Vol. 13 · pages 701–705

668 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES Canada, Australia, South Africa and in Great Britain. I might also mention that, when this matter was discussed in 1935 when the Government of India Act was on the anvil, the proposal was made by the Secretary of State himself that the authentication of the expenditure sanctioned by the Assembly would be done by an Appropriation Act and not by certification, but the Government of India of the day did not like the idea of an Appropriation Bill for the reason that the Governor-General had power to fix certain amounts in the budget in order to provide for the discharge of his own functions. Otherwise the Secretary of State himself, as I said, was in favour of this proposal but his proposal was turned down by the Government of India in 1935. But my submission is this, that there is no necessity now for retaining this function which really gives the executive the authority to fix the amount and also to spend the money. I think it would be desirable to bring our procedure in line with the procedure that is prevailing in all countries where Parliament is supreme in the matter of sanctioning money for expenditure. The other provision which is new which we have inserted is what is called vote on account. Now, it is necessary perhaps to explain why we have introduced it. For that purpose I should again like the House to refer to article 93 as it stands. Under article 93 no money can be issued or spent for any services unless the whole of the detailed budget is passed by Parliament. If you read article 93, that is the effect of it. The budget has to be presented under heads, sub-heads and items. Parliament has to pass that budget with regard to head, sub-heads and items. That is what is called passing the budget. Now, as you all know the budget is an enormous thing involving expenditure of something like 250 crores distributed on various items. If the provision of article 93 is to remain intact viz., no money is to be spent unless all the details are passed by Parliament and if you also have the provision that the budget must be passed before the end of the official year is over, then you must have a very limited time fixed for the discussion of the budget because under the provisions of article 93 you cannot spend any money unless the budget had been passed in alt its details. Either, as I said, you give up your right to discuss the budget in full or you make a change in article 93, or you may make another provision making an exception to article 93. The vote on account procedure which we propose to

669DRAFT CONSTITUTION introduce by an amendment provides for Parliament allowing a lump sum grant to the executive to be spent upon the services of the year for say about two months or so, so that the two months time will be available to Parliament to discuss in a much greater length—I don’t say fully—the budget provisions and the financial provisions of the Government. Unless, therefore, you have a provision for a vote on account i.e., lump sum grant given to executive to cover an expenditure for about two or three months, that may be decided by some agreement between the Government and the Leader of the Opposition—unless you make a provision for a vote on account you will not get time to discuss the budget at any greater length than what you have now. The House will remember that last time there was a great deal of feeling in the House that the Budget was rushed through, people had not more than seven or eight days given to them for the discussion of the different items and that the guillotine was applied. If the House therefore desires that it should have more time to discuss the details of the budget, to discuss the details of the financial provision, then some provision has got to be made in the Constitution whereby it will be open to the House to allow the executive to have a lump sum out of the Consolidated Fund, covering an expenditure of two months if the House wants two months for discussion. Since the provisions of article 93 are very stringent in the sense that no money can be spent unless the whole of the budget in all its details is passed we have got to make an exception to the provisions contained in article 93. Those exceptions are made by a provision which is called ‘Provision for Votes on account’. These are, if I may say so, the three main changes that we have made in the Draft Constitution, Sir, with these words I move the amendments I have tabled. ***** *Shri B. Das : ...I again feel happy that these articles, as now going to be amended, will be fool-proof and the Ministers will not play truant and will not be extravagant in expenditure. I again congratulate Dr. Ambedkar over it. The Honourable Rev. J. J. M. Nichols-Roy (Assam : General): Sir, before I speak, I would like to ask Dr. Ambedkar some clarification of certain points. Does this amendment force the Government of India *CAD, Vol. VIII, 8th June 1948, p. 737.

670 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES to have a fund which is to be called a Consolidated Fund ? Or is it an enabling amendment ? The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : It is already there. It is only a change of name. The Honourable Rev. J. J. M. Nichols-Roy : Then there must be an Appropriation Act passed in a Legislature and that must be passed in the same session ? The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Yes. The Honourable Rev. J. J. M. Nichols-Roy : That will take time no doubt. Sir, in view of this I would make a few remarks. There has been a good deal of criticism regarding the expenditure of money and waste of money by the Ministers of the Government of India or it might be by the Governments of the Provinces. I suppose the principles in this article 90 will apply to the provincial Governments also—the same principles are in article 174. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Yes. ***** *The Honourable Rev. J. J. M. Nichols-Roy : ...I want to ask Dr. Ambedkar whether that is the position or whether every province will be forced to pass an Appropriation Act in order to appropriate money for expenditure. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : The Appropriation Act will be compulsory, but the Vote on Account is optional for each Ministry. If any Ministry wants money on Vote on Account, it may ask the Legislature. The Honourable Rev. J. J. M. Nichols-Roy : Suppose the Ministry in Assam or in any Province wants to follow the same procedure that we are having now, with the certificate of the Governor, will it be open to it to do so ? The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : There is no certificate at all of the Governor now. ***** † The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : I do not think I can add anything usefully to what Mr. T. T. Krishnamachari has said. I should reserve my observations for the various amendments which will come up as I have no doubt the same arguments will be put forth. [Amendments by Dr. Ambedkar mentioned earlier were adopted, others were rejected. Article 90, as amended, was added to the Constitution.] ***** *CAD, Vol. VIII, 8th June 1948, p. 738. † Ibid., p. 741.

671DRAFT CONSTITUTION HINDI NUMERALS ON CAR NUMBER PLATES ***** *Pandit Balkrishna Sharma : ...My submision to him has always been that Delhi as a Province is surrounded on all sides by Provinces which have declared Hindi as their Government language and Devanagari as the Government script. Mr. President : Order, order. I have got the information which you wanted to give me. As I said, Honourable Members will not insist upon my giving a ruling on the question of privilege. It may not be in their interest. As I have said, the matter will be taken up with the Government. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar (Bombay : General) : There is no privilege to break the law. ***** ARTICLE 92 The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Sir, I move : 1. “That in sub-clause (b) of clause (3) of article 92, for the words ‘emoluments’ the words ‘salaries’ be substituted.” That is the usual wording we are using. ***** †The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Sir, I beg to move : 2. “That in sub-clauses (a) and (b) of clause (2) of article 92. for the words ‘revenues of India’ the words ‘Consolidated Fund of India’ be substituted.” 3. “That in clause (3) of article 92, for the words ‘revenues of India’ the words ‘Consolidated Fund of India’ be substituted.” 4. “That after sub-clause (d) of clause (3) of article 92, the following subclause be inserted :— (dd) the salary, allowances and pension payable to or in respect of the Comptroller ‘and Auditor-General of India’.” With regard to 9, all I, need say is that the House has already passed article 124, clause (5) which contains the present amendment. It is therefore here, because, it was felt that all items which are declared to be charges on the Consolidated Fund of India had better be brought in together, rather than be scattered in different parts of the Constitution. [All four amendments of Dr. Ambedkar as shown above were accepted others were rejected. Article 92 as amended was added to the constitution.] ***** ARTICLE 93 ‡The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Sir, I move : “That in clause (1) of article 93, for the words ‘revenues of India’ the words ‘Consolidated Fund of India’ be substituted.” [Amendment was carried. Article 93, as amended, was added to the constitution.] *CAD, Vol. VIII, 10th June 1949, pp. 746-48. †Ibid., p. 750. ‡Ibid., p. 754.

672 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES ARTICLE 94 *The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Sir, I move: “Thai for article 94, the following article be substituted :— Appropriation Bills ‘94. (1) As soon as may be after the grunts under the last preceding article have been made by the House of the People there shall be introduced a Bill to provide for the appropriation out of the Consolidated Fund of India all moneys required to meet— (a) the grants so made by the House of the People: and (b) the expenditure charged on the Consolidated Fund of India but not exceeding in any case the amount shown in the statement previously laid before Parliament. (2) No amendment shall be proposed to any such Bill in either House of Parliament which will have the effect of varying the amount or altering the destination of any grant so made or of varying the amount of any expenditure charged on the Consolidated Fund of India, and the decision of the person presiding as to the amendments which are admissible under this clause shall be final. (3) Subject to the provisions of the next two succeeding articles no money shall be withdrawn from the Consolidated fund of India except under appropriation made by law passed in accordance with the provisions of this article.’” As I explained yesterday the object of this new article 94 is to replace the provisions contained in the old article relating to the certification of a schedule by the Governor-General. ***** †The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Mr. President, Sir, I thought that the observations made by my Friend Mr. T. T. Krishnamachari would have been regarded as sufficient to meet the objections raised by my Friend Mr. Santhanam, but since my Friend Mr. Bharathi by his speech has indicated that at any rate his doubts have not been cleared, I find it necessary to rise and to make a few observations. My Friend Mr. Santhanam said that we were unnecessarily borrowing the procedure of an Appropriation Bill and that the existing procedure of an authenticated schedule should have been sufficient for our purposes. His argument if I understood him correctly was this : that an Appropriation Bill is necessary in the House of Commons because the supply estimates are dealt with by a Committee of the whole House and not by the House itself. Consequently the Appropriation Bill is, in his opinion, a necessary concomitant of a procedure of estimates being dealt with by sort of Committee of the House. Personally, I think there is no connection between the Committee procedure of the House of Commons and the necessity of an Appropriation Bill. I might tell the *CAD, Vol. VIII, 10th June 1949, pp. 754-55. †Ibid., pp. 762-64.