Vol. 13 · pages 766–770

SECTION SIX Clausewise Discussion 30th July 1949 to 16th September 1949

735DRAFT CONSTITUTION NEW ARTICLE 79-A *The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar (Bombay : General) : Sir, I move : That in amendment No. 1 of List I (First Week) of Amendments to Amendments,’ for the proposal new article 79-A, the following be substituted :— Secretariat of Parliament “79-A. (I) Each House of Parliament shall have a separate Secretarial Staff: Provided that nothing in this clause shall be construed as preventing the creation of posts common to both Houses of Parliament. (2) Parliament may by law regulate the recruitment, and the conditions of service of persons appointed, to the secretarial staff of either House of Parliament. (3) Until provision is made by Parliament under clause (2) of this article, the President may, after consultation with the Speaker of the House of the People or the Chairman of the Council of States, as the case may be, make rules regulating the recruitment and the conditions of service of persons appointed to the secretarial staff of the House of the People or the Council of States, and any rules so made shall have effect subject to the provisions of any law made under the said clause.” The House will see that this is a new article which is sought to be introduced in the Constitution. The reason why the Drafting Committee felt the necessity of introducing an article like this lies in the recent Conference that was held by the Speakers of the various Provinces in which it was said that such a provision, ought to be made in the Constitution. It was, as every one most probably in this House knows, a matter of contention between the Executive Government and the President ever since the late Mr. Vithalbhai Patel was called upon to occupy the President’s Chair in the Assembly. A dispute was going on between the Executive Government and the President of the Assembly. The President had contended that the Secretariat of the Assembly should be independent of the Executive Government. The Executive Government of the day, on the other hand, contended that the Executive had the right to nominate, irrespective of the wishes and the control of the President, the personnel and the staff required to serve the purposes of the Legislative Assembly. Ultimately, the Executive Government in 1928 or 1929 gave in and accepted the contention of the then President and created an independent secretariat for the Assembly. So far, * CAD, Vol. IX, 30th July 1949, pp. 2-3.

736 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES therefore, as the Central Assembly is concerned, there is really no change effected by this new article 79-A, because what is provided in clause (1) of article 79-A is already a fact in existence. But, if was pointed out that this procedure which has been adopted in the Central Legislature as far back as 1928 or 1929 has not been followed by the various provincial legislatures. In some provinces, the practice still continues of some officer who is subject to the disciplinary jurisdiction of the Legislative Department being apppointed to act as the secretary of the Legislative Assembly, with the result that that officer is under a sort of a dual control, control exercised by the department of which he is an officer and the control by the President under whom for the time being he is serving. It is contended that this is derogatory to the dignity of the Speaker and the independence of the Legislative Assembly. The Conference of the Speakers passed various resolutions insisting that besides making this provision in the Constitution, several other provisions should also be made in the Constitution so as to regulate the strength, appointment, conditions of service, and so on and so on. The Drafting Committee was not prepared to accept the other contentions raised by the Speakers’ Conference. They thought that it would be quite enough if the Constitution contained a simple clause stating that Parliament should have a separate secretarial staff and the rest of the matter is left to be regulated by Parliament. Clause (3) provides that, until any provision is made by Parliament, the President may, in consultation with the Speaker of the House of the People or the Chairman of the Council of States, make rules for the recruitment and the conditions of service. When Parliament enacts a law, that law will override the rules made pro tempore by the President in consultation with the Speaker of the House of the People. I think that the provision that we have made is sufficient to meet the main difficulty which was pointed out by the Speakers’ Conference. I hope the House will find no difficulty in accepting this new article. [Amendments 43 and 44 of List II (First Week) were not moved.] * * * * * *The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Sir, nothing that has been said, in my judgment, calls for a reply. *CAD, Vol. IX, 30th July 1949, p. 9.

737DRAFT CONSTITUTION [All the 8 amendments were negatived. The motion of Dr. Ambedkar as shown above was adopted.] New article 79-A was added to the constitution. ARTICLE 104 *The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Sir, I move: That for article 104, the following article he substituted :— Salaries etc of Judges “104. There shall be paid to the judges of the Supreme Court such salaries as are specified in the Second Schedule. (2) Every judge shall be entitled to such privileges and allowances and to such rights in respect of leave of absence and pension as may from time to time be determined by or under law made by Parliament, and until so determined, to such privileges, allowances and rights as are specified in the Second Schedule : Provided that neither the privileges nor the allowances of a judge nor his rights in respect of leave of absence or pension shall be varied to his disadvantage after his appointment.” Sir, all that I need say is that the present article is the same as the original article except that the word “privileges” has been introduced which did not occur in the original text. What those privileges are I would not stop to discuss now. We will discuss them when we come to the second schedule where some of them might be specifically mentioned. * * * * * †Shri R. K. Sidhva : ………Unless you amend the language of this Schedule in view of the amended resolution, I think, Sir, this article will be rather in a confused state. I want to know what are the implications after the amendment of this article moved by Dr. Ambedkar. I find that he has not made any reference to the Schedule and I do not know whether he is going to make any reference to the Schedule hereafter, because thai complicates the issue, and the purpose will be defeated if the matter is left to Parliament, who can against the wishes of the House pass orders that the Chief Justice can be given a furnished house. ‡The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Mr. Vice-president, Sir, I am sorry I cannot accept the amendment moved by my honourable Friend, Pandit Kunzru, and I tliink there are two valid objections which could be presented to the House for rejecting his amendment. In the * CAD, Vol. IX, dated 30th July 1949, p. 10 †Ibid., p. 12. ‡Ibid., pp. 12-13.