Vol. 13 · pages 781–785

748 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES Mr. President : I have notice of some amendments which are printed in the Supplementary List. Does any Member wish to move any of the amendments ? They are in the names of Shri Satish Chandra, Shri B. M. Gupte and Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena. (The amendments were not moved.) * * * * * *Mr. President : We were dealing with article 175 day before yesterday before we rose. We shall now continue discussion on article 175.... Shri T. T. Krishnamachari (Madras : General) : Sir, may I submit that that article has very little to do with article 172. ...I suggest that article 175 be considered apart from 172. Mr. President : Would it not be better if we were to dispose of 172 first? Shri T. T. Krishnamachari : That is entirely to be decided at your discretion. We may take up 172 first and then have the vote on 175. Mr. President : Do you have any objection ? The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar (Bombay : General) : I have no objection. Sir, I am entirely in your hands. Mr. President : Then we shall dispose of 172 first and then go to 175. ARTICLE 172 †The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Mr. President, Sir, I move : “That for article 172, the following article be substituted:— Restriction of powers of Legislative Council us to Bill other than Money Bills. ‘172. (1) If after a Bill has been passed by the Legislative Assembly of a State haying a Legislative Council and transmitted to the Legislative Council— (a) the Bill is rejected by the Council; or (b) more than two months elapse from the date on which the Bill is laid before the Council without the Bill being passed by it; or (c) the Bill is passed by the Council with amendments to which the Legislative Assembly does not agree, the Legislative Assembly may again pass the Bill in the same or in any subsequent session with or without any amendments which have been made, suggested or agreed lo by the Legislative Council and then transmit the Bill as so passed lo the Legislative Council. (2) If after a Bill has been so passed for the second time by the Legislative Assembly and transmitted to the Legislative Council— (a) the Bill is rejected by the Council; or * CAD, Vol. IX, 1st August 1049, p. 43. †Ibid., pp. 43-44.

749DRAFT CONSTITUTION (b) more than one month elapses from the date on which the Bill is laid before the Council without the Bill being passed by it; or (c) the Bill is passed by the Council with amendments to which the Legislative Assembly does not agree ; the Bill shall be deemed to have been passed by the Houses of the Legislature of the State in the form in which it was passed by the Legislative Assembly with such amendments if any, as have been agreed to by the Legislative Assembly. (3) Nothing in this article shall apply to a Money Bill.’” The House will remember that when we discussed the question of the resolution of the differences between the Council of States and the House of the People, we discussed the different methods by which such differences would be resolved, and we came to the conclusion that having regard to the Federal character of the Central Legislature it was proper that the differences between the two Houses should be resolved by a joint session of both the Houses called by the President for that purpose. It was at that time suggested that instead of adopting the procedure of a joint session we should adopt the procedure contained in the Parliament Act of 1911 under which the decision of the House of Commons with regard to any particular Bill, other than a Money Bill prevails in the final analysis when the House of Lords has failed to agree or refused to agreee, to the amendment suggested by the House of Commons after a certain period has elapsed. On a consideration of this matter, it was felt that the procedure laid down in the Parliament Act for the resolution of the differences between the two Houses of the Legislature was more appropriate for the resolution of difference between the two Houses set up in the Provinces. Consequently we have made a departure from the original article and introduce this new article embodying in it the proposal that the decision of the more popular House representing the people as a whole ought to prevail in case of a difference of opinion which the two Houses have not been able to reconcile by mutual agreement. Sir, I move. * * * * * *Pandit Hirday Nath Kunzru : ...I think considering the changes that have been made by the Drafting Committee itself from time to time there is no principle on which it is proceeding. My honourable Friend Dr. Ambedkar says there is a very good principle. Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : I say there is no principle. Pandit Hirday Nath Kunzru : I am glad my honourable Friend admits that there is no principle underlying the amendment that he has suggested to the House. * CAD, Vol. IX, date 1st August 1949, p. 52.

750 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : It is a matter of expediency and practicality. Pandit Hirday Nath Kunzru : He admits it is a question of expediency and practicality.... * * * * * *The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Mr. President, Sir, as I listened to the debate, I find that there are some very specific questions which have been raised by the various speakers who have taken part in the debate. The first point was raised by my Friend Mr. Santhanam and I would like to dispose of that before I turn to the other points. Mr. Santhanam said that a provision ought to be made in clause (1) of the article to provide for a case where the Upper House has not passed the Bill in the form in which it was passed by the Assembly. I think that on further consideration, he will find that his suggestion is actually embodied in sub-clause(c), although that clause has been differently worded. We have as a matter of fact provided for three cases on the occurrence of which the Lower House will take jurisdiction to act on its own authority. The three cases are : firstly when the Bill is considered but rejected completely; secondly, when the Upper House is either sitting tight and taking no action or has taken action but has delayed beyond the time which is permitted to it for consideration of the Bill ; and thirdly, when they do not agree to pass the Bill in the same form in which it lias been passed by the Assembly, which practically means what my Friend Mr. Santhanam is suggesting. I therefore do not think there is any necessity to revise this part of the article. I might say incidentally that in devising the three categories or conditions on the occurrences of which the Lower House would have the power to act on its own authority, the words have more or less been taken closely from article 57 of the Australian Constitution. Now, I come to the general points that have been raised. It seems to me in discussing this matter, there are three different questions that arise for consideration. The first question is how many journeys the Bill should undertake before the will of the Lower House becomes paramount. Should it be one journey, two journeys or more than two journeys ? That is one question. The second question is, what should be the period that should be allotted to the Upper House for each journey, * CAD, Vol. IX, dated 30th July 1949, pp. 57-59.

751DRAFT CONSTITUTION both going and coming back ? The third question is, how is the period within which the Council is to act to be reckoned. To use the phraseology which is familiar to those who know the law of limitation, what is to be the starting point ? So far as the present amendment is concerned, it is proposed that the Bill should have two journeys. It goes in the first instance, it comes back and it goes again. It may be possible to argue that more journeys than two are to be permitted. As I said, this is a question of practical politics. We must see some end, or dead end, at which we must allow the authority of the Lower House to become paramount, and the Drafting Committee thought that two journeys were enough for the purpose to allow the Upper House to act as a revising Chamber. Now, with regard to the time to be permitted, to the Upper House during these journeys to consider the Bill, the proposal of the Drafting Committee is two months. Now it may be three months, in the first case, as I am accepting the amendment moved by my Friend, Mr. T. T. Krishnamachari, and in the second case it would be one month. My Friend Pandit Kunzru said that the Drafting Committee had no fixed mind, that it was changing from moment to moment, that it was fickle, and he referred to the original Draft set out in the Draft Constitution laying down six months. Here again, I should like to point out to him that the period lo be allowed to each House is not a matter of principle at all. It is a matter only of practical politics and the Drafting Committee came to the conclusion that six months was too long a period. In fact, it felt that even three months was too long a period. But it is quite conceivable that a Bill like the Zamindari Bill which has a large number of clauses, may emerge from the Lower House and may be sent to the Upper House for consideration. But for such exceptional cases, I think my Friend will agree that other measures would not, be of the same magnitude or the same substance. Consequently, we thought that three months was a reasonable period to allow to the Upper House in the case when the Bill goes on its first journey, because after all what is the Upper House going to do ? The Upper House in acting upon a Bill which has been sent to it by the Lower Chamber is not going to re-draft the whole thing ; it is not going to alter every clause. It is only certain clauses which it may feel of public importance that it would like to deal with, and I should have thought that for a limited legislative activity of that sort, three months in the first instance was a large enough period to allow to the Upper House and would not certainly curtail the

752 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES legitimate activity of a Second Chamber. In the second case, we felt that when the Lower House had more or less indicated to the Upper House what are the limits to which they can go in accepting the amendments suggested by the Upper House, one month for the second journey, was also quite enough. Therefore, as I said, there being no question of principle here but merely a question of practical politics, we thought that three months and one month were sufficient. Now, I come to the last question, namely, what is to be the starting point of calculating the three months or the one month. I think Mr. Kunzru will forgive me for saying that he has failed to appreciate the importance of the changes made by the Drafting Committee. If this provision had not been there in Draft article 172 as it stands, I have no doubt—and the Drafting Committee had no doubt—that the powers of the Upper Chamber would have been completely negatived and nullified. Let me explain that; but before I do so, let me state the possibilities of determining what I call the starting point of limitation. First of all, it would have been possible to say that the Bill must be passed by the Upper House within a stated period from the passing of the Bill by the Lower House. Secondly, it would have been possible to say that the Upper House should pass the Bill in the stated period from the time of the reception of the Bill by that House. Now supposing we had adopted either of these two possibilities, the consequences would have been very disastrous to the Upper House. Once you remember that the summoning of the Upper House is entirely in the hands of the executive—which may summon when it likes and not summon when it does not like—it would have been quite possible for a dishonest executive to lake advantage of this clause by not calling the Upper House in session at all. Or supposing we had taken the reception as the starting point, they’ could have also cheated the Upper House by not putting the Bill on the agenda and not thereby giving the Upper House an opportunity to consider it. We thought that this sort of procedure was wrong ; it would result in penalising the Upper House for no fault of that House. If the House is not called certainly it cannot consider the Bill, and such a Bill could not be deemed to have been considered by the Upper House. Therefore in order to protect the Upper House the Drafting Committee rejected both these possibilities of determining the starting point, namely, the passing of the Bill and the reception of the Bill, a proposal which was embodied by them in the draft article as it stands. And they deliberately adopted the provisions contained in the