (4). With regard to my next amendment to substitute the words “notwithstanding anything in paragraph (3) above” for the words “subject to the law of the appropriate legislature”, my submission is that the original words were really unnecessary and inappropriate in a clause of that sort. Sub-clause (4) is really an exception to clause (3). That matter has been cleared by my amendment. With regard to the word “constituency” I have substituted the word “area” in order to meet the criticism that at the stage when the rolls are prepared, there are no constituencies and all that a man can indicate is an area, not a constituency, because, constituencies are not supposed to be in existence then. My amendment for the addition of the words “or makes” meets the criticism that has been made that there are many people who are illiterate, who may not be in a position to sign an application and file it before a particular officer. The addition of the words “or makes” permits an oral declaration to be made either before a district Matistrate or before an officer who is preparing the electoral rolls. I think that objection is fairly met. I will now take into consideration the other amendments which have been moved to this resolution. Shri L. Krishnswami Bharathi : May I suggest one amendment to the Mover that his reason for amending ‘ constituency ‘in part, (4) Mr. Vice-President : You cannot tell it to the House. You can tell it to Dr. Ambedkar. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : I a m prepared to make the necessary consequential changes. As I said, I will turn to the other amendments and I take the amendment of my friend Mr. Tyagi. If I understood him correctly he had no objection to the resolution in its general terms. What he wanted was that the details should be deleted. It seems to me that the position taken by my Friend Mr. Tyagi indicates that he has confusion in his mind about what the objective or the aim of the Resolution is. The aim of the Resolution is merely to make a declaration that it is the intention of this Assembly that as far as possible, election may be held sometime in 1950 but the object of the Resolution is to convey some positive directions to the authorities in charge of preparing the electoral rolls which is the basis of all elections. It would be futile and purposeless merely to make a declaration that this 541DRAFT CONSTITUTION

Constituent Assembly desires that the election should take place in the year 1950 without giving the directions to the authorities concerned in the matter of preparing the electoral roll. Because unless the electoral rolls are prepared in time sufficiently before the date of the election, no election can take place at all. The second part of the resolution contains directions to the various authorities and unless the directions are embodied in the resolution, the Resolution is merely a pious declaration which means nothing. It is setting out an objective without setting out the methods and the instruments by which that objective can be carried out and I think my friend Mr. Tyagi will understand that really speaking the part of the resolution which he wants to omit is more important than the part of the Resolution which he wants to retain. Now I come to the amendment of my friend Mr. Hanumanthaiya. Shri Mahavir Tyagi : What is your view about the word ‘already’ ? The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : I have already said that I would delete it. Coming to the amendment of Mr. Hanumanthaiya, he wants to omit the words ‘in the year 1950’. His argument has a good deal of sense behind it, because according to him if this constituent assembly were to make this declaration by this Resolution fixing 1950 as a target and if for some reason, either connected with the preparation of electoral rolls or some other circumstances, it becomes impossible to have elections in 1950, the assembly would be placed in a somewhat difficult position. The Assembly might be accused of treating this as a trifling matter when as a matter of fact it is of great substance. But at the same time in view of what the Mover of the Resolution said that there is a certain amount of feeling in the country that we are not going as fast as we ought to in the passing of this Constitution, that our procedure is more leisurely, more dilatory and that is due to our not being very serious in having an early election, it is to remove that sort of feeling in the country that it is necessary to fix some target date and it is from that point of view that the retention of the words ‘in the year 1950’ becomes necessary. Of course, if reasons justified the postponement of the date, it would but be necessary for the Assembly to postpone the date of elections; and I am sure about it that if the Assembly is in a position to place before the country grounds which are substantial and which are not mere excuses the country will no doubt understand the change and the postponement of the date. 542 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES