Vol. 13 · pages 871–875

838 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES Sir, these are the clauses which deal with the Public Services Commissions, their tenure of offce and qualifications and disqualifications and their removal and suspension. I should very briefly like to explain to the House the matters embodied here, the principal matters that are embodied in these articles. The first point is with regard to the tenure of the Public Service Commission. That is dealt with in article 285. According to the provisions contained in that article the term of office of a member of the Public Service Commission is fixed at six years or in the case of the Union Commission, until he reaches the age of 65 and in the case of a State Commission untill he reaches the age of 60. That is with regard to the term of office. Then I come to the removal of the members of the Public Service Commission. That matter is dealt with in article 285-A. Under the provisions of that article, a member of the Public Service Commission is liable to be removed by the President on proof of misbehaviour. He is also liable to be removed by reason of automatic disqualification. This automatic disqualification can result in three cases. One is insolvency. The second is engaging in any other employment and the third is that he becomes infirm in mind or body. With regard to misbehaviour, the provision is some what peculiar. The honourable House will remember that in the case of the removal of High Court Judges or the Judges of the Supreme Court, it has been provided in the articles we have already passed that they hold their posts during good behaviour, and they shall not be liable to be removed until a resolution in that behalf is passed by both Chambers of Parliament. It is felt that it is unnecessary to provide such a stiff and severe provision for the removal of members of the Public Service Commission. Consequently it has been provided in this article that the provisions contained in the Government of India Act for the removal of the Judges of the High Court would be sufficient to give as much security and as much protection to the members of the Public Service Commission. I think the House will remember that in the provision contained in the Government of India Act, what is necessary for the removal of a Federal Court Judge or a High Court Judge is an enquiry made by the Federal Court in the case of the High Court Judges or by the Privy Council in the case of the Federal Court Judges, and on a report being made that there has been a case of misbehaviour, it is open to the GovernorGeneral to remove either the Federal Court Judge or the Judge of the High Court. We have adopted the same provision with regard to

839DRAFT CONSTITUTION the removal of Public Service Commission, wherever there is a case of misbehaviour. With regard to automatic disqualifications, I do not think that there could be any manner of dispute because it is obvious that if a member of the Public Service Commission has become insolvent, his integrity could not be altogether relied upon and therefore it must act as a sort of automatic disqualification. Similarly, if a member of the Public Service Commission who is undoubtedly a whole-time officer of the State, instead of discharging his duties to the fullest extent possible and devoting all his time, were to devote a part of his time in some other employment, that again should be a ground for automatic disqualification. Similarly the third disqualification, namely, that he has become infirm in body and mind may also be regarded, without any kind of dispute, as a fit case for automatic disqualification. Members of the House will also remember that while reading article 285-A, there is a provision made for suspension of a member of the Public Services Commission during an enquiry made by the Supreme Court. That provision is, I think, necessary. If the President thinks that a member is guilty of misbehaviour, it is not desirable that the member should continue to function as a member of the Public Services Commission unless his character has been cleared up by a report in his favour by the Supreme Court. Now, I come to the other important matter relating to the employment or eligibility for employment of the members of the Public Services Commission bom—the Union and State Public Services Commissions. Members will see mat according to article 285, clause (3), we have made both the Chairman and the Members of the Central Public Services Commission as well as the Chairman of the State Commission, and the members of the State Commission ineligible for reappointment to the same posts: that is to say, once a term of office of a Chairman and Member is over, whether he is a Chairman of the Union Commission or the Chairman of a State Commission, we have said that he shall not be reappointed. I think that is a very salutary provision, because any hope that might be held out for reappointment, or continuation in the same appointment, may act as a sort of temptation which may induce the Member not to act with the same impartiality that he is expected to act in discharging his duties. Therefore, that is a fundamental bar which has been provided in the draft article. Then the second thing is that according to article 285-C, there is also a provision that neither of these shall be eligible for employment in any

840 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES other posts. There is therefore a double disqualification. There is no permission to continue them in their office, nor is there provision for their appointment in any other posts. Now, the only exceptions, that is to say, cases where they could be appointed are these : The Chairman of a State Public Services Commission is permitted to be a Chairman or a Member of the Union Commission, or a Chairman of any other State Commission. Secondly, the Members of the Union Commission can become Chairman of the Union Commission or any other State Commission. Thirdly, the Members of the State Commission can become a Chairman or a member of the Union Commission, or the Chairman of a State Commission. In other words, the exceptions are : namely, that one man, who is a Member of the Union Public Services Commission, may become a Chairman of the State Public Services Commission can become a Chairman of the Union Public Services Commission, or become a Member of the Union Public Services Commission. The principal point to be noted is this, that neither the Chairman nor the Member of a State Commission can have employment under the same State. He can be appointed by another State as a Chairman or he can be appointed by the Central Government as the Chairman of the Union Public Services Commission or a Member of the Union Public Services Commission., the object being not to permit the State to exercise any patronage in die matter either of giving continued employment in the same post, or in any other post, so that it is hoped that with these provisions the Members of the Commission will be as independent as they are expected to be. I do not think there is any other point which calls for explanation. Shri Lakshminarayan Sahu : What about Members of Joint Commissions ? The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : A Joint Commission is the State Commission. That is defined in clause (4) of article 284. Dr. Monomohan Das (West Bengal : General) : I would like to be clear on some points about 285-A. If the Supreme Court as being referred by the President reports that the Chairman or some other Member of the Public Service Commission should be removed, then will it be obligatory on the part of the President to remove him ? The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Certainly. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : You have asked the honourable Member to explain to the House the difference between the new draft and the original. That would have been helpful for a proper appreciation of the real changes.

841DRAFT CONSTITUTION The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : If any point is raised in the course of the debate, I will explain it in the course of my reply. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : I do not know whether to oppose or not to oppose. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : You must have read both drafts. The only thing you might not have read are the commas and semicolons. Mr. President : I will now take up the amendments. ***** *The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Mr. President, Sir, there are just a few points on which I would like to say a word or two in reply to the criticism made on the articles which I have submitted to the House. The first criticism is with regard to the composition of the Public Service Commission. The reservation made there that at least one-half of the members of the Public Service Commission should have been servants of the Crown has been objected to on the ground that this is really a paradise prepared for the I.C.S. people. I am sorry to say that those who have made this criticism do not seem to have understood the purpose, the significance and the functions of the Public Service Commission. The function of the Public Service Commission is to choose people who are fit for Public Service. The judgment required to come to a conclusion on the question of fitness presupposes a certain amount of experience on the part of the person who is asked to judge. Obviously nobody can be a better judge in this matter than a person who has already been in the service of the Crown. The reason therefore why a certain proportion is reserved to persons in service is not because there is any desire to oblige persons who are already in the service of the Crown but the desire is to secure persons with the necessary experience who would be able to perform their duties in the best manner posible. However, I am prepared to accept an amendment if my Friend Mr. Kapoor is prepared for it. I am prepared to say— “Provided that as nearly as may be one-half” instead of saying “Provided that at least one-half” Shri H. V. Kamath : Why not say “not more than one-half”? The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : No, I have done my best. With regard to the second question, that persons who have been in the Public Service Commission should be permitted to accept an honorary office under the State, personally I am not now inclined to accept that suggestion. Our whole object is to make the members of the Public Service Commission independent of the executive. One way of making *CAD, Vol. IX, 22nd August 1949, pp. 592-593.

842 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES them independent of the executive is to deprive them of any office with which the executive might tempt them to depart from their duty. It is quite true that an office which is not an office of profit but an honorary office does not involve pay. But as every body knows pay is not the only thing which a person obtains by reason of his post. There is such a tiling as “pay, pickings and pilferings”. But even if it is not so. there is a certain amount of influence which an office gives to a person. And I think it is desirable to exclude even the possibility of such a person being placed in a post where, although he may not get a salary, he may obtain certain degree of influence. Now, I come to the amendment of my Friend Mr. Kunzru. I quite agree with him that there is obviously a distinction made between the services to be employed under the Public Service Commission and the services to be employed under the High Court, the Supreme Court and the Auditor-General. I would like to explain why we have made this distinction. With regard to the staff of the High Court and the Supreme Court, at any rate those who are occupying the highest places are required to exercise a certain amount of judicial discretion. Consequently we felt that not only their salaries and pensions should he determined by the Chief Justice with the approval of the President but the conditions of their service also should be left to be determined by the Chief Justice. In the case of the Public Service Commission much of the staff—in fact the whole of the staff—will be merely concerned with what we call “ministerial duties” where there is no authority and no discretion is left. That is the reason why we have made this distinction. But I quite see that my argument is probably not as sound as it might appear. All the same I would suggest to my honourable Friend Pandit Kunzru to allow this article to go through on the promise that at a later stage if I find that there is a necessity to make a change I will come before the House with the necessary amendment. Sir, my attention is drawn to the fact in the cyclostyled copy of my amendment to article 285-A in sub-clause (3)(b) the words ought to be ‘in any paid employment’.. They have been typed wrongly as ‘in any body’s employment.’ I hope the correction will be made. As I said to Pandit Kunzru, the Drafting Committee will look into the matter and if it feels that there are grounds to make any alteration they will, with the permission of the House come forward with an amendment so that the position may be rectified. Mr. President : I will now put the amendments to vote first. The question is :— “That in amendment No. 3 above, in the proviso to clause (1) of the proposed article 285, for the word ‘one-half’ the word ‘one third’ be substituted.”