Vol. 13 · pages 601–605

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : The position today is so different. Does he ask about the present position or the position that he wants to create ? Under the Government of India Act the Assembly and the Speaker are the creatures of the Governor-General. Consequently, the Speaker is required to address his resignation to the Governor-General. We do not want that situation to be perpetuated. We want to give the President as complete and as independent position of the executive as we possibly can. Shri H. V. Kamath : Even under the Government of India Act, is not the Speaker elected by the Assembly ? The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : That is wrong. He is no doubt elected; but his election is required to be approved by the Governor General. Shri H. V. Kamath : I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, Sir. The amendment was, by the leave of the Assembly, withdrawn. ***** NEW ARTICLE 79-A *Mr. President : There is article 79-A given notice of by Dr. Ambedkar and Shri Ghanshayam Singh Gupta. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : I would like this to stand over. Mr. President : Article 79-A stands over. ***** ARTICLE 80 †Mr. President : I remember that; it is not necessary to repeat that. We take it that that amendment is not moved. We may go to article 80. The motion is : “The article 80 form part of the Constitution.” The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Mr. President, Sir, I move : “That in clause (1) of article 80, for the words ‘Save as provided in this Constitution’ the words ‘Save as otherwise provided in this Constitution’ he substituted. ” Sir, this is just a slip and it has to be corrected. ***** Shri T. T. Krishnamachari : May I point out that the House has already adopted 68-A which is exactly the same as the amendment now sought to be moved by Mr. Kamath ? The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Yesterday we adopted 68-A which covers the same point. * CAD, Vol. VIII, 19th May 1949, p. 126. 568 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

Mr. President : He is dealing with 1538 and first part of 1541. Shri T. T. Krishnamachari : I am sorry. The Honourable Shri K. Santhanam : I suggest Mr. Kamath may move them separately. We may want to support one and oppose the other. Shri H. V. Kamath : 1538 and 1541 go together; otherwise the picture will not be complete. If my amendments are accepted, the article would read thus— “ Save as otherwise provided in this constitution, all questions at any sitting of either House or joint sitting of the Houses shall be determined by a majority of votes of the members present and voting : Provided that the Chairman or Speaker, etc.” ***** *The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Sir, I am sorry I cannot accept the amendment of Mr. Kamath. Shri H. V. Kamath : Which of my amendments ? I moved three amendments, separately. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : The one which he moved just now. I find in the book, one consolidated amendment. He might have spoken on different parts of it. But the amendment as it stands is a single one. Shri H. V. Kamath : Sir, I sent them separately, and I spoke on them separately. With your leave, Sir, I may point them out firstly, adding “ of either House ” after the words “ at any silting ” Secondly deletion of the words “ other than the Chairman or Speaker or person acting as such ”. Thirdly inserting the words “ provided that ” at the commencement of the second para. I would like to know which of these three the Honourable Member is accepting, whether he is rejecting all the three or two or one. The Honourble Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : I am referring to the Honourable Member’s amendment No. 1538, which so far as the official document is concerned, appears to be a single amendment. Shri H. V. Kamath : Sir, I asked your leave, to move them separately. Mr. President : Mr. Kamath has moved these three things. But they can be separately taken also. As amended, the article would read like this : “Save as otherwise provided in this Constitution, all questions at any sitting of either House or joint sitting of the Houses shall be ……” * CAD Vol. VIII 19th May 1949, pp. 128-29. 569DRAFT CONSTITUTION

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : I find I can accept No. 87 in the consolidated list of amendments. It serves my purpose, and therefore I accept it. [Article 80 as amended was added to the Constitution.] ***** ARTICLE 81 The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Sir, I move : “ That in article 81 for the words ‘a declaration’ , the words ‘an affirmation or oath’ be substituted.” ***** Shri H. V. Kamath : Mr. President, Sir, I have come here just to seek a little clarification from my honourable Friend, Dr. Ambedkar, in regard to his amendment No. 1554 which he has just now moved and which seeks to substitute for the words “ a declaration ”, the words “ an affirmation or oath ”. May I, Sir, invite your attention to the fact that the House has already adopted article 49 which provides for an affirmation or oath by the President or person acting as or discharging the functions of the President before entering office. The affirmation or oath provided therein was amended to the effect that the President or person acting as or discharging the functions of the President, should, before he enters upon his office take the oath or affirmation in the following form :— “ I, A, B, in the name of God, do swear ”, or “ I, A, B, do solemnly affirm”…….. May I have an assurance from my honourable Friend Dr. Ambedkar as well as from the House that the affirmation or oath referred to in article 81 will be on the same lines as provided for in the amended article 49 of the Constitution ? Mr. President : I take it that it is obvious that the Schedule will have to be amended so as to fit in with the wordings of this clause.... The Hononurable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Sir, I am sorry to say that I cannot accept the amendment moved by my friend Professor Shah. I think Prof. Shah has really misunderstood the sequence of events, if I may say so, in the life of a candidate who has been elected until the time that he becomes a member of the House. If Prof. Shah were to refer to article 81 and also note the heading “Disqualifications of * CAD, Vol. VIII, 19th May 1949, pp. 130-32. 570 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

Members” the first thing he will realise is that merely because a candidate has been elected to Parliament, does not entitle him to become a member of Parliament. There are certain, what I may call, ceremonies that have to be gone through before a duly elected candidate can be said to have become a Member of Parliament. One such thing which he has to undergo is the taking of the oath. He must first take the oath before he can take his seat in the House. Unless and until he takes the oath he is not a member and so long as he is not a member he is not entitled to take a seat in the House. That is the provision. Unless candidates take their oath and take their seats they do not become members and they do not become entitled to elect the Speaker. That is the sequence of events,— election, taking of the oath, becoming a member and then becoming entitled to the election of the Speaker. Therefore the election of the Speaker must be preceded by the taking of the oath. Having regard to this sequence of events it would be impossible to say that the oath shall be taken before the Speaker, because the Speaker is not there and the Speaker cannot be elected until the elected candidates become members. Therefore the authority to administer the oath must necessarily be vested in some person other than the Speaker. That being the position the question is, in whom this power to administer the oath shall be vested. Obviously, it can be vested only in the President or in some other person to whom the President may transfer his authority in this behalf. In accordance with this sequence of events the only course to adopt is to vest the authority to administer the oath either in the President or in some other person appointed in that behalf by him. It cannot be done by vesting the authority in the Speaker, because the Speaker does not exist at all then. Now I come to the point raised by our President. What happens to a newly elected member in a bye-election with regard to the taking of the oath ? Has he to go to the President or can he take the oath before the Speaker ? The answer to that question is that the President will, after the Speaker has been elected, confer upon him by order the authority to administer the oath on his behalf, so that when a newly elected candidate appears in Parliament for the purpose of taking the oath, it will be administerd to him by the Speaker as the person authorised by the President. Consequently, in the case of a newly elected person, it would not be necessary for him to go before the President or some other presiding authority appointed by the President. 571DRAFT CONSTITUTION

That is the sequence of events and it would be seen that article 81 is so framed as to fit in with this sequence. Even today, if I may say so, the same procedure is followed. The President (or the GovernorGeneral) appoints somebody when the House meets for the first time to preside over it. Every member then takes the oath or makes the affirmation before the presiding authority. After the oath is taken the presiding authority proceeds to conduct the election of the Speaker and when the election of the Speaker is completed, the person chosen as the presiding officer retires and the Speaker continues to occupy the place of the presiding officer with the authority of the President to administer the oath to any member who comes thereafter. Therefore, as I said, the original Draft is in keeping with the sequence of events and the provision which is usually made for the President to confer his authority on the Speaker will prevent the newly elected person from having to go to the President to take the oath. Mr. President : Should it be necessary for the speaker to derive his authority to administer the oath from the President ? The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : I submit constitutionally, it is, because the administration of the oath is an incident in the constitution of the House, over which the Speaker has no authority……. Mr. President: I am not thinking of that stage. I am thinking of a subsequent stage after the Speaker has been elected. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : I think there is nothing wrong or derogatory, for the simple reason that the constitution of the House, its making up, the legal form of the House is a matter which is outside the purview of the Speaker. The Speaker is in charge of the affairs of the Parliament when the Parliament is constituted and the Parliament is not constituted unless the oath is taken by the members. Therefore the taking up of the oath is really a part and parcel of constituting the House in accordance with the provision and so far as that is concerned I think that auhtority does not belong to the Speaker and need not belong to the Speaker. Mr. President: Supposing at a subsequent meeting of the House the Speaker happens to be absent and a new member comes on a day when the Deputy Speaker or some other person is in the Chair. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : The authority given to the Speaker becomes vested not only in the Speaker but also in the Deputy Speaker, in the Panel of Chairmen or any other person occupying the Chair for the time being. 572 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES