Vol. 13 · pages 66–70

33REPORT OF THE CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY FUNCTIONS COMMITTEE President of the Constituent Assembly. So long as the Constituent Assembly had only this single and solitary function to perform, namely, to prepare the constitution, there was no difficulty in this matter. But when the Constituent Assembly will function in its double capacity, once as the Constitution-making body and another time as a law-making body with another person at the head of it, namely, the Speaker or the Deputy Speaker, questions with regard to the adjustment of the staff may arise. But the Committee thought that they were not entitled under the terms of reference to deal with this matter and therefore did not make any reference to it at all. Sir I do not think it is necessary for me to take the time of the House any more than I have done. I think what I have said will sufficiently remind Members of what the Committee has done and will enable them to proceed to deal with the report in the best way they like. ***** *Mr. President : I think we have had enough discussion on this, I would now call upon Dr. Ambedkar to reply. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Mr. President, the report made by the Committee obviously has received a mixed reception. Some members of the House have described it as a messy document. I do not propose to give any reply to those who have described the Report in those terms, because personally I think that the arguments advanced by them do not deserve sufficient consideration. All that I propose to do in reply is to meet some technical points which have been raised by my friends Dr. Deshmukh and Mr. Biswanath Das. Dr. Deshmukh refers to two recommendations made by the Committee. One was the recommendation relating to the permission to be granted to the Members representing the States for taking part in all the deliberations of the Committee. The second recommendation to which he referred was the recommendation in respect of the Ministers of the State to whom the Committee said it might not be desirable to permit to take part also in the proceedings of the Assembly. Dr. Deshmukh said that all that the Committee observed was logical or convenient. The Committeee did not say whether this was constitutional. I am very much surprised at the question particularly because Dr. Deshmukh happens to be a lawyer. As a matter of fact he ought to have realised that we have really no constitution at all. The Constituent Assembly is making a Constitution, and anything that the Constituent Assembly does would *CAD, Official Report, Vol. V, 29th August 1947, pp. 327-31.

34 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES be constitutional ( Hear, hear ). If the Constituent Assembly say that the State representatives should not take part that would be perfectly constitutional. If the Constituent Assembly said that they should, that would also be perfectly constitutional. Therefore that sort of observation I thought was entirely misplaced. With regard to the point raised by my friend Mr. Biswanath Das, I also feel a considerable amount of surprise that he should have thought fit to make the observations he made. If I remember correctly what he said, his observations related to two points. He said that the Committee was dividing the Constituent Assembly into two parts, that it was an indivisible body, that it was functioning as an integral, one whole. Well, I do not know whether he is not in a position to appreciate that the working of a constitution is quite different from the making of ordinary law. The distinction, it seems to me to put it in a nutshell, is that the Constituent Assembly is not bound by the Constitution. But a Legislature is bound by the Constitution. When the Constituent Assembly functions as a Legislature it would be bound by the Government of India Act as adapted under the Independence Act. Anybody would be in a position to raise a point of order. Anybody would be in a position to say whether a particular motion is ultra vires or intra vires. But such a question can certainly not arise when the Constituent Assembly is functioning as a body framing the Constitution. And I thought that was a sufficiently substantial distinction to enable us to understand notionally at any rate that the two functions were different, that the purposes were different, that the work was different and if we are intending to avoid confusion, the practical way of doing so would be let the Constituent Assembly meet in a separate session as distinct from a legislature. He also raised some grouse against the adaptations. Now, I must frankly say that no one here is responsible for the adaptations that have been introduced in the Government of India Act, 1935. If he refers to section 8 sub-clause (1) of the Indian Independence Bill, he will realise that under that section the power of adapting the Government of India Act of 1935 to suit the new status, which the Constituent Assembly has as a legislature, has been vested entirely in the Governor-General. I think it is possible that the Governor-General did take advice from some source in order to decide what adaptations to introduce. Therefore, at the present moment, nobody is responsible for it. If the Constituent Assembly is not satisfied with the adaptations which have been introduced in the Government of India Act, the very same Section 8 sub-clause (1). states that the Constituent Assembly

35REPORT OF THE CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY FUNCTIONS COMMITTEE would be perfectly within its competence to change the adaptations and to introduce any other that it may like. I therefore, submit, Sir, that there is no substance in the points that have been raised by the crities of the Committee. One other point to which my friend Mr. Krishnamachari referred. He said that Mr. Munshi’s resolution omitted to take into account the second part of the report which dealt with the question that the President was the sole authority both on the deliberative and administrative side. He questioned why the resolution which has been framed and submitted to us by Mr. Munshi, practically accepting all the proposals of the Committee did not contain this particular provision. I should like to say that if Mr. Krishnamachari reads the report carefully, he will find that that particular part of the report is an observation on the part of the Committee and not a recommendation and therefore, I submit my friend Mr. Munshi was perfectly justified in not referring to it. Pandit Lakshmi Kanta Maitra : Sir, I want to ask Dr. Ambedkar certain information. First of all I want to know from him…… etc. An Honourable Member : Is it a speech or a question ? Mr. President: I would remind Pandit Maitra that he cannot make a speech. He has put the question and Dr. Ambedkar will answer if he chooses. An Honourable Member : Even the question is out of order. Pandit Lakshmi Kanta Maitra : Why is it not permissible ? When the Honourable member replies to the debate and an Honourable member does not understand, he is perfectly within his right in asking further questions to get points cleared up. Mr. President: You have put the question. Dr. Ambedkar will reply. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : I shall be brief. The first question was whether we contemplate any change in the adaptations of the Government of India Act. My answer is that that is a matter for the House to determine what adaptations the House wants. But I want to assure my friends here that we have got the power to change the adaptations. The Government of India Act with its adaptations is not entirely binding on us in the sense that a change is not beyond our purview. If the House, on a reconsideration of the matter, finds that certain adaptations ought to be changed, it would be perfectly possible to undertake that provision. The second question which my Honourable Friend Mr. Maitra put to me was whether the unity of administration is likely to be affected and there is likely to be a conflict in view of the fact that there may be two offices, one President presiding over the Constituent Assembly and secondly a Speaker presiding over the legislative body. What the

36 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES Committee has said is that there is a theoretical possibility of conflict. But I take it that there need not necessarily be a conflict. In practice, it should be perfectly possible tor the two offices, the President and the Speaker of the Assembly to work in union and to so arrange the timing of the Constituent Assembly as well as the legislative body in perfect order so that notwithstanding the fact that we have two offices, we need not be afraid that there would necessarily be a conflict. With regard to the third question, obviously, the arrangement that we are making now for the purpose of converting the Constituent Assembly into a legislative body, undoubtedly will be temporary. It would last so long 4s the function of Constitution-making has not been completed. When the function of Constitution-making is completed, obviously one or the other arrangement would vanish and we shall then continue only to function as a legislature. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : One more question. The Honourable member has said that re-adaptation may be made by the House. Is it possible for the Governor-General to make further adaptations ? The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : It is a question of law. This House has power to change the adaptation. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : I do not deny that. That question is whether in the opinion of the Honourable member, the Governor-General can make further adaptation. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : He cannot, because he will have to act on the advice of his Ministers. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : Whether he can do so on the advice of his Ministers ? An Honourable Member: Is this a law court, or a cross examination. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : I am not sure and I do not like to give an offhand answer. Mr. President : I think we have to put the motion clause by clause as was suggested. [Clause by Clause motions were adopted. Thereafter the resolution as under was adopted. —Ed.] Mr. President : The question is : That the Resolution as a whole be adopted, namely: “1. That with reference to the Motion by the Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar regarding the consideration of the Report on the functions of the Constituent Assembly under the Indian Independence Act, it is hereby resolved that— (i) The functions of the Assembly shall be— (a) to continue and complete the work of Constitution-making which commenced on the 9th December, 1946, and (b) to function as the Dominion Legislature until a Legislature under the new Constitution comes into being.

37ADDITIONAL REPRESENTATION TO EAST PUNJAB (ii) The business of the Assembly as a Constitution-making body should be clearly distinguished from its normal business as the Dominion Legislature, and different days or separate sittings on the same day should be set apart for the two kinds of business. (iii) The recommendations contained in para. 6 of the Report regarding the position of representatives of Indian States in the Assembly be accepted. (iv) Suitable provision should be made in the Rules of the Constituent Assembly for the election of an officer to be designated the Speaker to preside over the deliberations of the Assembly when functioning as the Dominion Legislature. (v) The power of summoning the Assembly for functioning as the Dominion Legislature and proroguing it should vest in the President. (vi) Ministers of the Dominion Government, who are not members of the Constituent Assembly, should have the right to attend and participate in its work, of Constitution-making though until they become members of the Constituent Assembly they should not have any right to vote. (vii) Necessary modifications, adaptations and additions should be made— (a) by the President of the Constituent Assembly to the Rules and Standing Orders of the Indian Legislative Assembly to bring them into accord with the relevant provisions of the Government of India Act as adapted under the Indian Independence Act, 1947. (b) the Constituent Assembly or the President, as the case may be to the Rules and Standing Orders to carry out the provisions of para. 9 of the Report and where necessary to secure an appropriate adaptation of the relevant section of the Government of India Act to bring it into conformity with the new Rule”. ***** ADDITIONAL REPRESENTATION TO EAST PUNJAB *Mr. President : Just to avoid longer discussion may I make a statement with regard to the procedure that has been followed in connection with this particular resolution ? The matter came up before the Steering Committee and the Steering Committee felt that it was necessary to refer it to a very small committee to go into these figures. This committee consisted of— Dr. B. R. Ambedkar, Diwan Chaman Lall, Giani Gurmukh Singh Musafir, Mr. Rafi Ahmed Kidwai, and Mr. Ananthasayanam Ayyangar, and after taking into consideration all these figures and such information as was available with regard to the migration of population from one side to the other the Committee made certain recommendations on the basis of which the Resolution has come before the House. The matter has been considered by a Sub-Committee which I had appointed on the recommendation of the Steering Committee. Of course it is open to the House to accept it or not. I thought I had better explain that *CAD, Official Report, Vol. VI, 27th January 1948,, p. 9.