Vol. 13 · pages 776–780

743DRAFT CONSTITUTION Friend, Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad, has not taken into consideration the circumstances which have intervened during the interval. He has for instance completely forgotten that Orissa is now a much bigger province on account of the merger of the several States, which were at one time independent of Orissa, and I understand that taking the area of the States and the population which will be included in the boundaries of Orissa, the Lower House is likely to be 150. Consequently, the possibility of any such disparity, as he pointed out, no longer exists. I may also at tins stage say that if the House passes what is proposed as article 172 which regulates the question of difference of opinion between the Upper House and the Lower House, this question of disparity of principles between the Lower House and the Upper House loses all its importance, because under article 172 we no longer propose to adopt the same procedure that was adopted with regard to the two Chambers at the Centre, namely a joint session. What we propose to do is to permit the view of the Lower House to prevail over the view of the Upper House in certain circumstances. Consequently, the Upper House by reason of this different political complexion has no possibility of overturning the decision of a majority or a large majority of the Lower House. That I think, completely disposes of the first point of comment raised by my honourable Friend, Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad. I come to the second question which was very strongly raised by my honourable Friend, Pandit Lakshmi Kanta Maitra. His argument was : Why should you leave it to Parliament ? How can it be left to Parliament ? I think the answer that I can give to him, at any rate, so far as I am concerned, is quite satisfactory. I should like to point to him in the first instance that it is not to be presumed that the Drafting Committee did not at any stage make a constructive proposal for the composition, of the Upper House in the Constitution itself. If my honourable Friend will remember there stood in the name of myself and my Friend, Mr. T. T. Krishnamachari an amendment which is No. 139 in this consolidated list of amendments to amendments which has been circulated and there he will find that we have made a constructive suggestion for the composition of the Upper House. Unfortunately that was not accepted in another place and consequently, we did not think it advisable to continue to press that particular amendment. He will therefore see that the Drafting Committee must be exonerated from all

744 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES blame that might be attached to it by reason of not having made any effort to solve this difficulty ; they did try, but they did not succeed. My honourable Friend will also realize that the Drafting Committee was presented with altogether 28 amendments on this subject. They range here in this list from 123 to 148. If he were to read the amendments carefully in all their details, he will notice the bewildering multiplicity of the suggestions, the conflicting points of view and the unwillingness of the movers of the various amendments to resile from their position to come to some kind of a common conclusion. It was because of this difficult situation the Drafting Committee thought that rather than put forth a suggestion which was not likely to be accepted by the majority of the House, it would leave it to Parliament. Shri H. V. Kamath : Is Dr. Ambedkar sure that Parliament will be presented with less multiplicity ? The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : If my honourable Friend will give me time, I will reply to that part also. My honourable Friend, Pandit Maitra, said : How is it conceivable that a part of the Constitution of so important an institution as the Upper Chamber could be left to be decided by Parliament and not be provided in the Constitution ? I think my honourable Friend, Pandit Maitra, will realize and I should like to point out to him quite definitely what we are doing with regard to the Lower House both in the Provinces or the States as well as at the Centre. If he will refer to article 149, which we have already passed, what we have done is we have merely stated that there shall be certain principles to govern the delimitation of constituencies, that a constituency is not to have less than so many and more than so many, but the actual work of delimiting the constituencies is left to Parliament itself and unless Parliament passes a law delimiting the various constituencies for the Lower House at the Centre, it will not be possible to constitute the Lower House. Pandit Lakshmi Kanta Maitra : That is inevitable. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Again take another illustration, namely, the allocation of seats. The actual allocation will have to be done by law by Parliament. Therefore, if such important matters of detail could be left to Parliament to determine by law, I do not see what grave objection could there be for a matter regarding the composition of the Upper Chamber being also left to Parliament. I cannot

745DRAFT CONSTITUTION see any objection at all. Secondly, I feel personally that having regard to the conflicting view-points that have been presented in the 28 amendments that are before the House, I thought it would be much better for Parliament to take up the responsibility because Parliament will certainly have more time at its disposal than the Drafting Committee had and Parliament would have more information to weigh this proposal, because Parliament then would be in a position to correspond with the various provincial Governments, to find out their difficulties, to find out their points of view and their proposals and to arrive at some common via media which might be put into law. Therefore, in putting forth this proposal, I think, we are not making any very serious departure from the principles we have already adopted and as my honourable Friend, Mr. T. T. Krishnamachari said, taking all these into consideration, there is nothing for the Drafting Committee to apologize but to recommend the proposal to the House. * * * * * *Pandit Govind Malaviya (United Pro vices : General) : I move, Sir, that the consideration of this article be held over. Shri Brajeshwar Prasad : I beg to second this proposal. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : I have no objection. We can have another go at it. Mr. President : Then I take it that Members are agreed that this article should be held over. Honourable Members : Yes. NEW ARTICLE 163-A †The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Sir, I beg to move : “That in amendment No. 12 of List 1 (First Week) of Amendments to Amendments for the proposed new article 163-A, the following be substituted :— “163-A. (1) The House or each House of the Legislature of a State shall have a secretarial staff of State Legislatures separate secretarial staff: Provided that nothing in this clause shall, in the case of the Legislature of a State having a Legislative Council, be construed as preventing the creation of posts common to both Houses of such Legislature. (2) The Legislature of a State may by law regulate the recruitment and the conditions of service of persons appointed to the secretarial staff of the House or House of the Legislature of the State. (3) Until provision is made by the Legislature of the State under clause (2) of this article, the Governor may after consultation with the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly or the Chairman of the Legislative Council, as the case may be, make * CAD, Vol. IX, dated 30th July 1949, p. 37. †Ibid., n. 37.

746 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES rules regulating the recruitment and the conditions of service of persons appointed to the secretariat staff of the Assembly or the Council, and any rules so made shall have effect subject to the provisions of any law made under the said clause.’” This article is merely a counterpart of article 79-A which we considered this morning. * * * * * *Shri H. V. Kamath : Mr. President, Sir……..In articles 79-A and 148-A, points of substance were made out by various amendments by my honourable Friend, Prof. Shibban Lai Saksena and myself. But when his turn came, Dr. Ambedkar was good enough, wise enough just to say that he did not wish to say anything. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : I said no reply was called for. Shri H. V. Kamath : That is left to his judgment. But, when certain substantial points are raised, they call for some sort of reply. Of course, he is buttressed, fortified by the fore-knowledge of the fact that when he says, ‘yes’ he will carry the House with him. It is of course upto him to decide what he will reply to and what he will not. But, the House is entitled to hear his view. If he is too tired, too fatigued, he may ask one of his wise colleagues………. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Who is to determine whether the points are points of substance ? If the President gave a ruling that the point is one of substance, I should certainly reply. I cannot leave the matter to be determined by Mr. Kamath himself. * * * * * †Mr. President : Does any Member wish to say anything ? (No Member rose to speak.) Would Dr. Ambedkar like to say anything ? The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : No. Mr. President : I will then put the amendments to vote. [All 8 amendments were negatived. Article 163-A as moved by Dr. Ambedkar was put to vote and adopted. New Article 163-A was added to the Constitution.] ARTICLE 175 ‡Mr. President : Shall we take up 172 now ? * CAD, Vol. IX, dated 30th July 1949, p. 38. †Ibid., p. 40. ‡Ibid., pp. 41-42.

747DRAFT CONSTITUTION The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : We shall keep it back for the moment. Mr. President : Shall we take up No. 175 ? The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Yes. Shri H. V. Kamath : What about 127-A ? Mr. President : That will come up along with 210. Let us take up new 175. There are some amendmednts to it. (Amendments Nos. 16 and 17 were not moved.) *The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Mr. President, Sir I beg to move that: ‘“That for the proviso to article 175 the following proviso he substituted :— ‘Provided that the Governor may, as soon as possible after the presentation to him of the Bill for assent, return the Bill if it is not a money Bill together with a message requesting that the House or Houses will reconsider the Bill or any specified provisions thereof and, in particular, will consider the desirability of introducing any such amendments as he may recommend in his message, and when a Bill is so returned, the House or Houses shall reconsider the Bill accordingly, and if the Bill is passed again by the House or Houses with or without amendment and presented to the Governor for assent, the Governor shall not withhold assent therefrom.’” Sir, this is in substitution of the old proviso. The old proviso contained three important provisions. The first was that it conferred power on the Governor to return a Bill before assent to the Legislature and recommend certain specific points for consideration. The proviso as it stood left the matter of returning the Bill to the discretion of himself. Secondly, the right to return the Bill with the recommendation was applicable to all Bills including money Bills. Thirdly, the right was given to the Governor to return the Bill only in those cases where the Legislature of a province was unicameral. It was felt then that in a responsible government there can be no room for the Governor acting on discretion therefore the new proviso deletes the word ‘in his discretion’. Similarly it is felt that this right to return the Bill should not be extended to a money Bill and consequently the words ‘if it is not a money Bill’ are introduced. It is also felt that this right of a Governor to return the Bill to the Legislature need not necessarily be confined to cases where the Legislature of the province is unicameral. It is a salutary provision and may be made use of in all cases even where the Legislature of a province is bicameral. It is to make provision for these three changes that the new proviso is sought to be substituted for the old one, and I hope the House will accept it. * CAD, Vol. IX, 30th July 1949. pp. 41-42.