Vol. 13 · pages 706–710

673DRAFT CONSTITUTION House as to how this procedure of the House of Commons going into a Committee of Supply to deal with the estimates came into being. The House will remember that there was a time in English political history when the King and the House of Commons were at loggerheads. There was not such pleasant feeling of trust and confidence which exists now today between the House of Commons and the King. The King was regarded as a tyrant, as an oppressor, as a person interested in levying taxes and spending them in the way in which he wanted. It was also regarded that the Speaker of the House of Commons instead of being a person chosen by the House of Commons enjoying the confidence of the House of Commons was regarded as a spy of the King. Consequently, the members of the House of Commons always feared that if the whole House discussed the estimates, the Speaker who had a right to preside when the House as a whole met in session would in all probability, to secure the favour of the King, report the names of the members of the House to the King who criticised the King’s conduct, his wastefulness, his acts of tyranny. In order therefore to get rid of the Speaker who was, as I said in the biginning, regarded as a spy of the King carrying tales of what happened in the House of Commons to the King, they devised this procedure of going into a Committee; because when the House met in Committee the Speaker has no right to preside. That was the main object why the House of Commons met in Committee of Supply. As I said, even if the House did not meet in Committee of Supply, it would have been necessary for the House to pass an Appropriation Bill. As my Friend—at least the lawyer friends—will remember, there was a time when the House of Commons merely passed resolutions in Committee of Ways and Means to determine the taxes that may be levied, and consequently the taxes were levied for a long time—I think up to 1913 on the basis of mere resolutions passed by the House of Commons Committee of Ways and Means. In 1913 this question was taken to a Court of law whether taxes could be levied merely on the basis of resolutions passed by the House of Commons in the Committee of Ways and Means, and the High Court declared that the House of commons had no right to levy taxes on the basis of mere resolutions. Parliament must pass a law in order to enable Parliament to levy taxes. Consequently, the British Parliament passed what is called a Provincial Collection of taxes Act.

674 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES I have no doubt about it that if the expenditure was voted in Committee of .Supply and the resolutions of the House of Commons were to be treated as final authority, they would have also been condemned by Courts of law, because it is an established proposition that what operates is law and not resolution. Therefore my first submission is this : that the point made by my Friend Mr. Santhanam, that the Appropriation Bill procedure is somehow an integral part of the Committee procedure of the House of Commons has no foundation whatsoever. I have already submitted why the procedure of an authenticated schedule by the GovernorGeneral is both uncalled for, having regard to the altered provision of the President who has no function in his discretion or in his individual judgment, and how in matters of finance the authority of Parliament should be supreme, and not the authority of the executive as represented by the President. I therfore need say nothing more on this point. Then my Friend, Mr. Santhanam, said, if I understood him correctly, that article 95—I do not know whether he referred to article 96; but he certainly referred to article 95—would nullify clause (3) of the new article 94. Clause (3) stated that no money could be spent except under an appropriation made by law. He seemed to be under the impression that supplementary, additional or excess grants which are mentioned in new article 95, and votes on account, or votes on credit or exceptional grants mentioned in the new article 96 would be voted without an Appropriation law. I think he has not completely read the article. If he were to read sub-clause (2) of the new article 95 as well as the last para of new article 96 and also a further article which will be moved at a later stage—winch is article 248A—he will see that there is a provision made that the moneys can be drawn, whether for supplementary or additional grants or for votes on account or for any purpose, without a provision made by law for drawing moneys on Consolidated Fund. I can quite understand the confusion which probably has arisen in the minds of many Members by reason of the fact that in some place we speak of a Consolidated Fund Act while in another place we speak of an Appropriation Act. The point is this : fundamentally, there is no difference between a Consolidated Fund Act and an Appropriation Act. Both have the same purpose, namely, the purpose of authorising an authority duly constituted to draw moneys from the Consolidated Fund.

675DRAFT CONSTITUTION The difference between a Consolidated Fund Act and the Appropriation Act is just this. In the Consolidated Fund Act a lump sum is mentioned while in the Appropriation Act what is mentioned is all the details— the main head, the sub-heads and the items. Obviously, the procedure of an Appropriation Bill cannot be brought into operation at the stage of a Consolidated Fund Bill because Parliament has not gone through the whole process of appropriating money for heads, for sub-heads and for items included under the sub-heads. Consequently when money is voted under a Consolidated Fund Act, it means that the executive may draw so much lump sum out of the Consolidated Fund which will at a subsequent stage be shown in what is called the final Appropriation Act. If Honourable Friends will remember that there is no authority given to the executive to draw money except under a Consolidated Fund Act or under an Appropriation Act, they will realize that so far as possible an attempt is made to make these provisions as fool-proof and knave-proof as one can possibly do. [Dr. Ambedkar’s motion was adopted. Article 94, as amended was added to Constitution .] ARTICLE 95 *The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Sir, I move: “That for article 95, the following article be substituted : Supplementary, additonal or excess grants. ‘95 (1) The President shall— (a) if the amount authorised by any law made in accordance with the provisions of article 94 of this Constitution to be expended for a particular service for the current financial year is found to be insufficient for the purposes of that year or when a need has arisen during the current financial year for supplementary or additional expenditure upon some new service not contemplated in the annual financial statement for that year; or (b) if any money has been spent on any service during a financial year in express of the amount granted for that service and for that year, cause to be laid before both the Houses of Parliament another statement showing the estimated amount of that expenditure or cause, to be presented to the House of the People a demand for such excess, as the case may be. (2) the provision of the last three preceding articles shall have effect in relation to any such statement and expenditure or demand and also to any law to be made authorising the appropriation of moneys out of the Consolidated Fund of India to meet such expenditure or the grant in respect of such demand as they have effect in relation to the annual financial statement and the expenditure mentioned therein; or to a demand for a grant and the law to be made for the authorization of appropriation of moneys out of the Consolidated Fund of India to meet such expenditure or grant.’” ***** *CAD, Vol. VIII, 10th June 1949, p. 765.

676 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES *The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Mr. President, Sir, I find that the financial provisions which are placed before this House have given considerable worry to the Members. I can appreciate that, for I remember that when Mr. Churchill’s father became the Lord Chancellor, a budget was placed before him showing figures in decimals and dots thereon. Evidently he was not a student of mathematics and could not understand what the figures meant with a dot in it. So he wrote on the file, “what do these damned dots mean ?”, asking for an explanation from the Secretary of the Finance Department. Having regard to such difficulty of understanding from persons so highly placed as Mr. Churchill’s father, I am not at all surprised if the members of this House also find similar difficulty in understanding these provisions. I should therefore like to go somewhat into elementary propositions in order to place the House in a right frame of mind. Sir, I should like to tell the House the effect of the provisions contained in article 92, article 93(2) and article 94. Article 92 places upon the President the obligation to lay before Parliament a financial statement for the year—I would like to emphasise the words “for the year”—showing the expenditure in certain categories, those charged on the revenues of India and those not charged on the revenues of India. After that is done, then comes into operation article 93(2), which states how the estimates are to be dealt with. It says that the estimates shall be presented to the House in the form of demands and shall be voted upon by the House of the People. After that work is done, article 94 comes into operation, the new article 94 which says that all these grants made by the House of the People shall be put and regularised in the form of an Appropriation Act No. I would like to ask the Members to consider what the effect is of articles 92, 93 (2) and 94. Suppose we did not enact any other article, what would be the effect ? The effect of the provisions contained in articles 92, 93(2) and 94 in my judgment would be that the President would not be in a position constitutionally to present before Parliament any other estimates during the course of the year. Those are the only estimates which the President could present according to law. That would mean that there would be no provision for, submitting supplementary grants, supplementary demands, excess grants on the other grants which have been referred to such as votes *CAD; Vol. VIII, 10th June 1949. pp. 768-70.

677DRAFT CONSTITUTION on credit and things of that sort. If no provision was made for the presentation of supplementary grants and the other grants to which I have referred, the whole business of the executive would be held up. Therefore, while enacting the general provision that the president shall be bound to present the estimates of expenditure for the particular year before Parliament, he is also authorised by law to submit other estimates if the necessity for those estimates arises. Unless therefore we make an express provision in the Constitution for the presentation of supplementary and excess grants, articles 92, 93(2) and 94 would debar any such presentation. The House will now understand why it is necessary to make that provision for the presentation of these supplementary demands. The question has been raised as to excess grants. The difficulty, I think, is natural. Members have said that when it is stated that no moneys can be spent by the executive beyond the limits fixed by the Appropriation Act, how is it that a case in excess grants can arise ? That, I think, is the point. The reply to that is this. We are making provisions in the terms of an amendment moved by my Friend Pandit Kunzru, which is new article 248-B on page 27 of List I, where there is a provision for the establishment of a Contingency Fund out of the Consolidated Fund of India. Personally myself, I do not think that such a provision is necessary because this question had arisen in Australia, in litigation between the state of New South Wales and the Commonwealth of Australia and the question there was whether the Commonwealth was entitled to establish a Contingency Fund when the law stated that all the revenues should be collected together into a Consolidated Fund, and the answer given by the Australia-Commonwealth High Court was that the establishment of a Consolidated Fund would not prevent the legislature of the Parliament from establishing out of the Consolidated Fund any other fund, although that particular fund may not be spent during that year because it is merely an appropriation although in a different from. However to leave no doubt on this point that it would be open to Parliament notwithstanding the provision of a Consolidated Fund to create a Contingency Fund. I am going to accept the amendment of my Friend, Pandit Kunzru for the incorporation of a new article 248-B. It is, therefore, possible that appart from the Fund that is issued on the basis of an Appropriation Act to the executive, the executive would still be in possession of the Consolidated Fund and such other fund as may be created by law from