Vol. 13 · pages 596–600

there should be dissolution or whether the House aggrees that the affairs should he carried on with some other leader without dissolution. If he finds that the feeling was that there was no other alternative except dissolution, he would, as a Constitutional President, undoubtedly accept the advice of the Prime Minister to dissolve the House. Therefore it seems to me that the insistence upon having a document in writing stating the reasons why the Prime Minister wanted a dissolution of the House seems to be useless and not worth the paper on which it is written. There are other ways for the President to test the feeling of the House and to find out whether the Prime Minister was asking for dissolution of the House for bona fide reasons or for purely party purposes. I think we could trust the President to make a correct decision between the party leaders and the house as a whole. Therefore I do not think that this amendment should be accepted. Mr. President : I shall now put the amendments to vote one by one. [All amendments were rejected. Article 69 was added to the Constitution.] ARTICLE 71 *The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Prof. K. T. Shah simply wants, in the terms in which he has used, stated explicitly; what in my judgment is implicit in the phrase ‘causes of its summons’. I think this phrase is wide enough to include everything that Prof. K. T. Shah wants and if I may say so, this phraseology, namely “shall address and inform Parliament of the causes of its summons” is a phrase which we find used in the British Parliament. If Prof. Shah were to refer to Campion’s book on the rules of the House of Commons, he will find that this phraseology is used there and after a long and great deal of search for a proper phraseology, we are fortunate enough in finding these words in Campion and I think it is a good phrase and ought to be retained since it covers all that Prof. K. T. Shah wants. Prof. K. T. Shah said that there ought to be a provision for the President also to send messages and to otherwise address the House. I thought that there was definite provision in article 70 which we just now passed, which enables the President to address both Houses of Parliament, also to send messages and the messages may be in relation to a particular Bill or may be any other proceedings before Parliament. I do not think that anything more is * CAD., Vol. VIII 18th May 1949, p. 110 563DRAFT CONSTITUTION

required than what is contained in article 70 so far as the independent right of the President addressing the House is concerned and that is amply provided for in article 70. I therefore think that there is no necessity for this amendment at all. [The only amendment of Prof. K. T. Shah was negatived. Article 71 was added to the constitution.] ARTICLE 72 ***** *The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Sir, I do not think Professor Shah has really understood the underlying purpose of article 72. In order that the matter may be quite clear. I might begin by stating some simple fundamental propositions. Every House is an autonomnus House that is to say, that he will not allow anybody who is not a member of that House either to participate in its proceedings or to vote at the conclusion of the proceedings. The only persons who are entitled to lake part in the proceedings and to vote are the persons who are members of that House. Now, we have got an anomalous situation and it is this. We have got two Houses so far as the Centre is concerned, the Upper House and the Lower House. It is quite possible that a person who is appointed a Minister is a member of the Lower House. If he is in charge of a particular Bill, and the Bill by the constitution requires the sanction of both the Houses, obviously, the Bill has not only to be piloted in the Lower House, but it has also to be piloted in the Upper House. Consequently, if a person in charge of the Bill is a member of the Lower House, he would not ordinarily be in a position to appear in the Upper House and to pilot the Bill unless some special provision was made. It is to enable a person who is a member of the Lower House and who happens to be the Minister in charge of a Bill, to enable him to enter the Upper House, to address it, to take part in its proceedings that article 72 is being anacted. Article 72 is really an exception to the general rule that no person can take part in the proceedings of a House unless that person is a Member of that House. It is essential that the Minister who happens to be a member of the Upper House must have the right to go to the Lower House and address it in order to get the measure through. Similarly if he is a member of the Lower House, he must have the liberty to appear in the Upper House, address it and get the measure through. * CAD. Vol. VIII, 18th May 1949, pp. 113-14 564 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

It is for this sort of thing that article 72 is being enacted. The same applies to the Attorney-General. The Attorney-General may be a member of the Lower House. He may have to go to the Upper House but being a member of the Lower House he may not have the legal right to appear in the Upper House. Consequently the provision has been made. Similarly if he is a member of the Upper House he may not be having a legal right to enter the Lower House and address it. It is therefore for this purpose that this is enacted. We have limited this right to take part in the proceedings only. We do not thereby give the right to vote to any Minister who is taking part in the proceedings of the other House. Because we do not think that voting power is necessary to enable him to carry out the proceedings with regard to any particular Bill. I thought my friend also said that the word ‘Minister’ ought to be omitted, and the word ‘elected person’ ought to be introduced ; but that again would create difficulty because we have stated in some part of our Constitution that it should be open for a person who is not an elected member of the House to be appointed a Minister for a certain period. In order to enable even such a person it is necessary to introduce the word ‘Minister’ and not ‘person’ .That is the reason why the word ‘Minister’ is so essential in this context. I oppose the amendment. [Amendment of Prof. K. T. Shah was negatived and Article 72 was added to the Constitution.] ***** ARTICLE 73 ***** *The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar (Bombay : General) : Mr. President,. Sir, I cannot help saying that the amendment moved by Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad is a throughly absurd one and is based upon an utter misconception of what the clause deals with. He does not seem to understand that there is a distinction between re-election of a person to the same office and a new election. What we are dealing with in article 73 is not re-election, but a new election. A new election is the result of a vacancy in the office by reason of the circumstances mentioned in article 74. By reason of article 74 the same person has ceased to be a member of the House and obviously, that person having ceased to be *CAD, Vol. VIII, 19th May 1949, p. 119. 565DRAFT CONSTITUTION

a member of the House, you cannot say that they may elect ‘a member’ which may mean the same person who previously held office. Consequently in order to meet this contingency, the proper wording is ‘another member’ because that member has become disqualified under article 74. Therefore the wording of article 73 is perfectly in order. I may state here that if a member ceases to be a member by efflux of time, he can be re-elected, because he is ‘another member’. [Amendment of Mr. Naziruddin Ahmed was rejected. Article 73 was added to the Constitution.] ***** NEW ARTICLE 75-A ***** *The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Mr. President, Sir, no such difficulty as has been pointed out by Mr. Kamath is likely to arise, and there is, I submit, no lacuna whatsoever. The position will be this ; If the Chairman is being tried, so to say—I am using the popular phrase— then, although he is present, the Deputy Chairman shall preside. If the Deputy Chairman is being tried, the Chairman will preside; and when the Deputy Chairman is being tried, if the Chairman is not present to preside, then what the new clause says is that clause (2) of article 75 will apply. Clause (2) of article 75 says that “ During the absence of the Chairman or the Deputy Chairman from any sitting of the Council of States, such person as may be determined by the rules of procedure of the Council, or if no such person is present, such other person as may be determined by the Council, shall act as Chairman.” Therefore that difficulty is met by the application of clause (2) of article 75 to the case dealt with by this new article 75-A. Mr. President: The question is : (Motion by Mr. T. T. Krishnamachari) “That after article 75, the following new article be inserted :— “75-A. At any sitting of the Council of States, while any resolution for the removal of the Vice-President from his office is under consideration, the Chairman, or while any resolution for the removal of the Deputy Chairman from his office is under consideration, the Deputy Chairman, shall not, though he is present, preside, and the provisions of clause (2) of the last preceding article shall apply in relation to every such silting as they apply in relation to a sitting from which the Chairman or, as the case may be, the Deputy Chairman, is absent.’ ” The motion was adopted. Article 75-A was added to the Constitution. * CAD. Vol. VIII. 19th May 1949. p. 121. 566 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

ARTICLE 76 *Mr. President : The motion is : “That article 76 stand part of the constitution.” ***** Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : I do not wish to formally move this amendment, but I want to make a few remarks. A similar amendment of mine was very kindly characterised by Dr. Ambedkar as absurd. I submit. Sir, my amendment was not absurd.... The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : We have already dealt with that amendment, and a similar amendment was moved by my Honourable Friend to article 73. ***** ARTICLE 77 †The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Sir, I am sorry I cannot accept the amendment moved by my honourable friend, Mr. Kamath. The existing article is based upon a very simple principle and it is this, that a person normally tenders his resignation to another person who has appointed him. Now the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker are persons who are appointed or chosen or elected by the House. Consequently these two people, if they want to resign, must tender their resignations to the House which is the appointing authority. Of course, the House being a collective body of people a resignation could not be addressed to each member of the House separately. Consequently, the provision is made that the resignation should be addressed either to the Speaker or to the Deputy Speaker, because it is they who represent the House. Really speaking, in theory, the resignation is to the House because it is the House which has appointed them. The President is not the person who has appointed them. Consequently, it would be very incongruous to require the Deputy Speaker or the speaker to tender their resignations to the President, who has nothing to do with House and who should have nothing to do with the House in order that the house may be independent of the executive authority exercised either through the President or through the Government of the day. Shri H. V. Kamath : On a point of information, may I know from Dr. Ambedkar what is the procedure prevailing in the case of the Speaker of the Central Legislative Assembly today ? * CAD. Vol. VIII, 19th May 1949, p. 121 † Ibid, p. 123 567DRAFT CONSTITUTION