data-4.txt

The Constituent Assembly of India met in the Constitution Hall, New Delhi at Ten of the Clock, Mr. President (The Honourable Dr. Rajendra Prasad) in the Chair.
PRESENTATION OF CREDENTIALS AND SIGNING OF THE REGISTER
The following Member presented his Credentials and signed the Register;
Mr. Jai Sukh Lal Hathi (Residuary States Group);

4.28.1
Mr. Ram Narayan Singh
Sir, I wish to draw your attention to a very important constitutional issue. I think, and everybody knows, that we are meeting as a sovereign body here and making the constitution for a future Free India. But in the envelopes used by the Assembly Office we still find on the top the words 'On His Majesty's Service'. I think this is not proper and I draw the attention of the House and yourself to this matter. I hope these words will be dropped from the envelopes in future in the correspondence conducted by the Assembly Office.

RESOLUTION RE. NATIONAL FLAG

4.28.2
President
We shall proceed with the agenda. The first item on the agenda is a Motion by Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru about the Flag.


4.28.3
Jawaharlal Nehru
Mr. President, it is my proud privilege to move the following Resolution:

"Resolved that the National Flag of India shall be horizontal tricolour of deep Saffron (Kesari), white and dark green in equal proportion. In the centre of the white band, there shall be a Wheel in navy blue to represent the Charkha. The design of the Wheel shall be that of the Wheel (Chakra) which appears on the abacuse of the Sarnath Lion Capital of Asoka.

The diameter of the Wheel shall approximate to the width of the white band.

The ratio of the width to the length of the Flag shall ordinarily be 2:3."


4.28.4
Jawaharlal Nehru
This Resolution, Sir, is in simple language, in a slightly technical language and there is no glow or warmth in the words that I have read. Yet I am sure that many in this House will feel that glow and warmth which I feel at the present moment for behind this Resolution and the Flag which I have the honour to present to this House for adoption lies history, the concentrated history of a short span in a nation's existence. Nevertheless, sometimes in a brief period we pass through the track of centuries. It is not so much the mere act of living that counts but what one does in this brief life that is ours; it is not so much the mere existence of a nation that counts but what that nation does during the various periods of its existence; and I do venture to claim that in the past quarter of a century or so India has lived and acted in a concentrated way and the emotions which have filled the people of India represent not merely a brief spell of years but something infinitely more. They have gone down into history and tradition and have added themselves on to that vast history and tradition which is our heritage in this country. So, when I move this Resolution, I think of this concentrated history through which all of us have passed during the last quarter of a century. Memories crowd upon me. I remember the ups and downs of the great struggle for freedom of this great nation. I remember and many in this House will remember how we looked up to this Flag not only with pride and enthusiasm but with a tingling in our veins; also how; when we were sometimes down and out, then again the sight of this Flag gave us courage to go on. Then, many who are not present here today, many of our comrades who have passed, held on to this Flag, some amongst them even unto death and handed it over as they sank, to others to hold it aloft. So, in this simple form of words, there is much more than will be clear on the surface. There is the struggle of the people for freedom with all its ups and downs and trials and disasters and there is, finally today as I move this Resolution, a certain triumph about it--a measure of triumph in the conclusion of that struggle.


4.28.5
Jawaharlal Nehru
Now, I realise fully, as this House must realise, that this triumph of ours has been marred in many ways. There have been, especially in the past few months many happenings which cause us sorrow, which has gripped our hearts. We have seen parts of this dear motherland of ours cut off from the rest. We have seen large numbers of people suffering tremendously, large numbers wandering about like waifs and strays, without a home. We have seen many other things which I need not repeat to this House, but which we cannot forget. All this sorrow has dogged our footsteps. Even when we have achieved victory and triumph, it still dogs us and we have tremendous problems to face in the present and in the future. Nevertheless it is true I think--hold it to be true--that this moment does represent a triumph and a victorious conclusion of all our struggles, for the moment. (Hear, hear).


4.28.6
Jawaharlal Nehru
There has been a very great deal of bewailing and moaning about various things that have happened. I am sad, all of us are sad at heart because of those things. But let us distinguish that from the other fact of triumph because there is triumph in victory, in what has happened. It is no small thing that that great and mighty empire which has represented imperialist domination in this country has decided to end its days here. That was the objective we aimed at.


4.28.7
Jawaharlal Nehru
We have attained that objective or shall attain it very soon. Of that there is no doubt. We have not attained the objective exactly in the form in which we wanted it. The troubles and other things that companies our achievement are not to our liking. But we must remember that it is very seldom that people realise the dreams that they have dreamt. It is very seldom that the aims and objectives with which we start are achieved in their entirety in life in an individual's life or in a nation's life.


4.28.8
Jawaharlal Nehru
We have many examples before us. We need not go into the distant past. We have examples in the present or in the recent past. Some years back, a great war was waged, a world war bringing terrible misery to mankind. That war was meant for freedom and democracy and the rest. That war ended in the triumph of those who said they stood for freedom and democracy. Yet, hardly had that war ended when there were rumours of fresh wars and fresh conflicts.


4.28.9
Jawaharlal Nehru
Three days ago, this House and this country and the world was shocked by the brutal murder in a neighbouring country of the leaders of the nation. Today one reads in the papers of an attack by an imperialist power on a friendly country South-East Asia. Freedom is still far off in this world and nations, all nations in greater or lesser degree are struggling for their freedom. If we in the present have not exactly achieved what we aimed at, it is not surprising. There is nothing in it to be ashamed of. For I do think our achievement is no small achievement. It is a very considerable achievement, a great achievement. Let no man run it, down because other things have happened which are not to our liking. Let us keep these two things apart. Look at any country in the wide world. Where is the country today, including the great and big powers, which is not full of terrible problems, which is not in some way, politically and economically, striving for freedom which somehow or other eludes its grasp? The problems of India in the wider context do not appear to be terrible. The problems are not anything new to us. We have faced many disagreeable--things in the past. We have not held back. We shall face all the other disagreeable things that face us in the present or may do so in the future and we shall not flinch and we shall not falter and we shall not quit. (Loud applause).


4.28.10
Jawaharlal Nehru
So, in spite of everything that surrounds us, it is in no spirit of down heartedness that I stand up in praise of this Nation for what it has achieved. (Renewed cheers). It is right and proper that at this moment we should adopt the symbols of this achievement, the symbol of freedom. Now what is this freedom in its entirety and for all humanity. What is freedom and what is the struggle for freedom and when does it end. As soon as you take one step forward and achieve something further steps come up before you. There will be no full freedom in this country or in the world as long as a single human being is unfree. There will be no complete freedom as long as there is starvation, hunger, lack of clothing, lack of necessaries of life and lack of opportunity of growth for every single human being, man, woman and child in the country. We aim at that. We may not accomplish that because it is a terrific task. But we shall do our utmost to accomplish that task and hope that our successors when they come, have an easier path to pursue. But there is no ending to that road to freedom. As we go ahead, just as we sometimes in our vanity aim at perfection, perfection never comes. But if we try hard enough we do approach the goal step by step. When we increase the happiness of the people, we increase their stature in many ways and we proceed to our goal. I do not know if there is an end to this or not, but we proceed towards some kind of consummationwhich in effect never ends.


4.28.11
Jawaharlal Nehru
So I present this Flag to you. This Resolution defines the Flag which I trust you will adopt. In a sense this Flag was adopted, not by a formal resolution, but by popular acclaim and usage, adopted much more by the sacrifice that surrounded it in the past few decades. We are in a sense only ratifying that popular adoption. It is a Flag which has been variously described. Some people, having misunderstood its significance, have thought of it in communal terms and believe that some part of it represents this community or that. But I may say that when this Flag was devised there was no communal significance attached to it. We thought of a design for a Flag which was beautiful, because the symbol of a nation must be beautiful to look at. We thought of a Flag which would in its combination and in its separate parts would somehow represent the spirit of the nation, the tradition of the nation, that mixed spirit and tradition which has grown up through thousands of years in India. So, we devised this Flag. Perhaps I am partial but I do think that it is a very beautiful Flag to look at purely from the point of view of artistry, and it has come to symbolise many other beautiful things, things of the spirit, things of the mind, that give value to the individual's life and to the nation's life, for a nation does not live merely by material things, although they are highly important. It is important that we should have the good things of the world, the material possessions of the world, that our people should have the necessaries of life. That is of the utmost importance. Nevertheless, a nation, and especially a nation like India with an immemorial past, lives by other things also, the things of the spirit. If India had not been associated with these ideals and things of the spirit during these thousands of years, what would India have been? It has gone through a very great deal of misery and degradation in the past, but somehow even in the depths of degradation, the head of India has been held high, the thought of India has been high, and the ideals of India have been high. So we have gone through these tremendous ages and we stand up today in proud thankfulness for our past and even more so for the future that is to come for which we are going to work and for which our successors are going to work. It is our privilege of those assembled here, to mark the transition in a particular way, in a way that will be remembered.


4.28.12
Jawaharlal Nehru
I began by saying that it is my proud privilege to be ordered to move this Resolution. Now, Sir, may I say a few words about this particular Flag? It will be seen that there is a slight variation from the one many of us have used during these past years. The colours are the same, a deep saffron, a white and a dark green. In the white previously there was the Charkha which symbolised the common man in India, which symbolised the masses of the people, which symbolised their industry and which came to us from the message which Mahatma Gandhi delivered. (Cheers) Now, this particular Charkha symbol has been slightly varied in this Flag, not taken away at all. Why then has this been varied? Normally speaking, the symbol on one side-of the Flag should be exactly the same as on the other side. Otherwise, there is a difficulty which goes against the rules. Now, the Charkha, as it appeared previously on this Flag, had the wheel on one side and the spindle on the other. If you see the other side of the Flag, the spindle comes the other way and the wheel comes this way; if it does not do so, it is not proportionate, because the wheel must be towards the pole, not towards the end of the Flag. There was this practical difficulty. Therefore, after considerable thought, we were of course convinced that this great symbol which had enthused people should continue but that it should continue in a slightly different form, that the wheel should be there, not the rest of the Charkha, that is the spindle and the string which created this confusion, that the essential part of the Charkha should be there, that is the wheel. So, the oldtradition continue in regard to the Charkha and the wheel. But what type of wheel should we have? Our minds went back to many wheels but notably one famous wheel, which had appeared in many places and which all of us have seen, the one at the top of the capita of the Asoka column and in many other places. That wheel is a symbol of India's ancient cultureit is a symbol of the many things that India had stood for through the ages. So we thought that this Chakra emblem should be there, and that wheel appears. For my part, I am exceedingly happy that in this sense indirectly we have associated with this Flag of ours not only this emblem but in a sense the name of Asoka, one of the most magnificent names not only in India's history but in world history. It is well that at this moment of strife, conflict and intolerance, our minds should go back towards what India stood for in the ancient days and what it has stood for, I hope and believe, essentially throughout the ages in spite of mistakes and errors and degradations from time to time. For, if India had not stood for something very great, I do not think that India could have survived and carried on its cultural traditions in a more or less continuous manner through these vast ages. It carried on its cultural tradition, not unchanging, not rigid, but always keeping its essence, always adapting itself to new developments, to new influences. That has been the tradition of India, always to put out fresh blooms and flowers, always receptive to the good things that it receives, sometimes receptive to bad things also, but always true to her ancient culture. All manner of new influences through thousands of years have influenced us, while we influenced them tremendously also, for you will remember that India has not been in the past a tight little narrow country, disdaining other countries. India throughout the long ages of her history has been connected with other countries, not only connected with other countries, but has been an international centre, sending out her people abroad to far off countries carrying her message and receiving the message of other countries in exchange, but India was strong enough to remain embedded on the foundations on which she was built although changes many changes, have taken place. The strength of India it has been said, consists in this strong foundation. It consists also in its amazing capacity to receive, to adapt what it wants to adapt, not to reject because something is outside its scope, but to accept and receive everything. It is folly for any nation or race to think that it can only give to and not receive from the rest of the world. Once a nation or a race begins to think like that, it becomes rigid, it becomesungrowing; it grows backwards and decays. In fact, if India's history can be traced India's periods of decay are those when it closed herself up into a shell and refused to receive or to look at the outside world. India's greatest periods are those when she stretched her hands to others in far off countries, sent her emissaries ambassadors, her trade agents and merchants to these countries and received ambassadors and emissaries from abroad.


4.28.13
Jawaharlal Nehru
Now because I have mentioned the name of Asoka I should like you to think that the Asokan period in Indian history was essentially an international period of Indian history. It was not a narrowly national period. It was a period when India's ambassadors went abroad to far countries and went abroad not in the way of an Empire and imperialism but as ambassadors of peace and culture and goodwill. (Cheers.)


4.28.14
Jawaharlal Nehru
Therefore this Flag that I have the honour to present to you is not. I hope and trust, a Flag of Empire, a Flag of Imperialism, a Flag of domination over anybody, but a Flag of freedom not only for ourselves, but a symbol of--freedom to all people who may see it. (Cheers). And wherever it may go-and I hope it will go far,--not only where Indians dwell as our ambassadors and ministers but across the far seas where it may be carried by Indian ships, wherever it may go it will bring a message, I hope, of freedom to those people, a message of comradeship, a message that India wants to be friends with every country of the world and India wants to help any people who seek freedom. (Hear, hear). That I hope will be the message of this Flag everywhere and I hope that in the freedom that is coming to us, we will not do what many other people or some other people have unfortunately done, that is, in a newfound strength suddenly to expand and become imperialistic in design. If that happened that would be a terrible ending to our struggle for freedom. (Hear, hear.) But there is that danger and, therefore, I venture to remind this House of it--although this House needs no reminder--there is this danger in a country suddenly unshackled in stretching out its arms and legs and trying to hit out at other people. And if we do that we become just like other nations who seem to live in a kind of succession of conflicts and preparation for conflict. That is the world today unfortunately.


4.28.15
Jawaharlal Nehru
In some degree I have been responsible for the foreign policy during the past few months and always the question is asked here or elsewhere: "What is your foreign policy? To what group do you adhere to in this warring world?" Right at the beginning I venture to say that we propose to belong to no power group. We propose to function as far as we can as peace-makers and peace-bringers because today we are not strong enough to be able to have our way. But at any rate we propose to avoid all entanglements with power politics in the world. It is not completely possible to do that in this complicated world of ours, but certainly we are going to do our utmost to that end.


4.28.16
Jawaharlal Nehru
It is stated in this Resolution that the ratio of the width to the length of the Flag shall ordinarily be 2:3. Now you will notice the word "ordinarily". There is no absolute standard about the ratio because the same Flag on a particular occasion may have a certain ratio that might be more suitable or on any other occasion in another place the ratio might differ slightly. So there is no compulsion about this ratio. But generally speaking, the ratio of 2:3 is a proper ratio. Sometimes the ratio 2:1 may be suitable for a Flag flying on a building. Whatever the ratio may be, the point is not so much the relative length and breadth, but the essential design.


4.28.17
Jawaharlal Nehru
So, Sir, now I would present to you not only the Resolution but the Flag itself.


4.28.18
Jawaharlal Nehru
There are two of these National Flags before you. One is on silk--the one I am holding--and the other on the other side is of cotton Khadi.


4.28.19
Jawaharlal Nehru
I beg to move this Resolution. (Cheers.)


4.28.20
President
I have got notice of three amendments to this Resolution.


4.28.21
Many Honourable Members
No, no.


4.28.22
Mr. H. V Kamath
Mr. President, Sir, my amendment reads as follows:

"That the following new para. be inserted in the motion:

"That inside the Chakra in the centre of the white band, the swastika, the ancient Indian symbol of Shantam, Shivam, Sundaram, be inscribed'."


4.28.23
Mr. H. V Kamath
When I sent in the amendment, I had not seen the design of the Flag. There were at that time two or three, considerations uppermost in my mind. I thought that this Flag, being the Flag of our new Indian Republic, of Bharatavarsha, should adequately symbolise our ancient culture, the culture of our spirit, the spirit which has animated our sages and our seers, which gave the message of Shantam, Shivam, Sundaram to the world, the message of peace, the peace not merely of stillness, not merely a passive peace, but a dynamic peace thatpasseth all understanding, the peace of which the great Valmiki has sung (Samudraiva gambirye dhairyecha himavaniva). I thought, Sir, if the Swastika be inscribed inside the Chakra it would along with the Dharma Chakra of Asoka fittingly symbolise our ancient culture, that is to say, the exoteric and esoteric aspects of our culture. The Dharma Chakra symbolises the esoteric and the Swastika symbolises the esoteric aspects. But, Sir, I have now seen the flag and I find that it is somewhat hard to fit the Swastika into this Chakra. It would look cumbersome because of the design of the Chakra. The Chakra symbolises the Dharma Chakra or the Wheel of the Law, the Wheel of Samsara which revolves on these eternal verities ofShantam, Shivam, Sundaram. These verities sustain the Samsara and in them we as part of that universe live and move and have our being. Pandit Nehru referred to our role as peace-makers and peace-bringers. That is certainly true. India's role has been that from years sempiternal, from the beginning of time. In the words of Swami Vivekananda, we have never dipped our hands in the neighbour's blood, our embattled cohorts have never marched into other lands for conquest, and we have always been the harbingers of peace and the makers of peace in this war-torn, war-weary world. Mr. President, Sir, after having seen the design of this Flag, I do see that it is difficult to fit the Swastika in, much as I would like to see it fitted in. It would make it rather clumsy and cumbersome. In these circumstances, I do not press this amendment and beg leave of the House to withdraw it.


4.28.24
President
Mr. Tajamul Husain.


4.28.25
Honourable Members
He is not present.


4.28.26
President
Dr. Deshmukh.


4.28.27
Dr. P. S. Deshmukh
Mr. President, Sir, after such an impressive and emotional speech by Pandit Nehru one hesitates to say or add anything that may be interpreted or considered to take away from its effect. We always respect his words and on a somewhat sentimental question like this, our respect approaches adoration. I have some very strong grounds on which my amendment was based. It is not in any way or sense discordant with the speech to which we have just listened. My idea was essentially based on the retention of the tricolour absolutely intact with the charkha retained as it is--charkha which is the emblem of Ahimsa and the common toiling man associated so inseparably with the acquisition of our political freedom, and the name of Mahatma Gandhi. But in view of the fact that the House would rather stick to the Flag that has been proposed I do not wish to move the amendment, although I still feel that my idea has much in it to recommend itself.


4.28.28
President
Mr. Shibbanlal Saksena had given notice of an amendment to the above amendment of Dr. Deshmukh but since that amendment itself has not been moved, no question of this amendment to the amendment being moved arises. Now we shall discuss the Resolution.


4.28.29
Jawaharlal Nehru
Mr. President, I have come here to support the resolution moved by Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru. I consider this day a landmark in the history of India. Today, Independent India is displaying her national flag. Everyone who has taken part in the struggle for freedom during the last twenty-seven years is today reminded like Panditji of the events during that period. We were unarmed and helpless and had no resources for achieving independence. But the way in which this battle of freedom has been fought and victory achieved has no parallel, not only in the history of India but also in the history of the world. Today we are achieving the victory for which we were trying for the last so many years. We are also reminded of those who came forward so many times to pull down this flag, to trample it and to set fire to it. But when Truth and Justice were with us, it was altogether impossible to trample it and to finish it in that way. After twenty-seven years we have been able to prove to the world that even an unarmed nation with no resources at its command, can achieve freedom, if it follows the path of Justice and Truth.


4.28.30
Jawaharlal Nehru
Today. I am reminded of the day when in 1922, Pandit Motilal Nehru came to Jubbulpore for the first time. I am a resident of Jubbulpore. That was the first time when this flag was displayed in India. At that time it had three colours--red, white and green. It was a tricolour no doubt. At that time, this flag was hoisted over the Town Hall of Jubbulpore for the first time in India. Who is not reminded of Pandit Motilal on seeing Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru? At that time a question was raised in the House of Commons as to how this flag was hoisted over a public hall and the Prime Minister of Great Britain assured the house that no event of the sort would be repeated in India in future. But I am pleased to find today that the flag which was hoisted for the first time twenty-five years ago in Jubbulpore, my home town, will now be unfurled over every public building there. It will be a matter of pride for everyone in India.


4.28.31
Seth Govind Das
There is no touch of communalism in the three colours of the flag. [Panditji has already told you this in the course of his speech. It is true that at a time when the colours were red, white and green there was a trace of communalism in the flag. But when we change these colours to saffron, white and green, we declared it in clear words that the three colours had no communal significance. At that time, we also made it clear as to what these colours signified. Those who have been maddened by Communalism today, should not take this flag to be a communal flag. You see that it has the Asoka chakra in the middle. Panditji told you what a great place Asoka has in our history. After the battle of Kalinga, Asoka tried to unite the whole world with love and he achieved such success that the historians not only of this country but also of the whole world admit that there has been no Emperor like Asoka in the world. Mr. H. G. Wells writes in his History of the World that while the rest of the Emperors led a bloody life, Asoka alone tried to unite the world with love.


4.28.32
Seth Govind Das
When we see the colours of our flag we should keep in mind other things also. I want to tell those who say that the saffron colour represents Hindus, that it is wrong to say so. No doubt at one time it was the colour of the Hindus. During the regime of the Peshwas it was the colour of the Hindus. In their fights for freedom, Rajputs used saffron dress and saffron ensign. But if we go more remote into the past, we will have to accept that saffron was not the colour of these times. You may be knowing that in the times of Mahabharata there was no question of colour. The flag flying over the chariot of Arjun had the symbol of Hanuman. Karna's flag had the symbol of the elephant. Therefore to describe any colour as the ancientcolour of the Hindus is historically wrong. I say that it is natural that the flag under which we fought the battle of freedom during the last twenty-seven years and have now achieved independence, should be our national flag. I am pained to see that at present, some people maddened with communalism are bringing about such events, which I am confident, after sometime when sense will dawn upon them, will make them very much ashamed of themselves. Only day before yesterday a meeting was held in Delhi regarding Hindi. The motion that Hindi should be the national language and Devanagari script the national script, was to be moved in the meeting. Pandemonium prevailed in the meeting and national flags were removed from cars and thrown away. I say that to be mad with communalism and to do such things and to insult the flag in this way is an insult to the whole nation. Human beings live in this country and not gods and they have the three dispositions of "Satvaguna, Rajoguna and Tamoguna" ('goodness, passion and dullness'). If such incidents occur, peace, righteousness and happiness of which this flag is the symbol, will disappear from this land. Therefore I warn these people, who are mad with communalism that they should not do such things. As regards the green colour, there was a time when this was the colour of the flag of the war of Independence. I would remind you of the war of Independence of 1857. At that time, the colour of our flag was green and under it we fought that battle. It was at that time not the colour of Muslims alone or of Hindus but of all those who fought the war of Independence. Therefore nothing is more painful than to be against any particular colour and that too at a time when the whole of India is becoming independent and this flag will be hoisted everywhere in the country. We have styled this flag as a world-conqueror and have spoken of its conquest of the world with love. We want to conquer the world with non-violence and love. This is its symbol. When we will have done that, we will have fulfilled our pledge. I support this resolution with all my heart.


4.28.33
Jawaharlal Nehru
Mr. President, Sir, I appear before you today to support the Resolution so ably moved by our great national leader PanditJawaharlal Nehru who had a lion's share in the freedom struggle of this great country.


4.28.34
Shri V. I. Muniswami Pillai
Sir, he has explained to us the significance of this Flag which is to be held and defended by the millions of the inhabitants that live In this great country. It is not to be the Flag of the rich or the wealthy but it is to be the Flag of the depressed, oppressed and submerged classes all over our country.


4.28.35
Shri V. I. Muniswami Pillai
Sir, I particularly welcome the introduction of the wheel in the centre. Mahatma Gandhi gave us the great mantra that lies in the matter of the Charkha. Those of us who have taken to Charkha feel proud today after so many centuries of political struggle in this country, that it has been possible to bring a Flag for this country which was lacking all these centuries.


4.28.36
Shri V. I. Muniswami Pillai
I also welcome the introduction of the Sarnath Lion Capital of Asoka. Asoka, coming as he did after the great Buddhist order, has given us the great Panchaseelam, above all, sympathy for humanity.


4.28.37
Shri V. I. Muniswami Pillai
The Harijan classes and all those communities who are in the lowest rung of the ladder of society, feel that the constitution which is on the anvil of this supreme body is going ofbring solace to the millions of the submerged classes. The principle of Buddha who exhibited practically his great sympathy for suffering human beings, I am sure, Sir, will be practically carried out after accepting this great Flag.


4.28.38
Shri V. I. Muniswami Pillai
With these words, I support the Resolution.


4.28.39
Chaudhri Khaliquzzaman
Mr. President I support the resolution moved by Pandit Nehru (Cheers). I think that from today everyone, who regards himself as a citizen of India--be he a Muslim, Hindu or Christian,--will as a citizen make all sacrifices to uphold and maintain the honour of the flag which is accepted and passed as the flag of India (Cheers). I do not wish to narrate again history which is wrong. I want that all of us should forget the past and should oust from our minds the old things. Therefore, I hope that the majority too shall forget the past. All of us should make a fresh history of India from today in which everyone, who has got sincerity, dignity and interest in the reconstruction of the country and the nation, may join hands. I know that a flag to look at, is simply a piece of cloth but a country's flag symbolises its ideals and its aspirations, both moral and spiritual. I feel happy that none, who calls himself a citizen of India, can have occasion to disagree with the speech of Pandit Nehru in support of the flag. Therefore, I think that from whatever angle, we may view it, the step taken today will only strengthen the foundations of India. Every Muslim, Hindu and Christian will feel proud in hoisting this flag throughout the length and breadth of India, and he shall honour it (Cheers). With these words I support the motion.


4.28.40
Jawaharlal Nehru
Mr. President, Sir I do not wish to say very much after the very eloquent way in which Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru presented this Flag and the Resolution to you. The Flag links up the past and the present. It is the legacy bequeathed to us by the architects of our liberty. Those who fought under this Flag are mainly responsible for the arrival of this great day of Independence for India. Pandit Jawaharlal has pointed out to you that it is not a day of joy unmixed with sorrow. The Congress fought for unity and liberty. The unity has been compromised; liberty too. I feel, has been compromised, unless we are able to face the tasks which now confront us with courage, strength and vision. What is essential to-day is to equip ourselves with new strength and with new character if these difficulties are to be overcome and if the country is to achieve the great ideal of unity and liberty which it fought for. Times are hard. Everywhere we are consumed by fantasies. Our minds are haunted by myths. The world is full of misunderstandings, suspicions and distrusts. In these difficult days it depends on us under what banner we fight. Here we are Putting in the very centre the white, the white of the Sun's rays. The white means the path of light. There is darkness even at noon as some People have urged, but it is necessary for us to dissipate these clouds of darkness and control our conduct by the ideal light, the light of truth, of transparent simplicity which is illustrated by the colour of white.


4.28.41
Sir S. Radhakrishnan
We cannot attain purity, we cannot gain our goal of truth, unless we walk in the path of virtue. The Asoka's wheel represents to us the wheel of the Law, the wheel Dharma. Truth can be gained only by the pursuit of the path of Dharma, by the practice of virtue. Truth,--Satya, Dharma--Virtue, these ought to be the controlling principles of all those who work under this Flag. It also tells us that the Dharma is something which is perpetually moving. If this country has suffered in the recent past, it is due to our resistance to change. There are ever so many challenges hurled at us and if we have not got the courage and the strength to move along with the times, we will be left behind. There are ever so many institutions which are worked into our social fabric like caste and untouchability. Unless these things are scrapped we cannot say that we either seek truth or practise virtue. This wheel which is a rotating thing, which is a perpetually revolving thing, indicates to us that there is death in stagnation. There is life in movement. Our Dharma is Sanatana, eternal, not in the sense that it is a fixed deposit but in the sense that it is perpetually changing. Its uninterrupted continuity is its Sanatana character. So even with regard to our social conditions it is essential for us to move forward.


4.28.42
Sir S. Radhakrishnan
The red, the orange, the Bhagwa colour represents the spirit of renunciation it is said:

(Sarve tyage rajadharmesu drsta).

4.28.43
Sir S. Radhakrishnan
All forms of renunciation are to be embodied in Raja Dharma. Philosophers must be Kings. Our leaders must be disinterested. They must be dedicated spirits. They must be people who are imbued with the spirit of renunciation which that saffron, colour has transmitted to us from the beginning of our history. That stands for the fact that the World belongs not to the wealthy, not to the prosperous but to the meek and the humble, the dedicated and the detached. That spirit of detachment that spirit of renunciation is represented by the orange or the saffron colour and Mahatma Gandhi has embodied it for us in his life and the Congress has worked under his guidance and with his message. If we are not imbued with that spirit of renunciation in these difficult days, we will again go under.


4.28.44
Sir S. Radhakrishnan
The green is there--our relation to the soil, our relation to the plant life here on which all other life depends. We must build our Paradise here on this green earth. If we are to succeed in this enterprise, we must be guided by truth (white), practice virtue (wheel), adopt the method of self-control and renunciation (saffron). This Flag tells us 'Be ever alert, be ever on the move, go forward, work for a free, flexible compassionate, decent, democratic, society in which Christians, Sikhs, Moslems, Hindus, Buddhists will all find a safe shelter.'


4.28.45
Sir S. Radhakrishnan
Thank you. (Loud cheers).


4.28.46
Dr. Mohan Sinha Mehta
Mr. President, Sir, as I had listened from my seat to the great speech which was delivered by our great leader on a great subject, the first thought that rose in my mind was that there should be no more speeches on that subject and that the Resolution should be adopted unanimously from every section of the House by acclamation. But since it was not to be and some speeches were made--fortunately no amendments are being considered--I ventured to come up here and say a few words in support of the Resolution.


4.28.47
Jawaharlal Nehru
Sir, I should like to say that the proposal which has been put before us has the support of the Indian States also. (Cheers). One of our representatives, a distinguished Prime Minister, participated in the deliberations of the Committee which has brought this proposal before you through Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru.


4.28.48
Dr. Mohan Sinha Mehta
Sir, this is a historic occasion when free India is going to adopt a National Flag and I wish you to understand that a very large majority of the Indian States in India are and remain an integral part of India. (Cheers)


4.28.49
Jawaharlal Nehru
Sir, when I was listening to Pandit Nehru's speech from my seat, I felt he symbolised to me in my vision the subject of the Resolution which he was moving, the sombre background of the panels of this room and Pandit Nehru in his spotless white. Knowing Pandit Nehru as we do, I am sure I am not exaggerating when I say that he in his figure represented the significance of the subject-matter of this Resolution.


4.28.50
Dr. Mohan Sinha Mehta
Sir, as he explained to us the contents of the Flag, and its design, especially when he was coming to the Chakra of Asoka's column, I thought he would also refer to it as symbolisingthe participation of the Indian States in the Indian Union. For the first time, Sir, after a long, long time, we will have India ruled for India and by Indians. Again Pandit Nehru symbolisesthis also--the symbol of self-rule. But you will pardon my saying that in a large part of India which you colour yellow on the map the ideal of self-rule was maintained by the Indian States. Please do not analyse this proposition on the basis of political philosophy. When we are discussing the Flag of India we are not discussing abstract doctrines or political practices, but primarily things which are symbolic, things of sentiment. Am I far wrong in saying that the Chakra of Asoka represents the Indian States, because since the time of Asoka theGreat, the whole country has not been under Indian rule, ruled by Indians for Indians? At any rate, some of us would like to look upon it with that sentiment. I am, therefore, speaking here not only on my own behalf, but also on behalf of a large number of States; I have not consulted them, but I am sure they will agree with me when I say that this Flag whether it is flying over a building in India or on the high seas in foreign waters, this Flag would represent the combined sentiments of the Union of India, irrespective of what places of worship we go to, irrespective of the difference in our names and nomenclatures; we are all Indians and this is our Flag.


4.28.51
Dr. Mohan Sinha Mehta
Sir, I wholeheartedly support the Resolution.


4.28.52
Jawaharlal Nehru
Mr. President, Sir, I am sorry that some controversy has been created about the Resolution which was so admirably moved by PanditJawaharlal Nehru about the question of the consideration of the Indian Flag. Some gentlemen suggested that there should be some variation in the colours represented on this Flag. Some wanted that the.......... (Hon'ble Members: "No, no".) Very well.


4.28.53
Jawaharlal Nehru
While appreciating the motive which has actuated these gentlemen in making this representation, yet, speaking for myself, I say that so far as this Flag is concerned, it is the best Flag and I do endorse whatever Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru has said this morning while sponsoring this Resolution.


4.28.54
Jawaharlal Nehru
Sir, the white, the saffron and the green colours, signify renunciation, purity or sacrifice. Great spiritual significance is attached to them. These colours are venerated by all persons, whether they are Hindus, or Muslims, Christians or Parsis. The Chakra which is there in the centre of the Flag symbolises motion, progress and advancement and from aesthetic and other considerations also, it suits the genius, tradition and culture of India. As was said by Chaudhuri Khaliquzzaman, it is a Flag which deserves the respect of everybody who lives and has his being in India. With these words, Sir, I have very great pleasure in supporting the Resolution sponsored by Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru.


4.28.55
Mr. Satyanarayan Sinha
I suggest, Sir, that the question be now put.


4.28.56
Honourable Members
The question may be put.


4.28.57
President
I have got the names of some twenty-five speakers here because it is an occasion on which everyone would like to express himself. But I think it is not necessary to carry on the debate any further, because we have heard from members all that could be said. I would, therefore, put the closure motion to vote.


4.28.58
Mr. Tajamul Husain
Sir, before closure is applied, I would like to submit that more speeches should be allowed, because on an occasion like this everybody should be given the opportunity to express his thoughts.


4.28.59
Mr. R. K. Sidhwa
Sir, this is a memorable day and the opportunity to express himself should be given to everyone who wishes to speak.


4.28.60
Rai Bahadur Syamanandan Sahaya
Sir, it is not every day that we will be adopting a National Flag for the country and as such it is but proper that if a few more members want to speak to-day they should be allowed to do so.


4.28.61
Pandit Govind Malaviya
Sir, let us have the whole of today as the Flag day.


4.28.62
President
I am entirely in the hands of the House; if you do not want more speeches, I shall stop here, but if members want more opportunities to speak I shall proceed in the order in which I have got the names here with me.


4.28.63
Shri Balkrishna Sharma
We want to hear the old mother.


4.28.64
Mr. Tajamul Husain
We would like to hear the "Bul-bule Hind."


4.28.65
President
I will call upon her at the end. I am sure it will be the sweetest speech and we should, according to our old custom, end with sweets. (Cheers).


4.28.66
President
Mr. Saadulla may now speak.


4.28.67
Jawaharlal Nehru
Mr. President, Sir, my intervention in this debate was not at all necessary, in view of the very learned and able speech of PanditJawaharlal Nehru and speeches from other quarters. The reason for my standing before you is that I want to make perfectly clear our position. The Muslim members who are in this House in spite of the fact that you have extended to them "swagatam" on the very first day, are looked upon by some members with distrust and attempts were made to debar us from participating in this August Assembly unless we disclaim certain opinions we hold. I have seen in the press certain references that the Muslim members in this Constituent Assembly are unwanted, and some papers had gone to the length of saying that the Muslim members here will be fifth columnists and saboteurs of the Constitution. I am very glad that the Resolution of Pandit Nehru gives us a chance of belying these aspersions and removing distrust by proclaiming from the housetops our allegiance to the Union of India where by accident of residence and birth we happen to be. It the injunction of Islam, emphasized by instructions from League High Command and leaders, that wherever we be we must be good and loyal to the government which functions there. Acting on the principle I salute the Flag which has been presented to the House by Pandit Nehru.


4.28.68
Saiyid Mohammad Saadulla
In my opinion the Flag symbolises the evolution of our aspirations, the fulfillment of our struggles and the ultimate result of all our sacrifices. If I may be permitted to draw an analogy from nature, the saffron represents the condition of the earth, the scorched condition caused by the torrid heat of the Indian Sun. When the crystal-clear white raindrops and the water from the snow-capped mountains and rivers comes down we get out and areas converted into smiling green fields the crops of which sustain us and conduce to the growth of the people. Similarly we had in our political struggle our scorched earth days but later on came our days of hope and today this Flag unfurled in this House has brought us to the culminating point, the desiderata of our past struggles. I am glad, Sir, that the Flag remains as it is and that the amendments proposed were not moved, for India is represented in the different colours of this Flag. India is very well noted for her spiritual attainments. Everywhere it is admitted that India has got a great spiritual message to send out to the different countries of the world. The saffron, as is well known, is the colour of all those people who live the spiritual life not only among Hindus but also among Muslims. Therefore the saffroncolour should remind us that we should keep ourselves on that high plane of renunciation which has been the realm of our Sadhus and saints, Pirs and Pandits. I therefore welcome the inclusion of this colour in the Flag.


4.28.69
Saiyid Mohammad Saadulla
Next I come to the white portion. White both among Hindus and Muslims is the emblem of purity. In congratulate the High Command of the Indian National Congress that by a bold stroke of imagination they took up the white cap as the symbol of their creed. The presence of the white portion in this Flag should remind everyone who takes it up that we must be pure not only in word but also in deed. Purity should be the motto of our life,--individually as well as in connection with the State.


4.28.70
Saiyid Mohammad Saadulla
Lastly, Sir, green reminds me of the fact that it was the emblem of the upsurge of India's freedom. Green was the emblem of the Flag which was raised by Bahadur Shah in 1857. But it has more than a sentimental or symbolical value to us Muslims because green was the colour of the Flag of the Muslims from the time of the great Prophet of Arabia thirteen centuries ago. Some may regret that the Charkha which was the emblem of the masses has been replaced by the Dharma chakra of Asoka. But I consider that it was really a heaven-born inspiration of the authorities that this Chakra now takes the place of the Charkha. Although the Charkha was the emblem of our self-help and of our approach to the common masses and was embodied in our activities by the message of the Mahatma, yet towards the later stage the ideal of Charkha had been polluted, the instruction or inspiration of Mahatma Gandhi had been deviated from and those who wore the Charkha which was the symbol of non-violence were most violent in their actions which at one time Pandit Nehru had at great personal risk to assuage. The Dharma chakra of Asoka reminds us of the condition of the people at the time of that great Buddhist Emperor of India. He ruled not for his personalaggrandisement but for the contentment, peace and prosperity of the people under his charge. This emblem now embodied in our National Flag ought to remind every administrator and every citizen of the federation of India that we should forget the past and look to the future and try to carry on the tradition of that great Buddhist Emperor Asoka, and we should be reminded at all times that we are here not only for our material prosperity but also for our spiritual advancement. This Chakra was a religious emblem and we cannot dissociate our social life from our religious environments.


4.28.71
Saiyid Mohammad Saadulla
Sir, with these few words not only on behalf of myself but also as Deputy Leader of the Muslim League Party and as an old inhabitant of the furthest and the smallest province of the Indian Union, Assam, I salute this Flag as a symbol of India's freedom.


4.28.72
Dr. H. C. Mookherjee
Mr. President, ever since the Indian Christian community became conscious of the fact that it was fundamentally an Indian community, its great leaders in the past have always fully identified themselves with the Indian Nationalism. I need only remind those, who do me the honour of listening to me, of the name of the late Kaka Baptist of Bombay, of the late K C. Bannerjee of Bengal, of the late Bishop Chidambaram of the United Provinces and the late Dr. S. K. Dutta of Punjab. These names are only a few out of the many I could quote to prove that we have all along identified ourselves fully with Indian Nationalism. From one point of view we have been misunderstood. It has been held that because we profess Christianity,--essentially an Asiatic religion,--and because we have certain contacts with foreign missions, therefore the Indian Christian community has what is known as Christian mentality. It is not so and I stand here to say that it is an incorrect idea. It is a misconception and I want it to be clearly understood that today I on behalf of my community, am pledging our allegiance once more to the Flag.


4.28.73
Jawaharlal Nehru
To me it seems significant that some of the workers very closely associated with the Congress are Indian Christians and I am sure my friends will bear testimony to the fact that we too have produced leaders who have fully identified themselves with Indian Nationalism. We owe our allegiance to the Flag, not only because we are Indian Christians, but because we have been always well treated in the past by the Indian National Congress. In fact it would be no exaggeration to suggest that we have been better treated by the Indian National Congress than by those with whom we are affiliated from the standpoint of religion. I take this opportunity of reminding the Hon'ble Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru of an occasion which happened in 1938 when I had been called to the Punjab by Dr. S. K. Dutta to do a little service in connection with a function at the Forman Christian College. At that time the University Union at Allahabad had arranged for an address by me on Prohibition and they insisted that I should speak on this subject because shortly before that I had visited Salem in Madras through the kind offices of Rajaji. Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru] had agreed to preside over the function, but had forgotten the subject on which I was expected to speak. At his request, first of all I explained my ideas about the duties of minorities when asked by him to put before the audience our views regarding the minority question. He was to have left for Delhi within half an hour, but he forgot everything about it and in consequence missed the train. After I had spoken, Pandit Nehru told me that what the community had stood for would be remembered by the Indian National Congress when it came to power. Within three or four days I received reports of a certain case of injustice suffered by Indian Christians in some villages. I went to the villages and found out that the charges were true. I placed before Pandit Nehru the information which I gathered and in seven days' time the whole matter was settled. In that way our religious liberties were restored.


4.28.74
Dr. H. C. Mookherjee
May I in this connection mention another occasion when we received prompt help from the Congress? When I was in Madras, the Principal of the Physical Education College atSaidapet, Dr. Beck, told me that he had immense difficulties in getting land for the Madras College of Physical Education. As soon as Rajaji came to power he granted us even more land than we had wanted within a short time. These are the services that we have received from the Congress. This not only because we are in sympathy with the objectives of the Congress but also because of good treatment we have identified ourselves with the Congress. Once more I, repeat that the Indian Christians owe allegiance to the National Flag.


4.28.75
Jawaharlal Nehru
Mr. President, Sir, the Honourable Mover of this motion Pandit Nehru, said that he felt it a proud privilege to move this Motion and present this Flag to this House. Sir, it is not the proud privilege of only Hon'ble Pandit Nehru today, but it is the proud privilege of the whole Nation to see this Flag round which the people have struggled hard to win freedom has become an accomplished fact, that the National Flag hereafter shall be an officially recognised Flag. While our young and old men and women and children hoisted this Flag on private houses and public buildings, the British bureaucracy in India pulled it down and trampled it under their feet. Notwithstanding that, our countrymen took up, that very Flag and hoisted it on the very building from which it had been pulled down. While doing so they strictly followed the doctrine given to us by Mahatma Gandhi to carry on the struggle in a non-violent way. Mahatma Gandhi enjoined upon us to be non-violent in word, thought and deed. I must admit, Sir, while it has not been possible to follow non-violence in word and thought, I along, with millions of Indians have strictly followed the principle of nonviolence while fighting the battle against the British bureaucracy in India. Through that non-violent struggle we have been able to achieve our cherished goal today. On the Flag problem, a popular slogan went round, ''Up, up with the National Flag; down, down with the Union Jack''. We do not mean disrespect to any Nation's Flag, but we considered the hoisting of the British Flag here, a symbol of slavery. On 15th August this Flag which has been presented to us today will be hoisted on this August Assembly, on the great magnificent Secretariat Buildings and I may also say, Sir, on the Viceregal Lodge. (Cheers). And the Union Jack will be respectfully, slowly and solemnly brought down. Undoubtedly, on that day, the National Flag will be hoisted all over India and it will be saluted by everyone.


4.28.76
Mr. R. K. Sidhwa
Sir, the first National Flag, I should say the Swaraj Flag, was hoisted in 1911 at the Indian National Congress Session held at Calcutta by that great President, by that great congressman, by that great Indian Patriot who was one of the founders of the Indian National Congress and, may I say, the prime mover for the formation of the Congress, the lateDadabhai Naoroji. That flag I have seen in the picture I have got it in my house. It is not the same Flag as we see here today. I now remember what that great leader said on the occasion of hoisting that Flag in Calcutta in 1911.


4.28.77
President
I did not want to interrupt the speaker. But he is mistaken in regard to the year. It was 1906 and not 1911.


4.28.78
Mr. R. K. Sidhwa
Thank you, Sir. While hoisting the Flag he said: 'I present this Flag. Under this Flag we should fight our battles.' Sir, this Flag has since changed in design and now it has been officially recognised as the Flag of the Nation. We shall all salute it. It will remain firmly and solidly till eternity wherever it is flown.


4.28.79
Jawaharlal Nehru
Mr. President as I listened to Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, I thought no speech would be necessary, but since various groups in this House have severally tried to acknowledge their acceptance of and allegiance to the Flag which we are going to adopt as the National Flag of this country. I thought I would also say a few words on behalf of the 30 million Adivasis, the real owners of this country, the original sons of the soil, the most ancient aristocracy of India, who have been fighting for freedom for the last six thousand years. On behalf of these my people, I have great pleasure in acknowledging this Flag as the Flag of our country in future. Sir, most of the members of this House are inclined to think that flag hoisting is the privilege of the Aryan civilised. Sir, the Adivasis had been the first to hoist flags and to fight for their flags. Members who come from the so-called province of Bihar, will support me when I say that, year after year, in the melas, jatras and festivals in Chota Nagpur, whenever various tribes with their flags enter the arena, each tribe must come into jatra by a definite route by only one route and no other tribe may enter the mela by the same route. Each village has its own flag and that flag cannot be copied by any other tribe. If any one dared challenge that flag, Sir, I can assure you that that particular tribe would shed its last drop of blood in defending the honour of that flag. Hereafter, there will be two Flags, one Flag which has been here for the past six thousand years, and the other will be this National Flag which is the symbol of our freedom as PanditJawaharlal Nehru has put it. This National Flag will give a new message to the Adivasis of India that their struggle for freedom for the last six thousand years is at last over, that they will now be as free as any other in this country. I have great pleasure, Sir, in accepting and acknowledging on behalf of the Adivasis of India the Flag that has been presented to us byPandit Jawaharlal Nehru.


4.28.80
Frank Anthony
Mr. President, Sir, as listened to the very eloquent speech of Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru in introducing and commending this Flag, I thought that it was a sufficient seal to the solemnity of the occasion. But since the understandable feelings and enthusiasms of members have led to the making of several speeches, I felt that I should say a few words. I had the privilege of serving in the Committee which finalised the form and shape of this Flag. It was made clear there that this Flag did not contain any communal motives or significance. While we have retained essentially the banner under which the fight for India's freedom was fought and brought to consummation, the Flag as hoisted today has certain qualities and motives which should be cherished by every nation that treads the path of progress and freedom. I believe sincerely that this is really a beautiful Flag in its physical aspect and also in its motives. Today this Flag is the Flag of the Nation. It is not the Flag of any particular community, it is the Flag of all Indians. I believe that while this is a symbol of our past it inspires us for the future. This Flag flies today as the Flag of the Nation, it should be the duty and privilege of every Indian not only to cherish and and live under it but if necessary, to die for it.


4.28.81
Jawaharlal Nehru
Mr. President, I feel that after the speech of such great men as Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru and Sir Radhakrishnan, who have so brilliantly interpreted the colours of the flag I need not say much. I have stood up only with the idea of associating myself with those sentiments. The sacrifices made for this flag and in the cause of the country's freedom have been pathetically narrated by Pandit Nehru in his own inimitable style. Under this Flag, my community mustered around the Indian National Congress and contributed its utmost to those sacrifices, I think no one shall be happier than the Sikhs to see those sacrifices flowering and bearing fruit today. But there is one thing and that is unavoidable that flowers are never without thorns. At this hour of happiness, I feel that many of my brethren, who were one with us at the time of making sacrifices could not now be here with us to share our happiness. It may happen sometimes that a thorn is useful in heightening the beauty and charm of the flower. I am only trying to give vent to emotions which fill my heart at the thought as to how many sacrifices we had to make to see this flag up in the air. We have reached the position today that we can install our flag wherever we like, Now it is equally incumbent upon us to maintain the dignity of this fluttering Flag. Perhaps at times we may have to make the same sacrifices to keep it aloft as we have had to achieve it. Therefore, I promise on behalf of my Sikh community that they shall continue to make sacrifices for upholding the honour and dignity of the flag with the samevigour, daring and fearlessness, as they have shown in the cause of the country's freedom. With these words, I support the Resolution moved by Panditji.


4.28.82
Jawaharlal Nehru
Mr. President, I support the Resolution on this flag as moved by the Honourable Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru. You know what great Sacrifices have been made by us to maintain the honour of this Flag in this country; and how many sacrificed their lives got their children trampled were killed and destroyed. The British Empire used all their power to destroy this Flag, but we the inhabitants of this country always cherished and adored it This Flag, under which we find Free India and which we wish to hoist, over Free India, is the Same Flag which even today gives us strength to free ourselves.


4.28.83
Mr. H. J. Khandekar
This Flag has three colours. One is saffron which is related to our own community. I belong to the depressed classes and I Wish to remind you that where Shivaji was in power and when a chance of freeing this Country and establishing a Hindu Raj arose our community sacrificed lacs of persons under this saffron banner. For example, the Iron Pillar of SidhanathMahar in Koragaon reminds us of that age even today.


4.28.84
Mr. H. J. Khandekar
Here is the Flag. It has three colours. The first one is related to my community. The second colour which is white denotes peace and tranquillity and indicates unity amongst all the communities in this country and for this reason this Flag represents every religion and every language in the country. As the President of the All India Depressed Classes Union, I wish to give this assurance before the House that my community shall always follow the Flag which we are adopting today. With these words, I support the Resolution on the Flag on behalf of my own self and community as a whole. If the honour of the Flag, maintained by us even up to this day is a besmirched any time, my Community along with other inhabitants of the country will sacrifice themselves to save the honour of the Flag. With these words I beg to support the Resolution.


4.28.85
Jawaharlal Nehru
Mr. President, Sir, when my leader Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru has expressed such lofty sentiments today on this occasion, I myself thought no speech should be delivered after that. But the conventions prevailed and members of every group have expressed their ideas, here. On the suggestion of my elders, I also submitted my name to the President and wish to express myself briefly before you today.


4.28.86
Jawaharlal Nehru
This day, the day of moving this resolution by Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, is a day of congratulations our country and its history. When I was listening to the speech of Pandit Nehru, I felt as we had finished one part of our Journey and were beginning the next. Now, when the first part of our journey comes to a close, we feel obliged to look back. In the history of the last twenty years, a great man, born amongst us, has so melodiously and artistically harmonized our life that it would be ingratitude on our part, it we do not bow to him. It is not possible to enumerate in this short time, what Mahatma Gandhi has given us and contributed towards our national life and what is being given by him to us even now. But if you take a little trouble and go back to the circumstances prevailing 27 and 28 years ago, you will find what great progress has been made, in our country through the efforts of the world's greatest leader. There was a time when Congress was merely passing resolutions and assembling for three days during Christmas and it considered that its duty ended there. When Mahatma Gandhi said that we would not get independence by passing resolutions, and that strength was necessary to obtain rights, the nation looked at him inbewilderment and thought the he had gone mad. The message of gaining strength for a nation without arms appeared to be a mad idea in the history of the world. The world thought of only one way as means of attaining national rights and that was the way of violence. Should we not remember today that development of mass consciousness in the country, which was carried out by Mahatma Gandhi by non-violent methods? It appealed to the people and they organised. I think that it was the greatest gift of Mahatma Gandhi that he changed a mere resolution-passing Congress into a fighting body. His second great gift to our country was that the Congress which worked only for three days (in a year) was changed into a permanent organisation. His third great gift is of a national language. We used to express ourselves in a foreign language. Mahatma Gandhi by offering us Hindi as a National language, gave us a chance to feel and awaken our national sentiments. One of those boons is that of the Flag which has been offered by him to this country. Thus centralising the collective strength of our country in the form of this flag, he inspired us to proceed and march on the way to sacrifice. Today, on behalf of all of us, I offer my homage at the feet of this great man.


4.28.87
Jawaharlal Nehru
When Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru wag addressing us, I looked at him and felt what had been done by this great man to our country. How much idealism have we attained through him and how much sense of service and devotion have we imbibed through him? On behalf of you all, I offer my respects to Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru and Mahatmaji. When I was listening to his speech, I felt that one part of the journey is coming to an end. An idea crept in my mind that now we have to see what next we have to do. Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru interprets theChakra in the centre of our National Flag as an indication of movement. It reminds me of the old message which I had read in Brihadaranyaka Upanished "Remaining asleep is Kaliyug, opening of eyes is Dwapar getting up is Treta and moving about is Satyayug". Today Pandit Jawaharlal after giving us the message of motion in the form of this chakra, is once again taking us to Satyayug. Upanishad writers say: "Charaiveti, Charaivet" Bhagwan Buddha himself has said "Charaiveti Khihave Charaiveti". "Go on, endeavouring continually, go on again and again, there is no place for rest." On behalf of the congressmen today, may I give this assurance to our leader Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru "Dear Captain! Under your leadership we shall try to follow you with all our strength."


4.28.88
Shri Balkrishna Sharma
Today on this occasion I salute the National Flag and pray to God that a new era may dawn upon this country, a new earth and a new sky may be formed in this country which may be able to give a message of eternal peace to the entire human world from under this Flag.


4.28.89
Jawaharlal Nehru
Mr. President, Sir, when I came here today I had not the slightest idea that we would speak anything about this Flag. But when Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, the beloved leader of the country, made his speech, a wave of joy enthusiasm arose in our hearts and we felt a desire to pay our tribute to the National Flag on this solemn and auspicious occasion. Thus, Sir, I also sought your permission to speak a few words.


4.28.90
Pandit Govind Malaviya
The importance of a national flag does not depend on its colour, its bands or its other parts. The flag as a whole, is important and other things--the colours etc., that it contains--are immaterial. The flag may be of a piece of white cloth of any other insignificant material but when it is accepted as a National Flag, it becomes the emblem of national self-respect. It becomes an expression of the sense of freedom a nation. It becomes its dearest object. For the last 27 years this tricolour flag has been uppermost in our thoughts and imagination. We have made numerous sacrifices for the freedom of India with this flag in our hands. As I have already stated, when a flag or any other thing is accepted by a nation as its ensign, it becomes the dearest object of the nation and assumes the most important and the highest place in the life and history of that nation. This, our Flag, has been the symbol of the hopes and dreams of our hundred million souls for the last 27 years. For the honour of this flag millions holding it dearer than their lives, suffered tremendously. Numberless people went to jails leaving their children starving. People had their heads and bones broken by the lathis of police and the military to keep it aloft. Unarmed youngmen and students of the country opened their chests before the bullets of the English military or police to protect the honour of his flag. For generations it has been our flag and the great feeling, emotion and enthusiasm we have in our hearts for this flag is beyond human description. We are eager to pay our tribute to this flag.


4.28.91
Pandit Govind Malaviya
Sir, this flag for which great sacrifices have been made and about which there are many 'gathas' of patriotism, heroism and sacrifices, has become the centre of our thoughts. There are various opinions today in our country about this flag. Many members have given notices of various resolutions about this flag. I know every mover has his own individual and important reasons for moving his resolution. If their suggestions are not accepted here, it does not mean that we do not appreciate the thoughts of any particular individual or section. We do not entertain the idea that because some differences of opinion exist regarding this flag, anybody forfeits his claim to it. On the contrary, we hold that he has similar claims to it as we have. I would like to address a few words to those who have opposed the adoption of this flag, or have moved amendments for effecting some change in it. I would like to address a few words to the Hindu members who have approved of the flag. There maybe some ground for their complaint but it should not be forgotten that this flag has been the emblem of our highest hopes and noblest emotions for 27 years. It has been the advocate, after 27 years' struggle and sacrifices presenting before the House some other flag for adoption? The struggle for independence started by the Congress was not on behalf of any particular community or section. Under this flag, the Congress and the khilafat, the Hindus and the Muslims together infused the fire of enthusiasm in the people of this country; and the Sikh community has made countless sacrifices. Every community in India has shed its blood and has sacrificed its all. This flag does not belong to any particular community. It belongs to us all as a whole. The characteristic feature of the flag is this, that though it belongs to the whole of India, every individual, whether Hindu, Muslim or Christian can claim it as his own, be happy over it and have respect for it.


4.28.92
Pandit Govind Malaviya
The green portion in the flag may be taken to represent our Muslim friends the white one the Christians and other communities and the saffron the Sikhs. Every community is represented in the flag. But it does not mean that these colours merely represent these communities and they have no other significance. There may be other interpretations also of these colours. They represent the Hindus as well. As I have said the characteristic feature of the flag provides ample scope for everyone to think it as his own. In the Vedas "Rta" has not been defined but It is all embracing and has been extolled by poets and bards. But no one can identify it with any particular object.


4.28.93
Pandit Govind Malaviya
Similarly the great poets have expressed many good ideas in beautiful words about the various virtues of mankind, e.g., truth, beauty, duty, benevolence, kindness and filial devotion. All write on the same subject but in their own way. On the same virtue, one writes something and another some other thing. They express different ideas and different emotions in different ways. Similarly in the case of this flag, everyone can sing a chorus in praise of the flag according to his own sentiments. Every community can think of this flag as its own. Some people have complained in the press that there should be predominance of Hindu colours in the flag and that the present flag should be changed. They ask if along with other communities, have the Hindus not shed their blood and sacrificed their kin for this flag? How can we forget the call of those Hindu martyrs through whose sufferings and sacrifices, these disgruntled (Hindus) have had the chance to see the dawn of independence? Will It not be sheer ingratitude to them on our part? With due respect, I would like to tell even the most orthodox Hindus that this flag amply represents the Hindu sentiments. This flag is the true expression of the sentiments of the Hindus and Hinduism. The Vedas say that the colourof a flag should be red. Therefore according to the Vedas the flag of the Hindus should be red. Besides this, let us interpret it in a different way. The red colour at the top represents fire and the sun. The white represents the moon. Now according to the Hindu mythology, the first thing that the Creator (Brahma) did was to create the sun and the moon. The Hindus, the Aryans--have since their very beginning been worshiping the Sun, Fire and the Moon. The sun and the Moon are worshipful deities. This flag represents these vary gods--the fire the sun and the moon. The green colour at the bottom, as I have said, should be taken by our Muslim friends to represent them. But at the same time, this colour in a way represents the Hindus as well. You know of all the nine planets Budha is supposed to be the most important. This green colour represents the Budha. This very Budha according to the Hindu mythology,is the god of wealth. The green colour of Budha is the emblem of prosperity and happiness of society. That colour is given in the flag. What better flag can the Hindus adopt for themselves, than the present one which represents the Fire, the Sun, the Moon and Budha? Apart from this, there is a 'Chakra' wheel in the centre of the flag. This is very significant. The Hindus attach great importance to 'avatars'. 'When there is too much of vice, suffering and disturbance on the earth, according to the Hindu mythology, some Divine Being comes on the stage to establish order and guide the world to the path of virtue. This Divine Being is known as our Avatar. Lord Krishna was the incarnation of God. So also was Lord Buddha. "Sudarshan Chakra" was the divine weapon of Lord Krishna. Every Hindu knows of 'Sudarshan Chakra.' That "chakra" or wheel embodied in the flag. Hindus consider Lord Buddha as an Avatar and the Chakra on the flag represents Lord Buddha as well. And, if the Hindu beliefs are correct the final incarnation or divine being as already appeared on the earth to rid humanity of the present terrible turmoil and vices, and to re-establish peace, justice and order in the world. That Divine Being is amongst us. It is Mahatma Gandhi. We may not acknowledge him today, as such, but after some time, the Hindus will consider him as the latest Avatar. His dear charkha is embodied on the flag. So I can say that everyone has got a pleasing feature in the lag and particularly the Hindus. As I have explained, every part of the flag is consistent with the religious sentiment of the Hindus. Therefore, far from opposing it, Hindus should adore it and should be prepared to sacrifice their all to protect its honour. I am fully satisfied with the flag, but as, some people wanted some addition and alteration in it. I thought it advisable to satisfy them without making any change in the flag and for this I have made an attempt I would like to assure them that due consideration was given to their proposals and feelings but finally it was decided that the flag under which the whole country, including those who are opposing it today; fought for freedom, should be adopted as the national flag. After the change that has been made in the flag, no Hindu should have any ground for any dissatisfaction.


4.28.94
Pandit Govind Malaviya
Sir, it is our country that has always guided the world. It has brought the World from darkness to light. As in the past, this country has fortunately for the world produced the greatest man of the time, who amidst all the crowding miseries of mankind and under the shadow, of the dark clouds of the third world war, preceded by two great wars that destroyed the world, is still standing solid like a rock and a beacon for the world. He is proclaiming that madness should be given up. If the world follows him, there would be Peace and Prosperity. This flag bears the dear emblem of Mahatma Gandhi.


4.28.95
Pandit Govind Malaviya
I pray to God to bestow on us the strength and the wisdom to lead ourselves and the whole world to its desired destination. It is India and he alone that can guide the world to its goal. it is India alone that can be expected to do good to the world.


4.28.96
Mr. Tajamul Husain
I want to speak a few words. My name is not on the list but I will not exceed two or three minutes. Have I your permission?


4.28.97
President
No I have got more than 25 names on the list.


4.28.98
Mr. Tajamul Husain
I hope I will have your permission afterwards.


4.28.99
President
I would request the speakers now to shorten their speeches as we have got only forty minutes more, so that I may be able to give an opportunity to as many speakers as may wish to speak. I suggest two minutes for each speaker.


4.28.100
Jawaharlal Nehru
Mr. President I give you, Sir and the House a guarantee that I am not going to exceed more than 2 or 3 minutes. I stand here at this Assembly rostrum first as an Indian and then only as an Indian Christian (Hear, hear) because Sir, on this day when the National Flag has been introduced and planted there isjubilation and joy all over the Nation, first in every Indian Home and along with that in the home of every Indian Christian. Sir, the mover of this Resolution, the great Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, has in an eloquent and brilliant manner told us how this Flag, represents, in the first place the brilliant and great traditions of the past and equally brilliant historic conditions of the past. Then Sir, he went on to tell us what it represents at present. At present he told us it represents the ups and downs that have occurred in the progress towards freedom and above all, he told us that it represents the triumphant conclusion of our fight for freedom. Sir, it is only meet and proper that the mover of this Resolution should the great PanditJawaharlal Nehru and why? Because of his great personality. Sir, what do I mean by his great personality? If I am to express it as briefly as I can and at the same time give it all the significance, I can, it is this. His personality, Sir, is based on all sacrificing and all selfless character, and because it is all sacrificing and all selfless, it is all-pervading, all permeating and all-conquering. I need not say a word more on this. It is not necessary because the whole of India, nay, Sir, the world knows how this great son of mother India has immolated himself on the high altar of the Indian Nation Sir, I think my time is coming to a close. I shall express my heartfelt desire for the progress of India under the aegis of the Flag that has been accepted today, by a small Latin quotation:

"Vivat, Crescat, floreat India"

which rendered in English means--May India under the aegis of this Flag live, grow and flourish, to the lasting advantage and glory not only of teeming millions of citizens of India but may I add, Sir, to the lasting glory and advantage of the world at large. This Sir. is the prayer of this humble Indian Christian. (Cheers.)


4.28.101
Jawaharlal Nehru
Sir, I need not say much in praise of the National Flag. I want to associate myself on behalf of the politically backward people of the States, with the chorus of tribute paid to the flag. Under this flag not only the people of the provinces but the States people too have fought for freedom, economic and social, and for liberation from foreign yoke. Our struggle in the State has been associated with this flag and with the mover of the Resolution relating to The flag, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru. Without his guidance the movement of the States people and their progress would not have attained the momentum it has. Today Pandit Nehru's name is associated with the flag. Our feelings and sentiments are the same a, those of Pandit Nehru. Previously there was a Charkha on the flag and now a Chakra has been substituted for it. This Charkha is the symbol of activity. Under the Charkha flag the people of ten provinces have already attained freedom but the people of the States have yet to attain it in certain respects. I mean we have to attain responsible government in States. We do not mean to remove our ruling princes but we want to have full responsible government under them. There is no doubt that we will attain our objective under this flag. This is our national flag. It belongs to all the communities of India--Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs and Parsis. Let it fly everywhere in India and on the ViceregalLodge, on the hamlets of the peasants and on the palaces of the princes. With these sentiment, I pay my homage to the Flag.


4.28.102
Jawaharlal Nehru
Mr. President, Sir, I rise to support the Resolution before the House, moved by our revered leader Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru. Sir, this is the Flag under which we have during the last sixty years marched on and have at last reached victory. We are proud of this Flag. In it there are three colours and these three colours representthe three communities in our Country who are united into one. The Flag denotes also what the country desires. We do not desire to capture other countries, we do not want to be imperialistic, we do not want to see other countries bowing to us. All that we want is that our Flag should fly all over the world as the Flag symbolising peace, progress and prosperity. That is the aim of our country.


4.28.103
Shri S. Nagappa
Mahatma Gandhi was kind enough to introduce in the Flag the emblem of the poor man--the industry by which the poor man ekes out a livelihood--the Charkha. Sir, I come from theHarijan Community which depends very much on spinning and Mahatma Gandhi has rightly put the Charkha on the Flag. Pandit Nehru was kind enough to say that this emblem should be on the other side also, if it is nut on one side. But the Chakra represents not only the Charkha but it happily represents the progress of the country and it represents the rising Sun, the rising Sun of the independence of our country. We have been living for two hundred years in slavery, and now we are at last seeing the Sun of independence rising in our country.


4.28.104
Shri S. Nagappa
This Chakra represents also the great Vishnu Chakra--the wheel of the world that was able to take the whole world to peace, progress and prosperity.


4.28.105
Shri S. Nagappa
Sir, it is very easy to have a Flag, to hoist the Flag and see it fly over buildings. But every man must know how to keep the honour of the Flag. Then man who keeps the honour of the Flag keeps the honour of the whole Nation. The higher the Flag flies, the greater is the honour of the Nation.


4.28.106
Shri S. Nagappa
Hitherto, this Flag was called the Congress Flag. Now it cannot be called the Congress Flag, it will be called the Indian National Flag. Everyone, whether he be a Muslim, Hindu or Christian, will own this Flag. He has to defend it and stake even his life, if need be then alone will the honour of our country be high in the eves of the world.


4.28.107
Jawaharlal Nehru
Sir, I wholeheartedly support the Resolution that has been so ably, wonderfully, and may I add, magically moved by PanditJawaharlal Nehru. The Flag that has been presented to us reminds me of my own place in Orissa. There is the temple of Jagnnath in Orissa over which for over a thousand years the Eternal Wheel called the Neela Chakra has been standing; and with it is associated the Flag called "Patita Pavan Vana", that is, the flag which represents the poor people, the untouchables. I wish that on this occasion all our leaders would make an effort to throw open the temple of Jagannath to the so-called untouchables who are denied admission into it to-day.


4.28.108
Jawaharlal Nehru
This wheel on this Flag reminds me also of many associations connected with Kalinga and Magadha to which latter place you. Mr. President, belong. Asoka from Magadha went over to Kalinga and fought a great battle. After very heavy carnage, he was turned into a gentle being--the gentle Asoka; and it is there that the Kalingas in a way conquered Asoka. When I see this Flag here, associated with the name of Asoka and also with Buddha, I am reminded that our country Kalinga after a great battle taught a good lesson to Asoka non-violent one. There are two places in Orissa even today where the edicts of Asoka are standing, to tell the world that we must serve all countries and all humanity, irrespective of caste, creed,colour and so on. In fact, I feel that this Flag of ours is not only National, but it is in a way International because the wheel represents the wheel of eternity. Therefore, all of us, I say, even those of us who were not with the Congress till yesterday will respect this Flag. This is the Flag which has become entirely National, completely National today when the Resolution about this National Flag was moved so ably by Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru.


4.28.109
Mr. Lakshminarayan Sahu
When I see the three colours on this Flag, I am reminded also of the three images inside the temple of Jagannath. Lord Jagannath represents the blue colour, Balaram represents the white and Subhadra Devi represents the yellow colour, with Lord Jagannath and Balaram on either side of Subhadra Devi, in a way defending the Women folk. This symbol I worship because in a way it is the symbol of my country--the place from where I come to sit in this Constituent Assembly as a member.


4.28.110
Jawaharlal Nehru
I therefore, wholeheartedly support the Resolution so ably moved by Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru.


4.28.111
Rev. Jerome D'Souza
Mr. President, I thank you Sir, for giving me the opportunity to join in the chorus of the expression of happiness on this very auspicious occasion, when India, without distinction of religion or caste or creed, province or section accepts a National emblem that will represent her in the councils of the world. Sir, some of us who have seen public demonstrations and pageants in foreign countries, have felt humiliation at seeing our own great land, its vast peoples, its ancient heritage and culture and its incomparable beauty unrepresented in these pageants. And when these strangers looked at us we had to bow our head in humiliation knowing that in this Comity we had no independent representation. Sir, today this humiliation ends and if such a pageant should take place, the children of India who may be present there will share the pride with which other nations greet and honour the symbols of their country fluttering in the air and their hearts will rejoice as their Flag will rise in the breeze. That, Sir, is one aspect of it which, I think, will come home to all of us with peculiar satisfaction.


4.28.112
Rev. Jerome D'Souza
Better than most people, I take it that our people understand the meaning of symbolism, of ritualism the significance of the hoisting of this Flag, and all that it stands for. Such is our love of ritual, such is the imaginative wealth with which we surround symbols and signs. Ours is a very happy and singularly well-conceived symbol with its harmony of colour and with its unique idea of a circle in the centre into which such a wealth of meaning can be concentrated. Sir, I am sure many of those who were present will recall the historical occasion when this very noble building in which we have gathered was inaugurated. On that day the Viceroy of the day, Lord Irwin, referred to the circular construction of this building and alluding to one of the noblest of Christian English poets, quoted his lines that he had seen "eternity as a circle of white light." Sir, this circle, this wheel, which represents so many things time and its revenges, industry and all its achievements--represents for us also eternity and the values of eternal life.


4.28.113
Jawaharlal Nehru
Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru referred to these spiritual values by which a nation lives and which should be represented by this Flag. Nothing could be more appropriate and admirable than this circle to represent those spiritual values. This is the symbol with which India will continue its fight. May I be permitted to say that India will continue its struggle also for peace, and that just as her soldiers will be encouraged and uplifted by the sight of this Flag in all righteous warfare against unjust enemies, so also this Flag will stand as a reminder of our love of peace. May it help us to go forward in all righteous work and see that all social wrongs are righted. Above all, in every case of fratricidal warfare, of strife among ourselves, when injustice is done, when tempers rise, when communal peace is broken up, may the sight of this Flag help to soften the harsh and discordant voices, and help us to stand together, as we have gathered today in unanimity, in happiness is brotherly feeling to salute this, our National Flag.


4.28.114
President
There are yet a number of speakers on the list but I had promised earlier that I will call Mrs. Naidu to make the final speech. So I request her to address the House.


4.28.115
Jawaharlal Nehru
Mr. President, the House knows that I had refused over and over again this morning to speak. I thought that the speech of Jawaharlal Nehru--so epic in its quality of beauty, dignity and appropriateness--was sufficient to express the aspirations, emotions and the ideals of this House. But I was happy when I saw the representatives of the various communities that constitute this House rise up and pledge their allegiance to this Flag. I was especially reminded by the people that sit behind me from the Province of Bihar that it was at the risk of my life and seat in their province, should I forget to mention that this Flag, so willingly and proudly accepted today by the House, has for its symbol the Dharma Chakra of Asoka, whom they claim (I do not know with what historical veracity) to be a Bihari! But if I am speaking here today, it is not on behalf of any community, or any creed or any sex, though women members of this House are very insistent that a woman should speak. I think that the time has come in the onward march of the world-civilisation when there should be no longer any sex consciousness or sex separation in the service of the country. I therefore speak on behalf of that ancient reborn Mother with her undivided heart and indivisible spirit, whose love is equal for all her children, no matter what corner they come from in what temples or mosques they worship, what language they speak or what culture they profess.


4.28.116
Mrs. Sarojini Naidu
Many many times in the course of my long life, in my travels abroad--for I am vagabond by nature and by destiny--I have suffered the most terrible moments of anguish in free countries, because India possessed no flag. A few of those moments I would like to recall.


4.28.117
Mrs. Sarojini Naidu
On the day when peace was signed at Versailles after the last war. I happened to be in Paris. There was great rejoicing everywhere and flags of all nations decorated the Opera House. There came on the platform a famous actress with a beautiful voice, for whom the proceedings were interrupted while she wrapped round herself the flag of France. The entire audience rose as one man and sang with her the National Anthem of France--the Marseillaise. An Indian near me with tears in his eyes turned to me and said "When shall we have our own Flag?" "The time will soon come," I answered, "When we shall have our own Flag and our own Anthem."


4.28.118
Mrs. Sarojini Naidu
I was asked to speak at a peace celebration in New York soon after the peace had been signed. Forty-four Nations and their Flags fluttering in the great hall in which the Assembly met. I looked at the Flags of all the Nations and when I spoke I cried that though I did not see in that great Assembly of Free Nations the Flag of Free India, it would become the most historic Flag of the world in the not distant future.


4.28.119
Mrs. Sarojini Naidu
It was also a moment of anguish for me when a few months later forty-two Nations sent their women to an International Conference in Berlin. There they were planning to have, one morning, a Flag parade of the Nations. India had no official flag. But at my suggestion some of the women Indian delegates tore strips from their saris sitting up till the small hours of the morning to make the Tri-colour flag, so that our country should not be humiliated for the lack of a National Banner.


4.28.120
Jawaharlal Nehru
But the worst anguish of all was only a few months ago, when on the inspiration of Jawaharlal Nehru the Nations of Asia met in Delhi and affirmed the unity of Asia. On the wall behind the platform there was the flag of every nation of Asia. Iran was there, China was there, Afghanistan was there as also Siam. Big countries and little countries were all represented but we had exercised a self-denying ordinance, so that we might scrupulously keep or pledge that no party politics would be permitted at the conference. Can you not understand and share with me the anguish of that decision which excluded the Tricolour the Congress Flag from the Asian Conference? But here today we retrieve that sorrow and that shame: we attain our own Flag, the Flag of Free India. Today we justify, we vindicate and we salute this Flag under which so many hundreds and thousands of us have fought and suffered. Men and women, old and young, princes and peasants, Hindus and Muslims, Sikhs, Jains, Christians, Zoroastrians, all of them have fought under this Flag. When my friendKhaliquazzaman was speaking, I saw before me the great patriots, my friends and comrades of the Muslim community who had suffered under this Flag. I thought of Mahomed Ali, ofShaukat Ali, of Ansari and of Ajmal Khan. I could mention the smallest community in India, the Parsi community, the community of that grand old man Dadabhai Naoroji, whose grand-daughters too fought side by side with the others, suffered imprisonment and made sacrifices for the freedom of India. I was asked by a man who was blind with prejudice: 'How can you speak of this flag as the flag of India? India is divided.' I told him that this is merely a temporary geographical separation. There is no spirit of separation in the heart of India. (Hear, hear). Today I ask one and all to honour this Flag. That wheel, what does it represent? It represents the Dharma Chakra of Asoka the Magnificent who sent his message of peace and brotherhood all over the world. Did he not anticipate the modern ideal of fellowship and brotherhood and cooperation? Does not that wheel stand as a symbol for every national interest and national activity? Does it not represent the Chakra of my illustrations and beloved leader, Mahatma Gandhi and the wheel of time that marches and marches and marches without hesitation and without halt? Does it not represent the rays of the Sun? Does it not represent eternity? Does it not represent the human mind? Who shall live under that Flag without thinking of the common India? Who shall limit its functions? Who shall limit its inheritance? To whom does it belong? It belongs to India. It belongs to an India. Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru told us that India has never been exclusive. I wish he had added 'India welcomes all knowledge from friend and foe alike'. Did she not? Have not all the cultures of the world contributed to the ocean of her culture? Has Islam not brought to India the ideals of democratic brotherhood, the Zorostrian his steadfast courage, who fled from Iran with a blazing log from their fire temple, whose flame has not perished these thousand years? Have not the Christians brought to us the lesson of service to the humblest of the land? Has not the immemorial Hindu creed taught us universal love of mankind and has it not taught us that we shall not judge merely by our own narrow standard but that we should judge by the universal standard of humanity?


4.28.121
Mrs. Sarojini Naidu
Many of my friends have spoken of this Flag with the poetry of their own hearts. I as a poet and as a woman, I am speaking prose to you when I say that we women stand for the unity of India. Remember under this Flag there is no prince and there is no peasant, there is no rich and there is no poor. There is no privilege there is only duty and resibility and sacrifice. Whether we be Hindus or Muslims, Christians, Jains, Sikhs or Zorostrians and others, our Mother India has one undivided heart and one indivisible spirit. Men and women ofreborn India rise and salute this Flag! I bid you, rise and salute the Flag. (Loud cheers).


4.28.122
President
I would ask Members to express their assent to the Resolution which has been placed before them and show their respect to the Flag by getting up and standing in their places for half a minute.

The motion was adopted, the whole Assembly standing.

4.28.123
President
I have to make one announcement before we adjourn. A question was put to me yesterday about the future programme. I have had consultations with some of the Members and with the staff of the Constituent Assembly. I am in a position to state that it is possible to complete the discussion of the Report of the Union Constitution Committee within this month and, if we do that, say by the 30th or 31st of this month, we might adjourn this session. We shall be required to be here again on the 15th of the next month when power will be actually transferred to the people's representatives by the Representative of the British Government. When Members come here for that function I suggest that we might continue our sittings after the 15th August and take up the Report of the Union Powers Committee. If this is acceptable to the House (Hon'ble Members: 'yes') we may also have the Report of the Minorities Committee and we may hope to dispose of that also during the next session.


4.28.124
Jawaharlal Nehru
Mr. President, Sir, may I respectfully suggest that the two Flags which have been displayed this morning may be specially preserved and subsequently deposited in the National Museum (Applause.)


4.28.125
President
I accept that suggestion.


4.28.126
An Honourable Member
I request you on behalf of the House to convey our homage to Mahatma Gandhi and tell him that we are observing the day very magnificently.


4.28.127
President
I will do that with the greatest pleasure.

The Assembly then adjourned till Ten of the Clock, on Wednesday, the 23rd July 1947.

The Constituent Assembly of India Met in the Constitution Hall, New Delhi, at Ten of the Clock, Mr. President (The Honourable Dr. Rajendra Prasad) in the Chair.
REPORT ON THE PRINCIPLES OF A MODEL PROVINCIAL CONSTITUTION- contd.

4.29.1
President
We shall take up discussion of Clause 15 of the Provincial Constitution, which was held over the other day. That Clause was moved and amendments were also moved. So the Clause and also the amendments are now open to discussion.


4.29.2
Mr. B. M. Gupte
Sir, before I proceed to the arguments in support of my amendment, I should like briefly to indicate the differences between my amendment and the original Clause and other amendments. In my amendment I have retained the first two-sub-clauses of the original Clause. Then I should like also to emphasize that the ultimate authority who has to deal with the emergency is the same in both, namely, the President of the Union. The only difference between my amendment and the original Clause is that when an emergency arises the original Clause provides that the Governor shall report to the President of the Union, while I have suggested that the Governor may, if necessary, take immediate action and then report to the President. Pandit Kunzru's amendment, I think, merely reiterates and clarifies the original Clause. Then there remains Mr. Munshi's amendment. Essentially Mr. Munshi's amendment is not different from mine but it is something more. It is a redraft of the entire Clause as it would stand if modified by my amendment.


4.29.3
Mr. B. M. Gupte
Proceeding with the argument. I should like to submit, first of all, that the scheme as provided for by the original Clause cannot work at all. Under sub-clause (1), an onerous responsibility has been thrown on the shoulders of the Governor, namely, the responsibility to prevent any grave menace to the peace and tranquility of the Province. What is the power given to him to meet such a heavy responsibility? It is the power merely to report to the President of the Union, if at all it can be called a power. Even this power, when is it to be exercised? Not until and unless the Governor, has tried and failed to persuade his Cabinet to initiate legislation which he considers essential for the purpose of meeting this emergency. My submission is that if a problem lends itself to solution by the Protracted processes of legislation, then it is not a grave menace at all. If it is otherwise, i.e., if it is really a grave menace, then some negotiation, some discussion with the Ministry is bound to entail delay which no really grave menace can tolerate. For a grave menace does not come in a leisurely fashion. It is a sudden flare up, a violent eruption. In such circumstances, a mere power of reporting is absolutely of no avail. If the Governor has to discharge his responsibility with some chance of success, he must act immediately and for that purpose, he must have the necessary power. That is what has been provided for in my amendment.


4.29.4
Mr. B. M. Gupte
It does not therefore mean that my amendment seeks to give unrestrained, unrestricted power to the Governor. In the first place it is stated that he shall act only when immediate action has to be taken. If no immediate action has to be taken, the Governor cannot act. If there is time to communicate with the President and receive instructions, the Governor shall not act. Why should he take responsibility unnecessarily? If there is not time, he shall take initial action and forthwith communicate it to the President. Of course, I may be told that it is the Governor who has to judge whether immediate action has to be taken. I admit it is the Governor who has to judge. But I submit that if he acts wrongly, there is the President to correct him immediately. If he acts perversely, there is the sword of impeachment, hanging over his head.


4.29.5
Mr. B. M. Gupte
Then it is provided that he shall not assume the powers of the High Court. The High Court is the bulwark of civil liberties and its authority must ever remain unimpaired. That is another safeguard. Then, the Governor shall have to communicate his proclamation to the President and he shall abide by his directions later on. It means that it is only for two or three days that this power is given to the Governor. As soon as the President has got seized of the matter, the Governor's power comes to an end. Of course, I have provided that the proclamation is to last for 15 days, at the most. If it does last so long the responsibility will not be that of the Governor, but that of the President. Therefore, it is evident that my amendment is designed merely to enable the Governor to hold the fort till the President takes the situation in his own hand.


4.29.6
Mr. B. M. Gupte
Then, I am told that in these days, when distances have shrunk tremendously owing to the telephone, the radio and the aeroplane, it will not be necessary to give this extraordinary power to the Governor, and it is enough merely to report to the President. I submit that the very forces which have caused this shrinkage of distances have also contributed to the intensification of the tempo of life and situations which took some time to develop in the placid old days, develop today with baffling rapidity. This argument therefore does not affect the merits of my case.


4.29.7
Mr. B. M. Gupte
There are other more through-going objectors, and from the order paper it is evident that some of them have expressed their opposition by tabling amendments for the deletion of the entire Clause. These gentlemen are not satisfied that there should be any emergency power at all either to the Governor or to the President. I am afraid they forget that we are living in a revolutionary age, we are living in almost perilous times. The whole world has become a seething cauldron of economic unrest and political turmoil. A spirit of violence is abroad. It is only three days ago we witnessed one of the ugliest manifestations of it in Burma. Even in India we share these world conditions, and our own peculiar problems have aggravated them. Horrible tales of arson, murder and loot continue to be our daily fare of news. Nobody has any doubt that a new and a great India is being born. But I submit that the new India cannot quickly grow and prosper to its noble destiny unless we are able to maintain the frame work of well-ordered society through this stormy and critical period of our history. The whole atmosphere is explosive. Nobody knows when and where the situation will explode. It has therefore become imperative that apart from the machinery of the Government, there shall be reserved somewhere power to deal with a serious threat to law and order promptly and efficiently. When immediate action has to be taken, It is obvious that that authority must be a man on the spot. If it is to be the man on the spot, who else can that man be other than the Governor, who is elected on the widest franchise? No doubt, in most cases, the Ministry will be able to weather the storm and practically in no case will this extraordinary power be called into action. We shall all be glad if the power rusts in the Statute Book. But occasions may arise when the Ministry may not be able to act as efficiently and promptly as we expect it to do. For such circumstance, power must be reserved in the hands of the Governor.


4.29.8
Mr. B. M. Gupte
We are told that this will be an encroachment on Ministerial responsibility. I ask, if the President, in the interests of law and order, can override the popular Ministry, why not the Governor, who is admittedly the head of the province, is much nearer home, and who a so is an elected popular leader?


4.29.9
Mr. B. M. Gupte
In conclusion, I say if this power, restricted in its scope and hedged round with safeguards, cannot be trusted even for two or three days to a man who has been elected on a wave of popular enthusiasm, and who enjoys the confidence of the overwhelming mass of the people of the province, then the position of the Governor is reduced to that of a dummy and a costly dummy at that; costly both to himself and to the province. For both of them will have to spend lots of money and energy for the adult franchise election. I hope the House will agree that this is not a satisfactory position for a Governor who has been elected on adult suffrage.


4.29.10
Mr. B. M. Gupte
That does not mean that I advocate that power should be given merely for the sake of power or merely for the sake of position and prestige of the Governor. I only say, that there may be an emergency, and it has to be provided for and power has to be given to somebody. There is the Governor elected on adult franchise; he enjoys the confidence of the people. Why should he not have the confidence of the framers of this Constitution? Therefore. I commend my amendment to the acceptance of the House.


4.29.11
The Honourable Pandit Hirday Nath Kunzru
Mr. President

"That for Clause 15 the following be substituted:

Whenever the Governor is satisfied that there is a grave menace to the, peace and tranquillity to the province of any part thereof, he may, in his discretion, report to the President of the Federation."


4.29.12
The Honourable Pandit Hirday Nath Kunzru
The three amendments that have been moved relate to the same important subject because law and order are the foundation, not merely of the State but of society. It is not surprising therefore that we should, be anxious to include such provisions in the Constitution as would ensure the maintenance of peace and tranquility. But we have to think carefully regarding the means that we should adopt to achieve this object. I propose to deal only with Mr. Munshi's amendment in this connection, as Mr. Gupte himself has said it was better drafted and more comprehensive than his.


4.29.13
The Honourable Pandit Hirday Nath Kunzru
Sir, Mr. Munshi's amendment is practically a reproduction of Section 93 of the Government of India Act, 1935. Before we adopt the method laid down in this Act, we should clearly understand the scheme that is embodied in it. This Act did not confer full responsibility on us. The Ministers, though they occupied an important position, were not masters of the situation in their own provinces. The Governor enjoyed Legislative and administrative authority in important fields. In fact, it would be true to say that so far as the Provincial part of the Constitution was concerned, he occupied a central position. Now, do we desire that the Governor in the new order should be as important a figure as he was till the other day? I do not think, Sir, that there is any reason why we should base our Constitution on that distrust which permeates the Government of India Act, 1935. The British Government were afraid that the Indian Ministers would so use their power as to bring about a deadlock and make the maintenance of the British authority impossible. They therefore imposed checks on the authority of the Ministers. Now, surely, we cannot proceed on the same basis. We must trust our Ministers and they must be the central figures in the Provincial Government.


4.29.14
The Honourable Pandit Hirday Nath Kunzru
Sir, some members may be influenced by the example of America where the States have Governors who have the power to maintain law and order. But in the American States there is no responsible Ministry. Besides, even in those States where the powers of a Governor or limited he occupies the most important position in the eyes of the people, both in the politics and the Government of the State. He further controls the Militia and the Central Constabulary or the State Police Force, if any. He therefore, occupies a position all his own. We cannot by any means reconcile the Presidential and the Cabinet systems. It seems to me therefore that the very principle on which Mr. Munshi's amendment is based cannot be acceptable to us. The Report of the Provincial Constitution Committee proceeds on a different basis from that on which the British authorities proceeded when they placed the Government of India Bill in 1935 before the British Parliament.


4.29.15
The Honourable Pandit Hirday Nath Kunzru
Apart from this, Sir, let us consider how the Governor could act under the Government of India Act, 1935. He was given adequate powers to enforce his decisions. He could take upon himself all the functions of Government when it could not be carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 1935. He controlled the service too. The All India services connected with district administration which were under the control of the Secretary of State were immediately responsible to him for their actions. Again, so far as the Provincial services were concerned their members had a right to appeal to the Governor. Besides, one of the special responsibilities of the Governor was to protect the rights and interests of the members of the Services. The members of all the Services whether Imperial or Provincial, were there under the ultimate control of the Governor. Apart from this, no change could be made in the rules relating to the Organisation and discipline of the police force without his sanction. His authority over the provincial executive agencies was therefore complete. The Governor under the Constitution as it is likely to be,-I mean a Constitution based on the principles laid down in the Report before us-will not enjoy these powers which will be made over to the Minister. How will he then to be able to have his orders carried out? His position will be an exceedingly difficult one. He may be an elected authority but in the case of a conflict between him and the Ministers, the position will be one of great embarrassment both for him and for the Ministers. The difficult position in which Ministers will be placed is obvious. Their prestige will go down in the eyes of the public and the services to the extent that the Governor is able to control the Services, and this will undoubtedly lead to administrative complications. They will be in the same predicament in which they are now vis-a-vis the Governor. Sir, we have to consider whether the method that has been suggested of ensuring the maintenance of law and order will be suitable on general grounds for securing the object that we have in view. Is it desirable that we should allow one man to sit in judgement, so to say, over the Ministers? However wise a Governor may be and by whatever method he may be selected, I submit that it is highly undesirable that his personal view should prevail over the collective view of the Ministers who will be better informed than him. That is another argument and I think a very Strong argument for not agreeing to the amendment that has been moved by Mr. Munshi.


4.29.16
The Honourable Pandit Hirday Nath Kunzru
Now, Mr. Gupte said-and perhaps Mr. Munshi will say-that the power that has been conferred on the Governor can be exercised by him only in the event of a grave menace to the peace and tranquillity of the Province. Under Section 93 of the Government of India Act. 1935, the Governor can take over the entire Government only when he is satisfied that the government of the Province cannot be carried on as contemplated by that Act, but it is provided in sub-section (5) of that Section that "the functions of the Governor under this Section shall be exercised by him in his discretion" and that "no proclamation shall be made by a Governor under this Section without the concurrence of the Governor-General in his discretion." Those who rely on the present Government of India Act shield thus realize that whatever the power conferred on the Governor by Section 93 he could take no action without previously consulting the Governor-General. Mr. Munshi's amendment will therefore confer greater power on the Governor than the Act of 1935 does. Now, it may be said that, even if the amendment is passed, it will still be possible for the Governor-General to decide finally whether the Governor's action was justified. I submit, Sir, that the position of the Governor-General will be seriously prejudiced if the Governor takes action of a drastic character without waiting for his decision. If the Governor issues a proclamation assuming all the powers and functions of Government, it is obvious that if the Governor-General disagrees with him he will be forced to resign, but on the other hand, if the Governor-General owing to this consideration, desists from instructing the Governor to withdraw his proclamation he will place himself in a very difficult position. The will be acting against his own judgment and making himself responsible for the Consequences of a policy which he disapproves.Mr. Gupte thought that his amendment gave power to the Governor to act on his own initiative for a very short time, and that that was all the difference between his amendment and Clause 15 of the Report. This may seem to be a trifling difference to Mr. Gupte, but to me it seems to be a vital difference. If the Governor-General is really to be in a position to decide what action should be taken. I think it is imperative that the Governor should not be allowed to prejudice the position by over-ruling his Ministers and taking over all authority from them.


4.29.17
The Honourable Pandit Hirday Nath Kunzru
I am sensible, Sir, as I have already said, of the fact that this House is very, anxious that law and order should not be allowed to break down in any event. The question therefore to be considered is whether we can achieve the end in view without conferring on the Governor the power that would be vested in him if Mr. Munshi's amendment were passed. I have already said that if a Provincial Ministry is to be over-ruled it should not be over-ruled by single man. It should be over-ruled by some authority which would enjoy a more important position in the eyes of the public than the Provincial Ministry. Besides, it is desirable that the collective opinion of the Provincial Ministry should be set aside not by one man but by a body of men who can take into account the circumstances not merely of one Province but of the whole country. We have such an authority in the President and the Federal Government. I submit therefore that such reserve powers as you want to assign to any authority for ensuring the peace and tranquillity of a province should be vested in the Central Government. The Central Government in every country is ultimately responsible for the peace of the country and for every part of it. Since it bears this responsibility, let it be possessed also of the powers required by it to fulfill this responsibility. I submit therefore, Sir, that my amendment is much better than the amendment moved by Mr. Gupte or Mr. Munshi. It is in accordance with the view propounded by Mr. Patel when he moved the consideration of the Report on the Principles of the Provincial Constitution. It achieves all that we want without bringing the Governor and his Ministry into conflict and placing on him a responsibility which he cannot discharge unless the Services are in the last resort made answerable to him. This would be going back to the scheme of the Government of India Act which we have been condemning all these years. I think, Sir, that we are debarred by our principles from accepting the view embodied in this amendment. We must, therefore, adopt the only method permissible in a Constitution which is based on the doctrine of Ministerial responsibility. The solution that I have proposed will not be inconsistent with the principles underlying a Federal Constitution. If my view is accepted, it will only mean that the Central Government would occupy a strong position in regard to the maintenance of law and order. This certainly does not militate against responsible government or federal government; and since there is a way, Sir, of ensuring the peace and tranquillity of the country by acting on this principle without infringing the basic ideas that lie at the bottom of responsible government, I venture to command my amendment to the attention of the House.


4.29.18
Shri T. Prakasam
Mr. President, Sir, I heard with great interest and attention the argument of [Pandit Kunzru; but I have not been able to follow him when he said that the power should vest with the Centre and that the Governor when he sees any danger to peace must only report to the Centre and take its orders. (Honourable, Members: "We cannot hear you"). All right.


4.29.19
Shri T. Prakasam
Apart from the Government of India Act of 1935 or the Act which we are going to pass, it is a matter of mere commonsense that when there is a great danger of a breach of the peace, the man on the spot should have the power to deal with it immediately and should try and prevent it and then report it to the Centre. This is the ordinary commonsense view which is embodied in any statute in any country. And I expect this Constituent Assembly which is a sovereign body, when it is enacting the very first statute, conceding freedom of action and provincial autonomy to the provinces and also establishing freedom for the whole country, taking power away from Great Britain, it will see to it that the law and order does not break down in the very first minute, or in the very first few minutes, and to see that the man on the spot does not have to stand there, looking at the happenings an merely reporting it to the President of the Union Government and trying to get orders from him. I would, submit, Sir, that such a course should not be adopted by this Constituent Assembly. It is against the very elementary principles of doing duty. I do not care, Sir, whether it is the Governor, or whether it is the Minister or whether it is a Police Officer that is in charge of this business. That officer that person on the spot must have the authority to deal with the situation and try to prevent a breach of the peace first. And it is only when the situation goes beyond his power from the very outset or when be is collapsing that he would order for the military or any other source of help from the Centre or from the President of the Union.


4.29.20
Shri T. Prakasam
Pandit Kunzru was arguing that what was conceded under the Government of India Act of 1935 to the Governor should not be adopted by us here. I was not able to understand him. The Governor under the Government of India Act, 1935, is not the same as the Governor- that this Constitution is providing. It is not an Englishman who will be the Governor of a Province. Under this Constitution it is the man who is elected by adult franchise, by the whole Province who will be the Governor. Having clothed him with such a position and having made him feel that he was the man responsible not to any particular community or section of the Province, but responsible for every- one in the Province who elected him to that office, having clothed him with such a position, is it right for any of us to say, "let him be all this, let him be a man elected by all the people, let him be anything, but we should not entrust him with that authority which the Government of India Act, 1935, had given to the Governors."


4.29.21
Shri T. Prakasam
Sir, we have been working with the Governors under the Government of India Act, 1935, since 1937. We had to deal with bad situations, very grave situations even during my own short period as Prime Minister. Allow me, Sir, to tell you and the Honourable Members of this House that if the troubles that has overtaken Northern India and other parts of India had not overtaken the South of India, it was not because occasion did not arise for such troubles, but it was because the matters could be dealt with by vigilance on the spot, without waiting for a single minute for anybody's orders. There was a communal clash threatened, of a very serious type in South India. How was theat situation met? Not a single death occurred, though it was a very serious situation. How was that prevented? Our Muslim League friends and all the leaders of the people in the Province were also very good and alert. The moment trouble was sensed, at dead of night they came and knocked at our door and said there was danger. What were we to do? We immediately went to the spot. It was Providence that helped us to prevent blood-shed and death. It was the people, both Muslims and Hindus who saved the situation. Members of both communities formed peace committees and they began to parade the area even before the Police or the military could come to the spot. And it was managed so well that nothing happened although the whole of that zone all along the railway line from that point to the northernmost point was most inflammable.


4.29.22
Shri T. Prakasam
Again, let me point out that during the worst stage of the famine, food trains could not pass from Madras along the line to a distance of fifteen hundred miles. And it was the police who were entrusted with the duty of managing it. When they knew that the train was to be interrupted by the forces that had been organised for that purpose, they were got ready, and protection was given all along the line for 1500 miles so that the food train could pass and the danger could be averted. How could anyone expect the person in charge of law and order or even the Governor who also was having authority under the Government of India Act of 1935 to report it to the Centre, to the President of the Union Government, and await his orders? Is it not very dangerous that such a thing should be done? I did not expect this proposal to come up in this form. I know when this debate was going on in another place the first attack was upon the post of the Governor himself. That I can understand; if you attack the Governor's appointment itself and eliminate him altogether and make the Ministry responsible, that would be a different matter. But it was not so, I must congratulate the leadership and the Provincial Constitution Committee that had drafted this Provincial Constitution. They have lifted up the whole nation in one stroke and saved, us from the troubles that had overtaken us till now by reviving adult suffrage. Adult suffrage is not a new thing. as imagined by some of our friends, handed down to us by Great Britain. Adult suffrage you will find inscribed on the stone walls of a temple in the village of Uttaramerur twenty miles from Conjeeveram, the whole structure of democracy of those days just a thousand years ago,-many of us imagine that it is Great Britain that has given us the democratic process of election; that is not so. You will find 'on the stone walls of that temple written in the Tamil language an inscription to the effect that there was democratic election carried on then on the basis of adult suffrage a thousand years ago. There was adult suffrage as stated there. There were no wooden boxes which could be used as ballot boxes, but cadjan leaves were used as ballot papers and pots as ballot boxes. That is the way in which they carried on the administration of the country, even in the villages; and it is the misfortune of this country that we have fallen on evil days and came under the rule of different kings. All our ancient things disappeared and we have become slaves, as it were, and whatever has come to us, we imagine as having come from Great Britain Having revived adult suffrage, having clothed the Governor under that suffrage with a unique position--I am glad it was not copied from the American or Australian or Canadian or any other Constitution-this Committee and this leadership had the vision to see the position of the country at present. How are we to manage matters now? I was an advocate of the British system of democracy and the same was the feeling of some of those friends who have tabled these amendments. I was very anxious that the British system should be copied by us. It was copied by us and we have gone through all kinds of experiences. Our leaders have gone through all kinds of experiences and having regard to all our conditions and sufferings they have suggested this device of an elected Governor on adult suffrage by which they have lifted the nation in one stroke to the skies, because they have made everyone in this country feel, man and woman, for whom-the Congress had been fighting all these years, that at last it is their Government, that they are appointing their Governor, the man who will be responsible to them. The Governor should have power to do something if something is going on in the presence of the Governor, is he not to interrupt it and prevent it on the spot when it lies in his power? To suggest that nothing should be done and the Governor should not be made to exercise the power of Governor of the 1935 Act is not sound and correct. Anything good, may be taken even from the Constitution of 1935. Everybody must accept the proposal without a single word of demur in this matter. I am very sorry that this retrograde step has been proposed that the whole thing should be postponed until the Union President sends reinforcements or advice or gives directions. I earnestly request the House not to accept any such suggestion. We would make the whole world laugh at us if we say that without meeting a situation on the spot he must come to this place. We will be making fools of ourselves if we adopt this amendment.


4.29.23
Pandit Lakshmi Kanta Maitra
Sir, the motion before the House raises a vital issue and I would request the House very carefully to consider the pros and cons with meticulous care before they come to any decision. Sir, coming from an unfortunate part of this country where the breakdown of the machinery of law and order and the non-intervention of the administrative head in the matter has been causing tremendous bloodshed and incalculable suffering and hardship, I feel called upon to put in a few words in support of the amendment moved by my Honourable friend Mr. Munshi. What does this amendment seek to achieve? It proposes certain extraordinary powers for the Provincial Governors to be exercised by them in their discretion in very emergent circumstances. The House will note carefully- that these powers do not form part of the ordinary routine work of the Governor; it is not part of his normal duty as Governor, but these powers are to be exercised by him only in emergent circumstances, if circumstances so demand that swift action is essential for preventing a total collapse of' the machinery of law and order and even for restoring the machinery of law and order if it has already been thrown out of gear. I ask every member of this House whether he really wants to deprive the administrative head of a power like that to be exercised by him only in emergent circumstances. I quite appreciate the good point made by my Honourable friend Pandit Kunzru but one may respectfully differ from him. I want to point out to him that I have no very strong criticism to make against Section 93 of the Government of India Act, 1935. In my view that Section embodies certain very valuable provisions Our only grievance is that the provisions of Section 93 have more often than not been abused and not properly used. After all is said acid done even best Constitution in the world may not be of any use to the people if the people have not the determination and understanding and good will to work it in the spirit in which it is conceived. Who, after all, is the Governor that will be appointed hereafter under the new Constitution? He is not going to be a foreign Governor. He is going to be an Indian. He is not going to a nominated person. He is going to be elected on universal adult suffrage and as such he will command the respect and confidence of the people. He will have tremendous prestige behind him. Now, after choosing a person like that for that office, do you propose to keep him in the Government House as a dummy or do you want him to do some work for you when circumstances demand swift and immediate action? There are occasions when he will have to act quickly I quite understand that there is possibility of this power being abused. But let me tell you that this fear is more imaginary than real. The occasions on which he may be called upon to exercise this power would be very rare. What are the objections against thus amendment? It is said that the Governor will not have any power over the administrative officers and therefore his intervention would be ineffective.


4.29.24
Pandit Lakshmi Kanta Maitra
Now I ask my Honourable friend Mr. Kunzru whether the Union President will have absolute power over the administrative machinery of the Provinces. So in the ultimate analysis the Provincial authority in such cases will not be divorced from that of the head of the Union. There are two checks provided. In the first place the Provincial Governor will be called upon to act immediately and simultaneously report to the Union President the causes which led him take some particular action. Now, is it expected that a Governor who is elected and entrusted with very grave responsibility, who is liable to be arraigned and impeached if he acts in contravention of the Constitution, will act in an arbitrary and thoughtless manner? I do not believe he will. I believe on the other hand he will act correctly and effectively.


4.29.25
Pandit Lakshmi Kanta Maitra
Further, at the most his emergent action will be only a question of a couple of weeks. From the provision it is clear that the proclamation will cease to operate at the expiration of two weeks unless ordered by the Governor himself or the President of the Union. So, unless he finds that the Ministry is divided and there is breakdown of law and that the position would deteriorate if prompt action is not taken be will not step in; and when he does he will forthwith report to the Union President who is armed with extraordinary powers. For these reasons I think there should be some provision in the Constitution by which the ultimate responsibility for the maintenance of law and order and responsibility for preventing the breakdown of the administration should be broadly and squarely laid on the shoulders of some person and that person should be the Governor. That function must be entrusted to him for the limited purpose. Sir, I support this amendment.


4.29.26
President
Before I call upon any other speaker, I desire to say that we have only six days now between today and the 31st of this month and the whole of the Union Constitution has to be got through. I would therefore request the speakers to limit the duration of their speeches so that more members can participate in the discussion. I have half a dozen names with me members who wish to speak. (An Honourable Member: "I move for closure"). There are also other members rising in their places. I will call upon members to speak in the order of their names in my list.


4.29.27
Shri K. Santhanam
Is it necessary Sir, to send up names to you for an opportunity to speak? Could not the members catch your eye?


4.29.28
Mr. M. S. Aney
Is it not enough the members rise in their places and thus catch the eye of the President if they want to speak?


4.29.29
President
It is not necessary that the names of members should reach me if they wish to speak. But if any member has sent his name and rises in his place, he will naturally catch my eye first. I shall not go according to the list as it is and would call on members who catch my eye. I would request members to limit the duration of their speeches to five minutes each.


4.29.30
B.G. Kher
Mr. President, I do not propose to take even five minutes, I rise because the matter is of such importance ...........


4.29.31
B. Pocker Sahib Bahadur
On a point of order, Sir, I would like to know whether it is not necessary that all members who have given notice of amendments should speak first so that all the Amendments may be discussed together?


4.29.32
President
So far as this Clause is concerned, all the amendments have been moved and the amendments and the Clause are for discussion.


4.29.33
B. Pocker Sahib Bahadur
I have given notice of an amendment to this amendment. I request you to allow me to speak at this stage. It may perhaps be taken as moved.


4.29.34
The Honourable Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel
It could not be taken as moved now. So many members have already offered their remarks. As he has not moved it up to now, nothing can be done now.


4.29.35
President
So many have spoken already and the Member did not, move his amendment earlier. His amendment was received on the 21st July. On that very day all the other amendments were moved. If the Member had any intention of moving his amendment he could have called my attention to it then.


4.29.36
B.G. Kher
Mr. President, Sir, I rise to oppose the amendment moved by the Honourable Pandit Hirday Nath Kunzru. As I said Sir, I would not have intervened in this debate had I no felt that the amendment moved by the Honourable Mr. Kunzru was of such a nature that it was the duty of everybody to oppose it. I submit that it has only to be read to show how futile it is. What it reads is this:

"Whenever the Governor is satisfied that there is a grave menace to the peace and tranquility of the Province or any part thereof, he may, in his discretion, report to the President of the Federation."


4.29.37
The Honourable Pandit Hirday Nath Kunzru
It is the same as the amendment proposed to be moved by Pandit Govind Ballabh Pant.


4.29.38
B.G. Kher
Then two of you will have to be blamed instead of one.


4.29.39
B.G. Kher
Now, I do not know if there is a clause like this in the Burmese Constitution if there is any such Constitution, but I shudder to think what would have happened if what has happened in Burma were to happen under this Constitution. Here is a person elected on adult franchise getting more allegiance from the people than even the Prime Minister. All that he can do is to send a telegram to the President of the Union and await results. Then, sir, it is a pity that the Honourable Member does not provide as part of his amendment what the Governor has to do if the telegraph or the telephone communication is cut off. Whenever an emergency takes place and I have seen, Sir, that even at a short distance of about 15 miles from Bombay it was not possible for people to get into communication with the Governor, or the Prime Minister or any other authorities for less than 20 hours,-what is the Governor supposed to do? He is to report to the President. Therefore even in these days of modern communication, if all that a Governor elected on adult franchise has to do is to send a report to the President of the Union and watch the results, I shudder to think what the consequences will be. I therefore oppose the amendment which, if accepted, will do the greatest harm.


4.29.40
B.G. Kher
Apart from that, experience has shown, as previous speakers have pointed out, that in a country where those who are in power are subject to party politics. It is necessary to have somebody who will be above intrigues, above party turmoils and who will be able to secure the safety of the people. What we are trying to do is to provide that the Governor should shoulder the responsibility and then should communicate the gravity of the situation to the President of the Union who is assisted by this Cabinet and that the President will either confirm the action of the Governor or differ from the action taken by him. If you have a Governor elected on adult franchise do not make him only a figurehead, simply sending telegrams to the President of the Union. I oppose the amendment that has been moved by Pondit Kunzru.


4.29.41
B. Pocker Sahib Bahadur
On a point of order, Mr. President. I gave notice of an amendment to the amendment of Mr. Munshi. I was under the impression and rightly so that it is the duty of the President to call upon persons who had given notice of amendments to move those amendments. I did not think that it was necessary to stand up and ask for permission to move my amendment. I was not asked to move my amendment on the 21st, Only Mr. Munshi's amendment was moved and further discussion was adjourned, I therefore request that I may be allowed to move my amendment.


4.29.42
The Honourable Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel
When the President has given a ruling on a point of order, can the same point be raised again?


4.29.43
President
When a ruling has been given by the President the same point cannot be raised again. In this case, before we closed the discussion, I made it clear that all the amendments had been moved. At that time the Honourable Member did not draw my attention to the fact that his amendment had not been moved. I am afraid I cannot allow him to move it as this stage.


4.29.44
Dr. P. K. Sen
Mr. President, Sir, I will conform to the whole some time-limit which you have fixed, and I shall be as brief as I possibly can. The question before the House involves some fundamental principles. Frankly, my views are strongly in favour of the amendments tabled in the names of my Honourable friends Mr. Munshi and Mr. Gupte. Whatever may be my view I am quite prepared to subordinate them because I know that the Wisdom and sagacity of this House will choose the right course. Let there be no illusions. First of all, it is an emergency measure and an emergency does not happen every day. An emergency is an emergency, it cannot be defined, it cannot be described in all its features. It appears to come in upon us suddenly but in fact it comes by insidious stages, and the amendment contemplates that the Governor should be a man of insight and foresight, firmness and promptitude who will understand and know at what stage he should step in and stop the rot. That I understand is the conception of the Governor that we had in mind when we decided upon electing him on adult franchise. What we wanted to secure was that he should be the people's man and should have the whole province behind him, every man and woman should we thought, come to the polling booth having in mind the sort of men he or she is voting for, the man who will have the power and initiative to do the right thing at the right moment. It is impossible to imagine that the Governor should willfully try to override the ministry. It is accepted on all hands, since we have adopted the parliamentary form of Government, that the ultimate executive authority resides in the Council of Ministers headed by the Prime Minister. When the Prime Minister is working in perfect unison and harmony with the other Ministers when there is no wheel clogging other wheels when all the wheels lubricated by mutual understanding and goodwill run smoothly it is then that this democratic form of Government fulfills its proper functions. But it is apprehended there may be a sudden emergency which may not be within the power of the Ministry to cope with. It may be that there are factions, disagreements, disunion among the parties. Every form of party government is subject these disadvantages. In case there is such a position in case we find that every wheel, instead of helping the other wheels to do their work clogs the rest, preventing the State machinery from running smoothly and further when there is danger ahead to cope with, it is only then that, as the amendment contemplates, the Governor should be in a position to take all powers in his own hands and having taken necessary action, immediately report to the President of the Union so that the President in his discretion may then de the needful. This is the whole extent of the emergency powers to be vested in the Governor. The question therefore arises "Can we be confident that this democratic form of government this parliamentary form of government, will always run so perfect that there will be no occasion for any such emergency powers?"' In case we are so confidentit follows that there will be no occasion for the Governor to exercise these powers But again, I ask can we be so confident? Have we had such a long experience of this form of government that we feel that it can never be necessary for anybody to go over the head of the Prime Minister or the Council of Ministers and to take the initiative in his own hands? The fact is, there is a dread of what is called 'one-man rule'-and it is this dread that accounts for the strong opposition to the amendment. Not even for 24 hours, it is said, can we tolerate 'one-man rule'. It is against the fundamental principles of democracy. But it seems to be forgotten that it is when the democratic machine break down, or it incapable of coping with the situation, that the amendment contemplates vesting the man whom we have elected by adult franchise of the whole province and who undoubtedly enjoys our confidence, with limited emergency powers. Without such powers the Governor of a province would be a mere figure-head. The Governor that is contemplated in the section where his election is provided for is a Governor who can handle an emergent situation, and it is for that reason, I take it that the election on adult franchise was decided upon. I am quite prepared, as I have said to subordinate my own view but I do hope that we shall be under no illustration to the effect that we are subjecting ourselves to one-man rule even for a short time. It is an emergency measure and it is only justifiable as an emergency measure and on that ground, I do submit that this amendment should be accepted and passed.


4.29.45
The Honourable Pandit Govind Ballabh Pant
Mr. President, I am really sorry that I have to speak on this Resolution, I had no intention of doing so, not because I have no opinions, but because I do not ordinarily like to challenge publicly the views, expressed by my esteemed colleagues. But, unfortunately for me, Pandit Kunzrublurted out that the amendment which he had moved had Originally appeared in my name, which is a fact and which I cannot deny and Mr. Kher then said he had to couple my name with Kunzru's as the two fools who had joined together in giving notice of such a motion.


4.29.46
B.G. Kher
I did not say so.


4.29.47
The Honourable Pandit Govind Ballabh Pant
You did not in so many words.


4.29.48
The Honourable Pandit Govind Ballabh Pant
I am glad that he now realises that what he said was not what he meant and I am not sorry. But all the same while I am bound by the decision of the Party and have to supportMr.Munshi's amendment, I think I must give my reason why I had the temerity and the presumption to give notice of this amendment.


4.29.49
President
May I point out that the House is not concerned with any decision of any Party?


4.29.50
The Honourable Pandit Govind Ballabh Pant
I have no objection to that, but still I feel that Members should be guided by the collective wisdom of many than by their own individual intelligence. At least I am prepared to merge my own In that of the bigger group. But still I have to tender my explanation for my attitude and the reasons which weighed with me then. The point is this. If there is a grave menace to peace and tranquillity, then how is such a delicate situation to be handled and by whom? Now you have to take into account the scheme of the Constitution which we have already accepted. I fully realize that we have agreed that the Governor will be elected by adult Suffrage but by adopting that method of election we do not convert him into a Sahasrabahu. He will still have not more than two hands and two eyes. The question is what will be the agency and under whom will the services be functioning. If it is considered that the Governor, being elected by the adult suffrage, should have control over the executive in the day-to-day administration, I can understand his ability to handle a delicate situation, but to keep the Governor aloof from the entire sphere of administration and then to ask him to but in the most delicate moment when those in charge of the administration are supposed not to be quite equal to it, is to create chaos and to make confusion worse confounded. One can understand the Governor being in charge throughout and thus being in a position to handle a delicate situation. But to keep a man out of water-- and when there are storms to ask him to keep the boat sailing is to court disaster. That can never work, that is my apprehension.


4.29.51
The Honourable Pandit Govind Ballabh Pant
The Governor has no power ordinarily and even now the Governor is to be no more than a reporter except for two weeks. How is that poor man during these two weeks to acquire all that capacity, that intelligence and that knowledge, which he does not normally possess? The system of democratic government means government by the people through their elected representatives. Now what is really the position which you are contemplating? It is this; the Governor does not agree with his Ministers. He cannot persuade the Legislature to agree with him and to accept his point of view. It is always open to the Governor to go to the Legislature to address them and to tell them that a delicate situation had- arisen, that the Ministry had unfortunately not been able to take the correct decision and that it was time for the Legislature to revise its attitude towards the administration and those in charge of it. If the Governor fails to convince the Legislature, and if he fails to convince the Cabinet which consists of not one or two, but I think of a number between 15 and 20 he will be still empowered to override the unanimous opinion of 400 members of the Lower House, the 60 members of the Upper House and the 20 representatives of the Legislature included in the Cabinet. When there is a grave and delicate situation and when there is no agency under him, how can that poor man shoulder such a burden? That is the issue that you have plainly to face: and I say if it were only this much and no more, I would not have given notice of that amendment, but the thing is that it also tends to impair the integrity of the services, it introduces an element which upsets the psychological basis on which democracy stands, it asks people to look for protection to a man who has no power to protect them. It asks the services to be prepared for a contingency which will never arise and in which they will have to carry out the order of somebody other than the Ministers. It is fraught with grave danger. I may also disclose for the edification of Mr. Kher if he is not already aware of it, that it is not Mr. Kunzru or myself alone who happen to hold this opinion. This question was considered at very great length. I had an opportunity of placing my point of view before the joint meeting of the Provincial Constitution Committee and the Central Constitution Committee and it was accepted by both that the Governor should not be clothed with such authority as-is now suggested in the amendment moved by Mr. Munshi. The matter was considered by the Provincial Constitution Committee and they also finally accepted the view that the Governor cannot possibly discharge such a heavy responsibility. While I am sorry for having lost company with Mr. Kher, I have found compensation in many others who were associated with me in these Committees So the loss, though regrettable, is no irreparable.


4.29.52
The Honourable Pandit Govind Ballabh Pant
Mr. Kher enquired if wires are cut, if the Ministers are assassinated, what will happen? I saw such a contingency will never happen. I win never allow my Ministers to be assassinated. So long as I am the Prime Minister, nobody will be allowed to assassinate the Ministers. If I cannot discharge that duty, I will step out. If the Prime Minister cannot defend himself and his Ministers, it is time for him to step out and make room for somebody else, for some other sturdier Prime Minister to come and take his place. He asked what will happen if wires are cut. I will see that no wires are cut.


4.29.53
The Honourable Pandit Govind Ballabh Pant
He asked what will happen if all the Ministers are assassinated. I ask what will happen if the solitary Governor, who has to report, Who has to save the wires, who has to keep the road free for the passer by, is killed? People forget that even if the Governor is killed, even if the Prime Minister is killed, there is the House there is the Legislature and it steps in and takes all the steps necessary in order to safeguard peace and tranquility. The amendment that has been moved is neither, if I may say so, fish nor fowl nor good red herring. But it has still the odour of rotten fish. I am not free to utter these words. You have to swallow the rotten fish.


4.29.54
The Honourable Pandit Govind Ballabh Pant
Now, Sir, you have to look at the scheme of the Act from which this Section 93 is being copied. Under this Act, the control of the services is essentially vested in the Governor. The Secretary of State's Services are under the control of the Governor. They look to him for protection and for promotion. As you may be aware, you cannot transfer a Secretary of State's Service man from one place to another under the 1935 Act without the approval and consent of the Governor, with the result that he is the man who is really in charge of the executive and he is the man who is responsible for having created the emergency. In spite of his being in complete control of the services, he allows the situation to develop In such a way. He must face the music for which he is mainly responsible. But while under this 1935 Act the Governor is not altogether free to adopt such an attitude himself and he has to obtain the consent of the Governor General, and the Governor-General in his turn is answerable to Parliament here the Governor is responsible to nobody. There is no House which can call him to account for having committed a grievous blunder in a very delicate situation. I shudder to think of this amendment. In a very delicate situation when the Ministry should be free to handle things in the best manner possible the Governor may meddle and prevent the Ministers from handling the situation in a sound, proper and fair way. In a very delicate situation just when the Ministry Should have a free hand, the Ministry will be fettered with the result that a crisis will develop even where a crisis could have been avoided. This is my apprehension.


4.29.55
The Honourable Pandit Govind Ballabh Pant
I am afraid I have taken too much time. There is a lot to be said. With the little experience that I have got in this line, I can give you many illustrations. I still feel that the amendment of which I gave notice was not unsound.


4.29.56
B.G. Kher
On a word of personal explanation Sir. I only want to say that I did not mean to give any offence to Pandit Pant and I am not aware of having said anything to hurt his feelings. Mr. Pant has taken it very personally........


4.29.57
The Honourable Pandit Govind Ballabh Pant
No, no. Not at all.


4.29.58
B.G. Kher
It was only in debate.


4.29.59
The Honourable Mr. Hussain Imam
Mr. President, after the illuminating speech of Pandit Pant, my task has been eased a great deal. I hold the same opinion that Pandit Pant holds and Pandit Kunzru has expressed. I feel that this amendment has been ill-conceived, that it is undemocratic and that it is not based on sound logic, and is actuated, perhaps by some ulterior motive. I am sorry to use this word; but I take my cue from the joking remark of an ex-Congress man, a colleague of mine in the Central Legislature who said that perhaps it might have been aimed at demobilizing the leftist element if ever it should get control of the Provincial Ministry. As I said, this was a joking remark.


4.29.60
The Honourable Mr. Hussain Imam
My whole opposition is based on two factors. In the first place, in every constitution which I have looked through, where the Ministry is responsible to the Legislature, there is no provision of this nature that the Governor can take over the governance in his own hands. He can dismiss the Ministry and call for another if he feels that the Ministry has lost the confidence of the House.


4.29.61
The Honourable Mr. Hussain Imam
He can, if he finds that the House is not behaving properly, dissolve the House but this motion is the strange innovation which was created by the British Government in the peculiar circumstances of India to have a Section 93 which is being perpetuated. The circumstances as Pandit Pant has pointed out, were different. The Governor there was really a party. He had certain interests which were adverse to those of the Ministry and it was essential for him to be armed with certain powers. Ordinary laws are suspended more often than is realized. There are different methods of suspension, different degrees of suspension. For instance, you have Section 144 suspending the liberty of personal association. You have, if there is a grave financial crisis, a moratorium where the ordinary laws of limitation are stopped. If you have a grave menace to the peace of the country, there is Martial Law where for a certain time you establish military rule. So the degree of suspension differs in different occasions. Secondly, I fail to realize how this omnipotent person known as the Governor can, within the short space of 14 days, change over the whole face of the Province where the Ministers who had been working for years together were not table to do it. What is the special agency and authority which he will use which is not available to the Ministers? He can, even in the existence of a Ministry, pass an Ordinance. He can even in the presence of the Ministers with the concurrence of the Ministry, establish Martial Law. But without doing any such act, merely by assuming power to himself he will be publishing to the world that 'Now I have suspended the villains of the peace who were merely existing as a sort of stop-gap and instigators'. The meaning of this section is indicated by the following wording:

"It is not possible to carry out the Government of the Province with the advice of his Ministers."


4.29.62
The Honourable Mr. Hussain Imam
So what it means in reality is that the danger to the peace and tranquility is brought about at the instigation of the Ministers. Merely by the suspension you generate such an atomic power that peace and calm prevails. But after 14 days what will happen? Will the same bad lot who were regarded as responsible for all this danger to the peace, be brought back. In that case what will be their prestige and what will be their position? With what face can they ask their subordinates to carry out their orders when the subordinates know that their orders are to be carried only as long as the Governor is not invoking his special powers? There is no provision that this power of suspension will not be utilized times out of number, It is once suspended; after two weeks the Governor allows the constitution to prevail but the next day again be suspends the constitution and this process of limitation can be repeated ad nauseam without any restraint. In fact, the position of the constitution in the Province in which this power is utilized will become so that I feel that it is the Ministers who should be protected. I, as you know, am not a champion of any, executive authority. This may in the end turn out to be the establishment of an autocratic rule if it is sanctioned by the President of the Union. If the President of the Union feels that in a Province a Ministry has come into power which is not acceptable to the Union Executives, then that Ministry will not function and cannot function. I looked into the Union Constitution to find a counterpart for the use of his power by the President. I regret to say that in the Union Constitution too no provision has so far been made. Probably when the motion is moved, a like amendment will be placed therein giving the President autocratic power to carry out the Section 93 Government which had been rightly hated throughout India by all sections of the people. I for one, do not hold a brief either for the Governor or for the Ministry. I have had, during this short period that the Constitution has been in working order, many occasions to differs with the Ministers. I have had occasion to differ with the method in which the Section 93 Government was carried on. But I feel with all its defects, the ministerial method is a democratic method and Section 93 helps autocracy and it may at some date lead to the establishment of a regime in the province which may not be acceptable to the people- Sir, I therefore oppose the motion of Mr. Munshi.


4.29.63
Prof. N. G. Ranga
Mr. President, Sir, I am very vehemently opposed to the point of view placed before this House by the two previous speakers it is exceedingly difficult to understand how one of my own leaders who has had experience of running the Ministries should have so completely ignored the very recent experience of Burma. Let us bring back to our mind what has happened there. Supposing any such mishap happens here in India, and half a dozen Ministers including the Prime Minister are done away with, who is there to be in that Province to straightaway make a report to the Federal President and invoke his aid? Not anyone of the Federal Union Ministers? And the Central or Federal President cannot very well immediately charter a special plane and run down to Madras or even Lucknow and then help these people who are helpless by invoking the aid of the Federal and Provincial trips. It is extraordinary that experienced people should come here and seriously place before us views hi difference of the actual experience that is going on in our own place.


4.29.64
Prof. N. G. Ranga
Think again, Sir, of the possibility, not of the kind of Congress party that we have to-day, having overwhelming majorities in the various Provincial Legislatures but the possibility of a number of competing political parties coming into the Legislatures and Coalition Ministries only becoming possible as a result of a sort of grouping of a number of groups and parties and the Prime Minister being only a little more than a sort of a figure head; then are we to understand at that stage a man of the stature of Pandit Pant will then suddenly come to incarnate as Prime Minister and go to the Governor and say 'I do not want your interference. I will be able to look after myself.'? Even a man of the stature of Pandit Pant, Sir, will not be able; under those circumstances being the Head of a Coalition Government, to look after himself. There will be Occasions when the Prime Minister himself or at least some of the Ministers will surely go to the Governors and request him to invoke his special power in order to save them in spite of their own Ministry, and to save them from some hooligans orgoondas or organized bandits in the country.


4.29.65
Prof. N. G. Ranga
Some such reserve power has got to be placed in the hands of the Governor but who is this Governor? Another friend comes and tells us 'Do not make him an autocrat.' What does he mean by autocracy? Does he mean that a Governor who has been selected by adult franchise is to be considered as an autocrat? Well, he may also become an autocrat. So many people who had been elected by adult franchise also became autocrats. Quite true- that is why we have already provided the power for the Legislatures, to impeach a Governor if he were to exceed his powers. If he were to misbehave himself, as long as you have got a reserve power there in the possession of the Legislature itself, why on earth should we be afraid of the Governor either becoming an autocrat or treating his Ministers as if they were his chaprasis?


4.29.66
Prof. N. G. Ranga
Then there is the other point raised by Mr. Pant. He asked "what sort of experience can this Governor possibly have? Here are his Ministers dealing with day-to-day administration, who have been accustomed to take decisions on responsible occasions, whereas this man sitting as a sort of body knows nothing. When a grave crisis comes we are asked to invoke his aid. How would it be possible for him to come to a right decision?" May I remind him that it is his duty, strong, as he is as Premier in his Province, and the duty of his other Ministers to keep, the Governor in daily touch with the administration? It will be the duty of the Governor to become experienced and he would be a fool indeed if he does not grow experienced by the advice that is being given by his Ministers and Prime Ministers like Pandit Govind Ballabh Pant. Therefore. Sir, the Governor will be an experienced person. He has got to be an experienced person, a trustworthy person and a man with a sense of responsibility if he were to be able to commend himself to this adult suffrage and get himself elected in the first instance. Secondly, after his election he is being advised not only by the Prime Minister but also by his Ministers. He has got a right to be present at their Cabinet meetings; he has got also to be advised by all of them collectively and in the light of all this experience that he gains it would be possible for him to judge at the right moment whether an emergency has actually arisen at all, and if it does arise, he must possess the necessary emergency powers.


4.29.67
Prof. N. G. Ranga
Another question has been put to us. "What powers has this Governor got? Whom has got under him to order about?" Just now, my friend Mr. Hussain Imam told us that if you were to clothe him with all these powers, the Civil Services would only look to him and not to the Ministers for allegiance exactly so. The Civil Services will learn to look both to the Ministry as well as the Governor. Always the Governor represents the whole Ministry. So the Civil Services as well as the Reserve Forces and Police Forces will loam to obey the Governor also. The Ministers may be powerless or irresponsible for the time being. Then, what would happen to these Ministers, our friend has asked, if in a crisis they found themselves completely unequal to meet it and, therefore, they allow the Governor to have these emergency powers?


4.29.68
Prof. N. G. Ranga
Very well then, after the emergency is over, if the Ministers are found to be absolutely useless by the majority of the members of their own Legislature, they will have to make place for another ministry. If however, the Legislature has confidence in them and they are able to carry on, let them carry on the administration. If, on the other hand, the Legislature as well as the Ministers come to the conclusion that the Governor has misused his powers and created an emergency, then it would be within their right to move for the impeachment of this Governor. When you have provided for all these safeguards, I cannot understand how my leader Pandit Govind Ballabh Pant comes here and places before us these untenable arguments against this very wholesome amendment.


4.29.69
Prof. N. G. Ranga
Sir, one more point and I have done. Let us remember that this Governor is to be elected by adult suffrage. Let us remember that this man is to be there continuously for five years whereas his Ministry may last for three months, or four months or six months. Let us not forget the recent experience in Madras. We must clothe this permanently placed man with as much power as we possibly can so that there may be some stability, some continuity, some security for the masses of the people for the safeguarding of their civil liberties.


4.29.70
Prof. N. G. Ranga
Lastly, Sir,-and this is my conclusion,-- I am speaking here as one of the Leftists in this country. I have been a Leftist ever since I started my political career. I am afraid I have not the Ministerial experience of my friend Pandit Govind Ballabh Pant and maybe it is because of that that I am still able to speak in the name of all the Leftists. All the Leftists will consider this thing to be one of the safeguard against any kind of hooliganism, or organised banditry as recently occurred in Burma, which we want to prevent in our own country.


4.29.71
Mr. Shankar Dattaraya Deo
I move closure, Sir.


4.29.72
President
Closure has been moved. The question is.

That the question be now put.

The Motion was adopted.

4.29.73
President
The Mover may reply.


4.29.74
Mr. M. S. Aney
Mr. Munshi never spoke on his own amendment.


4.29.75
May I speak?


4.29.76
The Honourable Mr. Jaipal Singh
On a point of order Sir. Mr. Munshi when he moved his amendment the other day told us that he would reserve his observations for today, as also did Mr. Gupte. I think we must give him an opportunity to speak.


4.29.77
An Honourable Members
If he has not spoken, it is not our fault.


4.29.78
Seth Govind Das
On a point of order, Sir, The House has accepted closure and now only the Mover can speak. If Mr. Munshi did not want to make any remarks, why should we ask him to do so?


4.29.79
I am not very keen to speak.


4.29.80
President
I think Seth Govinddas has raised a correct point of order. The Mover of the Resolution will now speak.


4.29.81
The Honourable Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel
Sir, in effect, there are two amendments to the Motion that has been moved by me. One is by Pandit Hirday Nath Kunzru and the other by Mr. Gupte, who accepts the amendment of Mr. Munshi. In fact, Mr. Munshi's amendment is an improvement of language on Mr. Gupte's amendment. In substance both are the same. Now, as I have already mentioned in my introductory remarks when I moved this Motion, this is a very controversial matter. There are two points of view. There is no doubt that an encroachment of this kind on the powers of the Ministry is bound to be resented and is bound to create difficulties also, and in a democratic constitution it does not fit in properly. Therefore, I can fully appreciate the objection, and the force with which the objection has been put, by our distinguished Prime Minister, Pandit Govind Vallabhbhai Pant.


4.29.82
The Honourable Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel
On the other side, there are other Prime Ministers and others who have experience of working the constitution. They equally feel that in the present conditions of the country it is a dangerous thing not to provide for emergency of such a nature as is mentioned or as is contemplated in the amendment of Mr. Gupte, namely when there is a complete breakdown of the machinery of law and order and if any such event as the recent unfortunate incident in Burma takes place or a similar tragedy of such a nature arises, or, as we have seen incidents like the recent unfortunate ones in our own country in some provinces take place,-if such a situation arises, it would not be enough for a machinery in the province to report to the Centre but there should be something more effective. We should have something else so that the law and order machine could function Without waiting for a moment. Otherwise, there are dangerous consequences likely to follow.


4.29.83
The Honourable Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel
These are the two points of view, and as Pandit Pant has said, there is much to be said on his behalf, and equally, there is much to be said on the other side also. Common mortals have to follow the path of collective wisdom and take the opinion of people who have experience. The weight of opinion as it appears from the debate here is that we must have some sort of provision as is contemplated in the amendment.


4.29.84
The Honourable Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel
It do not propose to take up the time of the House any more, because there has been considerable debate and the pros and cons have been discussed thoroughly. Both those who argue in favour of and those who argue against have only one thing in their minds-what should be in the new constitution for the good of the country-that is the only point of view that they have in mind. We have all to learn by experience. We have never maintained that we cannot improve or modify this constitution, if by experience we find that there are difficulties in its working. As I have already said, it is the spirit in which the constitution is worked that matter. There is no reason to suppose that our President, or the Governors elected by universal adult franchise will be engaged in conflicts with the Ministry. But even if any such unfortunate event take place, we have the power to open the matter again. We are free to do so. We do not have to go to the British Parliament or look to any outside authority to improve the Constitution. I, therefore propose to accept the amendment of Mr. Gupte, as amended by the amendment of Mr. Munshi.


4.29.85
President
I will put Pandit Kunzru's amendment first:

"That for clause 16, the following be substituted :

'Whenever the Governor is satisfied that there is a grave menace to the peace and tranquility of the Province or any part thereof, he may, in his discretion, report to the President of the Federation."'

The amendment was negatived.

4.29.86
President
Then I shall put Mr. Munshi's amendment, which is the amendment of Mr. Gupte, since Mr. Gupte has accepted Mr. Munshi's amendment.


4.29.87
President
That for amendment No. 8 in Supplementary List of Amendments, dated 16th July 1947, by Shri B. M. Gupte, the following be substituted:

"(1) Where the Governor of a Province is satisfied in his discretion that a grave situation has arisen which threatens the peace and tranquillity of the Province and that it is not possible to carry on the Government of the Province with the advice of his Minister in accordance with the provisions of Section 9 he may, by Proclamation, assume to himself all or any of the functions of Government and all or any of the powers vested in or exercisable by any Provincial body or authority: and any such Proclamation may contain such incidental and consequential provisions as may appear to him to be necessary or desirable for giving effect to the objects of the Proclamation, including provisions for suspending in whole or in part the operation of any provisions his Act relating to any Provincial body or authority :

Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall authorise the Governor to assume to himself any of the powers vested in or exercisable by a High Court or to suspend either in whole or in part, the operation of any provision of this Act relating to High Courts.

(2) The Proclamation shall be forthwith communicated by the Governor to the President of the Union, who may thereupon take such action as he considers appropriate under his emergency powers.

(3) The Proclamation shall cease to operate at the expiration of two weeks, unless revoked earlier by the Governor himself or by the President of the Union."

The amendment was adopted.

4.29.88
President
The Resolution, as amended, becomes the substantive proposition and I put it to vote.

Clause 15, as amended, was adopted.
REPORT ON THE UNION CONSTITUTION

4.29.89
President
We shall now take up the discussion of the Union Constitution Report. The first Clause of Part IV was moved by Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru. We are now to take up the amendments, to that clause. I have got a very large number of amendments of which notice has been given.


4.29.90
Shri Gokulbhai D. Bhatt
Mr. President Thursday was the last day for submitting amendments to the rules framed by the Union Powers Committee. But now that you have fixed the order of business, you could kindly extend the time for submitting amendments to the Report of the Union Powers Committee.


4.29.91
President
I informed the House yesterday that the time had already expired.


4.29.92
Shibban Lal Saxena
Sir, in Part III of the Memorandum on the Union Constitution, it is stated.

"Here enumerate the Fundamental rights and principles of State policy as passed by the Constituent Assembly."


4.29.93
Shibban Lal Saxena
But, Sir, some of us have given notice of amendments to these Fundamental Rights and Principles of State Policy. I have in particular an amendment to add a fresh clause to the Fundamental Rights and Principles of State Policy, saying that "Slaughter of Cows shall be forbidden in Bharatvarsha by law." I would like to know when I shall have the o I opportunity to move that amendment.


4.29.94
Jawaharlal Nehru
The clauses relating to the Fundamental Rights were discussed in this Assembly and so far as putting them into the draft text of the Constitution is concerned, these clauses were passed at a previous session. The Member who has just spoken has asked when he and others who have given notice of amendments to the clauses relating to Fundamental Rights will have the opportunity of moving such amendments so that the House might consider them. I think, the proper time for moving all such amendments is when the draft text of the Constitution incorporating the Fundamental Rights is taken up for consideration at the final session of this Assembly. I think Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru made the position perfectly clear. He said that when that draft text was brought before the House members would be free to move amendments not only to the wording of the draft, but also to the substance of the draft.


4.29.95
President
I think that makes the position perfectly clear. It was made clear by Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru also. The amendments to the Draft Constitution, dealing with the Fundamental Rights can be moved at the final session.


4.29.96
An Honourable Member
We have not approved of all the clauses in Fundamental Rights.


4.29.97
President
We shall deal with them when they come up. Amendment No. 61 on the Order Paper-Shri Vijayavargiya.


4.29.98
Shri Gopi Krishna Vijayavargiya
Mr. President, I do not want to press my amendment because of the views expressed here, after I had moved my amendment. But there are many things to which I consider it necessary to draw your attention. This Section deals with the method of election of the I-lead of the Federation. According to the amendment, all the units of the States will participate in the election of the President. But the States Legislatures are very faked-up and crude. They will affect the result of the election. Therefore, I moved an amendment that the Union President should be elected directly on the basis of adult franchise, so that the people-even the poor ones-may have the opportunity of exercising their votes for the election of the President. Now I do not want to press my amendment in view of the opinions expressed here. I would say only this much that there will be no uniformity among those who will elect the President, because on the one hand the elected members of the provincial legislatures will take part in the Presidential election and on the other hand, the members of the State Legislatures which are irregularly constituted. This will be grotesque. The States have only parodies of legislatures. They have nominated members, landed aristocracy and other representing special interests. So long as there is no democracy in the states, there is great danger for our Federation. The States representatives will take part in the election of the President. There may be many other dangers too. Having all these in view, I deem it desirable that the States representatives should be properly elected and necessary safeguards should be incorporated whereby the nominated members, jagirdars and others belonging to special interests in the States legislatures, may not be allowed to vote for the election of the President.


4.29.99
Shri Gopi Krishna Vijayavargiya
Federation is going to be established in our country but as yet we do not know if all the States will join the Indian Union and what attitude they will adopt towards it. We do not know as to how the participating States will affect the Union. I represent the States people and I think it necessary to incorporate some measures as safeguards against possible dangers. The danger is real. The elected members of the States Legislatures will seriously affect the result of the election of the Union President. Many States ministers are bringing various amendments seeking to secure more favours for the Princes in the draft constitution. This is not in the interest of the people. I desire that the Union President should be directly elected on the basis of adult franchise. This would satisfy the people the States. Even the poor ones will have the right to vote for the election of the President. However, this method is not going to be adopted and for various reasons I do not want to press my amendment. But I wish to point out that in view of the conditions prevailing in the States, we must be cautious about the intended amendment from the States ministers. I do not move my amendment.

(Messers. A. K. Ghosh and S. Nijalingappa did not move their amendments-Nos. 62 and 63.)

4.29.100
Mr. H. V. Kamath
I am told that the Hindi equivalent of 'President' will be decided upon when the Hindi draft of the Constitution comes up for discussion. Therefore I do not wish to press this amendment (No. 64) at this stage.

(Shri Balkrishna Sharma did not move his amendment-No. 65)

4.29.101
Shri Gokulbhai D. Bhatt
Mr. President, the amendment I wanted to move was in connection with the word, 'Rashtrapati' or the President. He should be named as 'Rashtrapati' or 'Neta' or 'Karandhar'. But I am told that this will be decided after the report of the Committee set up for this purpose has been Submitted. Therefore. I do not move my amendment.

(Messrs. M. Ananthasayanarn Ayyangar, Mohanlal Saksena, B. M. Gupte and Jadubans Sahai did not move their amendments Nos. 67, 68, 69 and 70).

4.29.102
Shri K. Santhanam
It was suggested by Pandit Nehru that we might begin with Part IV.


4.29.103
President
Yes, we have taken up Part IV and we are on Clause I.


4.29.104
Shri S. Nagappa
We are awaiting the Minorities Report and I do not therefore intend to move this amendment No. 71 at this stage.


4.29.105
Mr. T. Channiah
Mr. President, Sir, I move the following amendment, namely:

"That in sub-clause (1) of Clause I after the word 'elected' the words 'by rotation either by the North of India or South of India' be inserted.


4.29.106
Mr. T. Channiah
Sir, why I have suggested this system of election to the Presidentship of the Federation is due to the following reasons: The election of a President to the Federation by rotation either by the North of India or by the South of India gives a fair representation and satisfaction to the people of India who stand geographically divided into two distinct divisions namely, the South or the North of India. The people in these parts of India have got a distinct culture and methods of thinking and languages of their own, acclimatised to the conditions of those parts. More than anything else, Sir, there is in existence the lack of real of realization of the universal brotherhood and due to various reasons each man or woman has got a love of his or her own clan and does not realise to the extent possible the interests and rights of other people who are equally entitled to such rights or privileges. Such people are struggling hard to put forth their claims that their man should be elected as the President of the Federation, totally unmindful of the realisation of the universal brotherhood.


4.29.107
Mr. T. Channiah
Secondly, Sir, the next feeling that comes and predominates in most of the people is this, namely, our man, our home, our state or our province, or does the President belong to North of India or does he belong to South of India and so on. So, Sir, we see how the people are forced to think under various circumstances and that broadmindedness limits itself to think in a selfish way.


4.29.108
Mr. H. V. Kamath
On a point of order, Sir. Can an Honourable Member read from a manuscript speech?


4.29.109
Mr. T. Channiah
Again, Sir, let us take for instance, the existence or predominance of any one majority party in India. Such an Organisation tries to put a man of its own as the President of the Federation and never allowing any other smaller Organisation to take its chance. Granting that any smaller Organisation takes its chance, there will be a sort of feeling in the minds of the bigger Organisation that it should try to overcome the difficulty at the earliest opportunity.


4.29.110
Mr. T. Channiah
There is again, Sir, the problem of the existence of innumerable castes in India. One community struggles to get over the other and at every stage each Community tries to get power and recognition in the administration of every Government. That is but natural.


4.29.111
Mr. T. Channiah
Apart from these, Sir, there will be great discontent among the minorities like the depressed classes and Muslims, when their claims are overlooked and when their very existence is not felt sufficiently either in the administration of the country or when their claim for Presidentship is not contemplated at all.


4.29.112
Mr. T. Channiah
Just as we have got the love of clan in India, so also we have been observing by experience the North Indian employee in North India will look down upon a person coming from South India and vice versa. So, Sir, under these circumstances we see that each one of us is struggling for some power or other in the administration of the country. When once the power is attained by some people the interest and care on the part of the person so chosen to that high power naturally neglect the interests of the other people and in the ultimate scramble for power, we the common men would have really lost the very democratic principles for which every common man is aiming to enjoy.


4.29.113
Mr. T. Channiah
So, in order to create harmony of feeling among the people of India and for the proper justification of the President to be elected for the Federation, it is quite necessary to adopt the system of the election of the President to the Federation by rotation either from the North of India or South of India.


4.29.114
Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad
Sir, I move:

"That in sub-clause (1) of Clause 1, for the words 'as Provided below' the words 'in the manner set out below' be substituted"


4.29.115
Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad
I may explain that this is only a drafting amendment. It is merely a restatement of the text in different words. With these few words I beg to move my amendment.

(Amendments Nos. 74 to 84 were not moved.)

4.29.116
Rai Bahadur Syamanandan Sahaya
I beg to move:

"That in paragraph (b) of sub-clause (2) of Clause 1, the words 'or where a Legislature is bicameral the members of the Lower House thereof, be deleted."


4.29.117
Rai Bahadur Syamanandan Sahaya
Sir, Clause 1 lays down the procedure for the election of the President. It says that the election shall be by an electoral college consisting of (a) the members of both Houses of the Parliament of the Federation, and (b) the members of the Legislatures of all the Units or, where a Legislature is bicameral, the members of the Lower House thereof., It will be seen, Sir, that in the election of the President, the members of the Upper House are being excluded from taking part. I would submit in this connection that, as this House has decided that the Provinces have the option of having a second Chamber, it does not look graceful that we should exclude the members of such Upper Houses, who will be there by election, from taking part in the election of the President. In fact if members of the second Chambers are considered unsuitable for taking part even in the election of the President of the Indian Federation, why have second Chambers at all? In your wisdom, of in the wisdom, of the Home it has been decided that second Chambers will find a place in the Constitution of the Provinces subject, of course, to the expressed desire of the Province concerned. That being so, I think it is only fair that the members of the Upper House or the second Chambers, as you may be pleased should be allowed to vote in the Presidential election, That second Chambers are needed has been accepted in the Union Constitution, because at the Centre you have provided for a second Chamber. Second Chambers have now been existing in different Provinces and functioning for some time and I do not think I shall be contradicted by anybody if I state that if anything, they the second Chambers, have served a useful purpose by pointing out to the, Lower House errors and omissions in the legislation coming up before them from the Lower House. In most cases I believe the suggestions of the Upper House have been accepted by the Lower House. I can say this from the experience I have of my own province of Bihar. There appears to be a fear, I suppose, in the minds of those who desire to debar the members of the Upper House from taking part in the election of the President. That fear emanates from the fact that the representatives in the second chambers generally belong to the propertied classes. In the first instance, I do not see why this House should decide that propertied classes could be debarred from taking part in the election of the President. For the election of the Governors in the Provinces, we have already decided that it should be by adult franchise, and that every person whether he is a propertied person or otherwise, will be entitled to take part in the election. Why then the distinction in the Presidential election?


4.29.118
Rai Bahadur Syamanandan Sahaya
We have not yet laid down the franchise for election to the second Chamber. It is open to this House to lay down such a franchise that the Upper Chamber will not merely be representative of the propertied classes of this country. We may lay down the franchise in such a way that men of experience in different walks of life in this country, in industry, business, administration, public life etc.,-may hold a good proportion of the membership of the second Chamber. I am sure it will be conceded that the opinion of such representatives who will be men of experience should be taken in such an important matter as the Presidential election and nothing should be done by which we deprive ourselves of the views that those representatives in the second Chamber may have. There is another aspect to the question also. From all the amendments which members have tabled to the provision for election of the President, it will be clear to you, Sir, that there is a large section of this House which desired that the election of the President should be by adult franchise. Now, if that is not possible Sir, I say that as many people as possible should be enabled to express their opinion in the matter of the election of the President. We were not able to accept adult franchise on account of practical difficulties perhaps, but we should not further narrow down the circle and debar elected representatives of a section of the Provincial Legislature, constituted under the constitution framed by us from taking part in the election of the President. Considering how many important works we have to undertake and the rather difficult position in which this country may be placed in the future. I think it would be unwise to debar men of experience from taking part in important business of the country, especially in the matter of the election of President where in principle it will be agreed that it should be the right of every citizen to take part. I would suggest to the Honourable the Mover that this limitation on the members of the Upper House should be removed and that they should be permitted to take part in the election of the President.


4.29.119
Rai Bahadur Syamanandan Sahaya
There is another matter also which requires consideration by this House. In the note appended to sub-clause (2), it is laid down that:

"The provision about weighting of the votes according to the population of the Units is necessary to prevent the swamping of the votes of a large Unit by those of a much smaller Unit which may happen to have a relatively large Legislature. The mode of weighting may be illustrated thus. In a Legislature where each Legislature represents one lakh (100,000) of the population, his vote shall count as equivalent to 100, that is I for each 1000 of the population; and where the Legislature is, such that the Legislator represents 10,000 of the population, his vote shall count as equivalent to 10 on the same scale."


4.29.120
Rai Bahadur Syamanandan Sahaya
Suppose in a province under this arrangements the members of the Lower House of the Legislature of that province have 1/10th of the vote of the members of the Legislature of another province, if the members of the Upper Chamber of the former province do not vote, then to the extent that the Upper Chamber represents the people that province suffers By debarring the members of the Upper House from taking part in the election of the President, we will be debarring some provinces from exercising their full voice based on the total population of the province.


4.29.121
Rai Bahadur Syamanandan Sahaya
Sir, I have nothing more to say. I hope this suggestion of mine will appeal to the Honourable the Mover.


4.29.122
Mr. K. Chengalaraya Reddy
Mr. President Sir, I beg to move the following amendment that in sub-clause (2) (b) of Clause 1, for the words "the members" wherever they occur, the words "the elected members" be substituted. The amended clause will read as follows:

"The elected members of the Legislatures of all the Units or, where a Legislature is bicameral the elected members of the Lower House thereof"


4.29.123
Mr. K. Chengalaraya Reddy
Sir, it will be seen that the President of the Union is not going to be elected on the basis of adult franchise directly but by an electoral college. There has been a fairly decent amount of opinion in favour of the President of the Union being elected on adult franchise, but since the whole constitution is based on the Ministerial type of Government rather than the Presidential type, it is as well that we should elect our President by an electoral college. Now, Sir, the electoral college that is contemplated in this sub-clause is divided into two sections; clause (a) covers the members of both Houses of Parliament of the Federation. Regarding that, there can possibly be no objection. Then comes clause (b) which covers the members of the Legislatures of all the Units. I have no difficulty in accepting it so far as the Provincial Legislatures are concerned because in the Provincial Legislatures in the Lower House all the representatives are elected on the basis of adult franchise. My difficulty is with regard to the States Legislatures. So far as the States Legislatures are concerned, it will be readily conceded that the Constitution of the States Legislatures will not be on a uniform basis. The various States Units will have different kinds of Constitutions according to the various stages of evolution that they may have arrived at. Since I contemplate that some of the States Legislatures may have nominated representatives, I want to restrict the voting power to the elected members only. It may be argued that by moving this amendment, we are assuming and agreeing by implication to the existence of nominated members in the States Legislatures.


4.29.124
Mr. K. Chengalaraya Reddy
I do not think, Sir, that would be the result, because I for my part will say that this amendment, If it is accepted, would be an incentive to the Unit Legislatures of the particular States concerned to do away with nomination and to provide for election right through in the Constitution. If some minorities which are being now nominated to the State Legislatures are not given the right to participate in the election of the President of the Federation, It is very likely that such minorities or any other interests may ask for election instead of nomination, so that their representatives may have the valuable right of participating in the election of, the President of the Federation. So, Sir, views from any point of view I trust this amendment would be acceptable to the House. It Is looked forward to by some that before the Constitution is actually Completed the State Unit Constitutions may be so drawn up as not provide for any nominated members in their Legislatures. If that happens, I will welcome it In that case it would be time enough when drafting the Constitution to omit this particular differentiation which has been contemplated by my amendment. For the present, Sir, I move this amendment and hope that it will be accepted by the House.


4.29.125
Shri Gokulbhai D. Bhatt
Mr. President, mine is an amendment to the amendment of Mr. K. C. Reddy. His amendment reads:

"The elected members of the legislatures..."


4.29.126
Shri Gokulbhai D. Bhatt
I want that the word 'territorially' should be put before the word, 'elected members' and it should read:-

"The territorially elected members.... of the legislature........


4.29.127
Shri Gokulbhai D. Bhatt
The reason for my amendment is this. There are special constituencies from which the members are elected. The elected members from special constituencies cannot be considered as real representatives of the people. But I thought that this might be further restricted.


4.29.128
Shri Gokulbhai D. Bhatt
I want to draw your particular attention to this point that the elected members must be genuine representatives of the constituencies which they represent. I do not want to press this amendment any further. I want to draw your attention to the fact that as most of the elected members representing the special Constituencies are Gagirdars and Zamindars, they should not be considered as genuine representatives of the people.

(Messrs. Biswanath Das, R. R. Diwakar, Yudhisthir Mishra and Jai Narayan Vyas did not move their amendments).

4.29.129
Shibban Lal Saxena
Sir, my amendment is that for sub-clauses (2) and (3) of Clause 1, the following may be substituted:

"The Rastrapati shall be elected directly by the people on the basis of adult suffrage."


4.29.130
Shibban Lal Saxena
This is a very serious matter and I deeply feel that the scheme that we have accepted in the provincial constitution in regard to the election of Governors, should be adopted in the Union Constitution as well. In the provincial constitution we have decided to elect the Governor on the basis of adult suffrage. Shortly before we heard the forceful speeches of PanditPant and Mr. Kher, and in the end Sardar Patel accepted Mr. Munshi's amendment which lays down that a Governor elected on the basis of adult suffrage will have some special powers which he will use in times of crisis. It is clear from this, that Mr. Patel and this Constituent Assembly recognise what moral strength the Governors, elected on the basis of adult suffrage, will have and what will be its advantage. In the same way, I think, the "Rashtrapati" should also be elected for adult suffrage.


4.29.131
Shibban Lal Saxena
It is certain that a person elected by twelve to thirteen crores of voters of the country, will have incomparable moral strength and dignity. He will be a man of the people and their true representative. Besides, my opinion, for fulfilling our pledge for re-establishing unity in our country, which is broken up today and may be further broken up in view of the present efforts of some States, the election of the 'Rashtrapati' by adult suffrage will be very helpful. Then, even the poorest person in every part of the country from Travancore to Kashmir and from Calcutta to Bombay, will feel that he has the right of electing the President. He will then fully realise the dignity of an Indian and thus the roots of Indian unity will get stronger and stronger and the feeling of seceding from India, which is at present noticed in Hyderabad, Kashmir and Travancore will no more exist in the country. Even the people of those parts, which have seceded from India, will have a strong desire of reuniting with India. Therefore in the present circumstances particularly, I think that the election of the 'Rashrapati' on the basis of adult franchise is very necessary and will prove to be very useful.


4.29.132
Shibban Lal Saxena
This is also the "national genius" of our country. We are heroworshippers. By having an austere man and a genius as 'Rashtrapati" our country will make speedy progress. A 'Rashtrapati' elected by twelve to thirteen crores of voters will be a genius and will command moral support. With a population of 35 crores, we will be the greatest independent nation in the world. A 'Rashtrapati' elected by twelve or thirteen crores of voters will enjoy unique moral prestige in the world. His individuality and moral strength will be very helpful to the country in the field of international polities. It will also appease the sentiment of hero-worship of the people of our country.


4.29.133
Shibban Lal Saxena
Today Mahatma Gandhi is the father of our nation even though he has not been elected to be so all of us call him 'Bapu'. He is like a permanent president of our nation. An electedRashtrapati will reach his position to some extent only if he is elected by twelve or thirteen crores of voters as their 'Rashtrapati'. He win thereby gain great moral prestige and honourand even though he may be aloof from every day work, he will benefit the country a good deal.


4.29.134
Shibban Lal Saxena
The draft constitution before us is an admixture of two constitutions. One of them is the American Constitution under which the President is directly elected on the basis of adult franchise. The other is the British Constitution under which the Prime Minister is the leader of the majority party in the parliament. But in England too, there Is a King who has great dignity and the people respect him more than any Prime Minister. Under the constitution he is not free to take any action independently but he plays a useful part in improving the administration. The 'Rashtrapati' in our constitution will fulfill the purpose served by the British King. I know that many of our leaders are not in its favour and they will oppose it. They say that when we have accepted a parliamentary form of government, we would like to have a constitution in which the leaders elected by the Assembly and the Legislature will represent the whole nation and will have the responsibility of its administration and therefore to talk of the election of the 'Rashtarpati' on the basis of adult suffrage will be a sheer waste of time and will create unnecessary confusion. I do not agree with this. In my opinion, the party which will triumph in the presidential election in the country, will be in a majority in the legislature and will possibly command a majority in the federal legislature also.


4.29.135
Shibban Lal Saxena
For example, we elect Babu Rajendra Prasad, the President of the Constituent Assembly, as our president and Sardar Patel or Pandit Jawaharlal as premier. These two leaders will help and co-operate with each other. They will not be at loggerheads against each other. Pandit Pant while just now supporting another motion asked as to what will happen if the President dies. I say that if the President is not there, we will have the Prime Minister. His ministry can function and immediately conduct a second presidential election. In such an eventuality as we find in Burma, where the Prime Minister and his ministers have been murdered, the 'Rashtrapati' can manage the administration of the country and form another ministry. I say that the election of the 'Rashtrapati' will enhance the prestige of the country. Even though we do not give him powers, he will have his special influence on the administration by virtue of his position. Mahatma Gandhi is not even a four anna member of the Congress but everyone knows that every action in the country is taken on his advice. He is the architect of the present free India. I hold that the presidential election will be beneficial to us in every way but as I am not free in the matter, I do, not press this amendment.


4.29.136
Mr. D. H. Chandrasekharaiya
Mr. President, Sir, the amendment that stands in my name runs as follows:

That the following new sub-clause be added after sub-clause (3) of Clause 1 (3A) :

'The President shall be alternately elected from the state and the non-state Units'


4.29.137
Mr. D. H. Chandrasekharaiya
You know, Sir, that the President of the Federation is proposed to be elected through an electoral college consisting of the members of the two Houses of the Federation, and the members of the Legislatures of the units of the Federation. From this it is evident that the members from the States will not be in a position to successfully contest the elections by putting forward a candidate of their own for the Presidentship at any time because the members from the non-State Units will form an overwhelming majority of the electorates.


4.29.138
Mr. D. H. Chandrasekharaiya
The population of the States is nearly 91 millions. That is to say, it forms nearly one-third of the population of the provinces forming the Indian Union and nearly more than four times the population of the Pakistan Units. The States representatives to the two Houses of the Federal Parliament, though forming a minority yet constitute an important part. So far as the Council of States is concerned, 71 members are contributed by the States alone out of a total of 287 members of that body. Similarly, the House of the Peoples which is formed on the population basis, will contain an appreciable number from the State Units. In these circumstances, it would be just and proper that the State Units should be given a chance to put up their own candidate for the Presidentship exclusively for every second term. If that is considered to be a somewhat extravagant demand it may be provided that at least for every third term, the States may put forward their own candidate for President ship.


4.29.139
Mr. D. H. Chandrasekharaiya
You know, Sir, the States form an important element in the life of the country. After the 15th August, the States too will attain a status of independence just as other elements are going to do. But I for one would wish that the States, whether big or small, will not remain aloof and isolated. They must join hands with the Indian Dominion now and with the, Indian Federation or Indian Union after the Constitution is framed. For this purpose a certain amount of goodwill and accommodation towards the States is very necessary. I believe that a provision of the kind proposed in this amendment will go some way towards establishing that happy relationship between the States and the non-State elements of our country. With these words, I commend this amendment for the kind consideration and acceptance of this House.


4.29.140
President
There is another amendment in your name.


4.29.141
Mr. D. H. Chandrasekharaiya
The next amendment which I am Proposing reads as follows :

"That the following new sub-clause be inserted after sub-clause (4) of Clause 1:

"(5) Provision should be made for the President to take the oath of office as in the Constitution of U.S.A."


4.29.142
Mr. D. H. Chandrasekharaiya
One of the most important responsibilities cast on the President of the Federation is that he should preserve the Constitution and protect it from being violated. For any violation of the Constitution, he is removable from his office through impeachment. On account of that it would be necessary and proper that the President should give undertaking in terms, of an oath to that effect. Almost all Constitutions, especially Federal Constitution provide that an oath should be taken- by the head of the Executive. For instance, in the United States of America, the President of the Federation takes an oath of allegiance before he enters on his duties, in the following words:

"I do solemnly swear and affirm that I will faithfully execute the office of the President of the-United States and will to the best of my ability preserve. Protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."


4.29.143
Mr. D. H. Chandrasekharaiya
The Irish Constitution has a similar provision In its Constitution and it is to this effect:

"The President shall enter upon his Office by subscribing public in the presence of members of both Houses of the National Parliament and Judges of the Supreme Court and the High Court and other public personages the following Declaration:

"In the presence of Almighty God I do solemnly and sincerely promise and declare that I will fulfill my duties faithfully and conscientiously in accordance with the Constitution and law and that I will dedicate my abilities to the service and welfare of the people of Ireland. May God direct and sustain me."


4.29.144
Mr. D. H. Chandrasekharaiya
Any one of these forms will do for our own Constitution and the President of the Federation should also take a similar oath before he takes up his duties.


4.29.145
Mr. D. H. Chandrasekharaiya
I therefore commend this amendment to the kind consideration and approval of this House.


4.29.146
President
It is 1 O'Clock now. So the House will adjourn till 10 O'Clock tomorrow.

The Assembly then adjourned till Ten of the Clock, on Thursday the 24th July, 1947.

The Constituent Assembly of India met in the Constitution Hall at Ten of the Clock on Thursday, the 24th July, 1947, Mr. President (The Honourable Dr. Rajendra Prasad) in the Chair.
PRESENTATION OF CREDENTIALS AND SIGNING OF THE REGISTER

4.30.1
President
I understand that there is one member who has not signed the Roll. Will he please do so now?


4.30.2
President
The following member signed his name in the Register:


4.30.3
President
Kunwar Shamsher Jang. (Residuary States Gp.)

ELECTION OF MEMBERS TO STEERING COMMITTEE

4.30.4
President
There is a motion in the name of Mr. Satyanarayan Sinha regarding election of some members to the Steering Committee. Will he please move it?


4.30.5
Mr. Satyanarayan Sinha
Mr. President, Sir, the motion which stands in my name reads as follows:

"Resolved that this Assembly do proceed to elect, in the manner required under rule 40(5) of the Constituent Assembly Rules, two members to be members at the Steering Committee."


4.30.6
Mr. Satyanarayan Sinha
Two of the Honourable Members of this House, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad and Mr. Mane, have resigned from this Constituent Assembly and therefore under the Rules of Procedure they cease to be members of the Steering Committee to which they were elected by this House. I therefore propose that their vacancy should be filled. The manner in which the election will be held will be determined by the President.


4.30.7
President
Does any one wish to say anything on this Resolution?


4.30.8
Honourable Members
No.

The motion was adopted.

4.30.9
President
Nominations for the two vacancies in the Steering Committee will be received up to 1 P.M. tomorrow and elections, if necessary, will be held at 4 P.M. on the 26th in the Under Secretary's Room, No. 25, on the Ground Floor, Council House. The election will be by the system of proportional representation by the single transferable vote.

REPORT ON THE UNION CONSTITUTION-Contd.

4.30.10
President
We shall now proceed with the discussion of Clause 1 of Part IV of the Union Constitution.


4.30.11
Shri Sri Prakasa
What about my motion which is on the agenda for this morning?


4.30.12
President
I think it is for tomorrow.


4.30.13
Shri Sri Prakasa
I am sorry.


4.30.14
The Honourable Sir N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar
There is one amendment which has not been moved.


4.30.15
President
There are several amendments which have not yet been moved. I shall be coming to them.


4.30.16
Shri K. Santhanam
I rise on a point of order. I understand the Constituent Assembly Office has not circulated amendments which have been given notice of three or four days ago because you had fixed a time-limit for amendments before that date. But you have ruled that when any amendments are given notice of at least one day in advance of the date on which the motion is made, we will be allowed to move the amendments. Otherwise, the whole discussion will become useless because when we are proceeding certain amendments become necessary. For instance, I gave notice of an amendment on Monday. It was the result of discussion between friends and it was necessitated by imperfect drafting. It has not been circulated at all. When I enquired, I heard that all these amendments are simply filed in the office and nothing is done. I think it will put us to a great deal of hardship if things are done like this. I hope you will give a ruling on the subject.


4.30.17
President
I have given sufficient time for amendments to be put in by members and we can see from the list of amendments already circulated that we have, got a very large number of amendments to the various clause. I am told that even after the expiry of the time-limit which I placed, quite a large number of amendments have come in. If the House so desires I shall have no option but to circulate them too, but then it becomes very difficult to keep pace with these amendments which go on, comming in without end and interruption. So we must stick to the time limit by which amendments should be put in.


4.30.18
An Honourable Member
The time-limit is automatically fixed by the time taken up here.


4.30.19
President
It means then that all the amendments will have to be circulated as they come in.


4.30.20
Shri M. Ananthasayanam Ayyangar
That is the practice in every legislature. With very great respect, Sir, I say that your ruling is against Rule No. 32. Rule 32, Sub-Clause (3), says that except as permitted by the Chairman, notice, of an amendment must be given at least one clear day before the motion. In the Assembly every clause is moved and as the discussion proceeds, and when amendments suggest themselves to the Members, we give notice of them 24 hours in advance. ofthe actual discussion. That is all that we have to do. I submit, Sir, that it cannot be fixed that the time should be two days in advance. It will be reducing the whole thing to a formal and dead affair. If there is not sufficient staff in the office to deal with the amendments, the office has to be enlarged and not our rights curtailed.


4.30.21
Mr. President
I should like to be enlightened on this point by some one who has experience of legislatures. I want to know what is the procedure followed generally Mr. Purshottamdas Tandon might perhaps enlighten me. A large number of amendments keep on coming from day to day; what is the usual procedure of dealing with them?


4.30.22
The Honourable Shri Purshottamdas Tandon
Sir, the usual practice is for amendments to be tabled as the consideration of a bill proceeds, but every amendment has to be handed over to the office some time before the particular clause to which it relates is taken up for consideration. For instance, if you are taking up a clause, today and the rule requires that 48 hours, notice must be given of an amendment, the amendment to be moved must have been sent to the office 48 hours before the time at which it is to be considered today. That is all. It is not necessary that all the amendments should be delivered to the office before the consideration of the Bill is taken up.


4.30.23
President
Then we shall follow that procedure and all amendments of which notice is given in time under Rule 32 will be circulated.


4.30.24
Dr. P. S. Deshmukh
Sir, in that case, can I move my amendment to Clause 1 of which notice was given on Monday?


4.30.25
President
So far as Clause 1 is concerned, it was moved several days ago and amendments given notice of after the clause was moved cannot be taken into consideration. We shall now proceed with the other amendments. Shri Chandrasekharaiya moved both his amendments yesterday. Does Mr. A. K. Ghosh wish to move his amendment No. 96?


4.30.26
Mr. A. K Ghosh
No.


4.30.27
President
Sir N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar has an amendment.


4.30.28
The Honourable Sir N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar
Sir, my amendment seeks only a slight verbal change, that in the last sentence of sub-clause (2) of Clause 1, for the words "the votes of the Unit Legislatures" shall be substituted by the words "the votes of the members of the Unit Legislatures". The amendment hardly requires any explanation.


4.30.29
President
Another amendment is by Mr. J. N. Vyas.

(The amendment was not moved.)

4.30.30
President
I take it there is no other amendment to Clause 1. If any Member has got any other amendment to this clause which I have left out, he will please take this opportunity of moving it, and not complain later that he did not get an opportunity to do so.


4.30.31
President
As there is no other amendment, we shall now proceed to discuss the clause and the amendments which have been moved.


4.30.32
Syed Kazi Karimuddin
Mr. President, Sir, sub-clause (2) of Clause 1 says:

"The election shall be by an electoral college consisting of--

(a) the members of both Houses of Parliament of the Federation, and

(b) the members of the Legislatures of all the Units or, where a Legislature is bicameral, the members of the Lower House thereof."


4.30.33
Syed Kazi Karimuddin
All the amendments which were moved to have the election of the President on adult suffrage have been withdrawn; but I want to bring home to the House why this election should be made on the basis of adult suffrage.


4.30.34
Syed Kazi Karimuddin
The decision on this point mainly rests on the point of view whether the executive should be non-parliamentiary or parliamentary. I have been of the view that in India, looking to the conflicting political parties diverse ideologies and many diverse factors, for the maintenance of peace and tranquillity and for the effective representation of all parties in the Cabinet. It is necessary that there should be a non-parliamentary executive. The only reason that has been advanced why adult suffrage should not be introduced is that a huge machinery will have to be set up for dealing with the elections and the energies of the nation will be consumed in holding these elections. But that is absolutely no reason. In a country like America, the election of the President is held on adult suffrage and my submission is that if every fifth or every fourth year the election of the President is held, and held on the basis of adult suffrage, it will educate the masses. Momentous economic problems of great magnitude will be brought to the forefront. The masses will be educated if the election of the President is held on an all-India basis. Under the present sub-clause 2 of Clause 1, the President will be a puppet of the majority party and the persons, who have fought the elections partly on provincial basis and partly on the all-India. basis will elect the President for the whole Union.


4.30.35
Syed Kazi Karimuddin
Yesterday, while discussing the powers of the President, we felt that very wide powers had been given to him. He will be entitled even to suspend any part or the whole of the Constitution of a province. A President who will be afraid of the majority party and be elected by the electorate under sub-clause 2, will not, my submission is, be a man who will represent the entire nation on an all-India economic basis or on all-India issues. I have one more difficulty and that is very important. In order to suit the States, we have agreed that the members of the States' Legislatures shall be members of the Lower House of the Union. It is a patent fact and is known to everybody that there is no popular rule in the States, and the members of the Legislatures in the States probably will be those who have been nominated by the States or who will not be the real representatives of the people. By electing a President by such representatives who will form one-third of the voters practically, the President will not be representing the people of the States but those who are nominated by the States Rulers. Under these circumstances, it can never be said that the President will be the true representative of the people of the States. Under these circumstances I earnestly appeal to the House that if you want democratic rule, if you want that the President shall be the true representative of the people who vote on adult suffrage, under the electoral college mentioned in sub-clause 2 to Clause 1, as regards the States particularly, he can never be representative of the people of the land. Therefore I oppose this amendment.


4.30.36
Mr. Mahomed Sherif
Sir, I am of the opinion that the President of the Union should be elected on the basis of adult franchise. It would be in the fitness of things that the person who would be at the helm of affairs and to whom so many powers would be given and so many responsibilities, should be one who must be elected on this basis. Every voter who is qualified to vote should have the satisfaction that in the election of the person who should govern the country, he should have a voice. It was argued that if this method is to be followed, it would intelligence of the people is not very high; that this method will not work satisfactorily, and that corruption, bribery, and so many vitiating factors will operate. It seems to me, Sir, that these difficulties will be more than offset by the advantages accruing there from. The election will be a great education by itself. It will lead the people to further their political insight which they have got and it will be advantageous in more than one way.


4.30.37
Mr. Mahomed Sherif
In these circumstances I would suggest that the President should be elected on the basis of adult suffrage. As I said such an election would have the seal of approval from the point of view of the voters. With these remarks I oppose this motion.


4.30.38
Mr. Tajamul Husain
Sir, sub-clause (1) of Clause I of 1 of Part IV lays down that the head of the State shall be called President and that any person or citizen of the Republic who has attained the age of 35 can be elected as President of the Republic. Am amendment has been moved, Sir to the effect that the election of the President should be held in rotation, that is to say, that for one term of office the President shall be elected from the north of India and for another term of office from the south of India. The reason advanced by the Honourable the Mover is that the people of South India are total different from those of Northern India. I submit, Sir, that is a very dangerous principle to adopt. If you want to accept this principle that there should be a reservation of seats for the election of the President, every province may claim that in turn the President should be elected from a particular province.


4.30.39
Mr. Tajamul Husain
I will give you an example. The people of Western Bengal may very well claim that they are a different people from the rest of India.


4.30.40
An Honourable Member
No, no.


4.30.41
Mr. Tajamul Husain
I am glad that there is a voice saying no, no. And there should be no difference between one province and another. Therefore I submit, Sir, that the office of the President being the highest in the realm and he being the biggest dignitary of the Republic, we should have the best man. It does not matter from where he comes. It is quite possible that when the election is being held a Bihari, or a Christian, or a Jain, or a Parsee may happen to be the best man at that time. He may be ejected President. Therefore, I have come here to oppose this amendment.


4.30.42
Mr. Tajamul Husain
Paragraph (b) of sub-clause (2) of Clause 1 of Part IV lays down that the Upper House of a province where there are, two Houses, should not have the right of choosing the President of the Republic. An amendment has been moved by Rai Bahadur Syamanandan Sahaya of Bihar that that right should be given to the Upper House as well You will find that under sub-clause (a) both the Houses of the Central Legislature have been given the right of electing the President of the Union. There is no difference between the Upper House of the Central Legislature and the Upper House of a Provincial Legislature. Both have got special representation. If you do away with the Upper House then that is a different matter. I might support-you on democratic principle but we have decided that we are to have an Upper House for the Central Legislature and there are going to be Upper Houses in some provinces. In that case I would submit that the qualifications of the members of the Upper House of the Central and Provincial Legislatures being the same, the members of the Upper House of a Provincial Legislature may be allowed to participate in the selection of the President of the Republic. To me it appears there is no reason why the members of the Upper House of a Provincial Legislature should be deprived of their right, their privilege and their pleasure of choosing their own President of the Republic.


4.30.43
Mr. Tajamul Husain
I oppose the amendment of Mr. Syamanandan Sahaya.


4.30.44
Mr. H. R. Guruv Reddy
Mr. President, Sir, yesterday I was listening with very great interest to the discussions about nominations and particularly about the 'principles underlying nominations. One of our worthy colleagues was saying that the system. of nominations, particularly in States, should be done away with, and that if those nominations are adopted elsewhere, they would not be objectionable. Sir, I fail to see the reasoning of this part of the proposition. If nominations are bad, they are bad everywhere and, if they could be accepted, they ,ought to be accepted on principle everywhere. I fail to see why we should attach sanctity to nominations if an elected person adopts it and consider his action just and proper and right too, and at the same time consider nomination by a ruler of a State or under his direction as something fundamentally wrong and bad. There is no justification for accepting this principle of nomination in one place and rejecting it in another. If you want to do away with nominations, let us do so boldly. But, if for reasons of representation of various interests nominations have to be resorted to, certainly let us have nominations both in. the States and in the other Units. No one need be afraid that these nominations will be overwhelming in number. There is no need to fear that the ruler of a State would choose a person who would undo the good things that others attempt to do. In fact, if there is danger ahead, the ruler ought to be presumed to act suitably and put in persons who would represent all interest I would therefore repeat that if nominations are to be adopted in this House or by the President of the Federal Legislature, what reason is there to say that that system would be bad elsewhere?


4.30.45
Mr. H. R. Guruv Reddy
The other idea that was put forward by one of the speakers was that it would be a method by which we could coerce the States or other Units to adopt the method of election. That word 'coerce' is something very jarring. It is not a good and sound principle that we should coerce any person to accept or adopt our view. Our endeavour should be to win him over to our view. Therefore, Sir, once the principle underlying nominations is adopted here by the President, is ought to be allowed to be adopted elsewhere also on principle. But, as I said, I am basing my arguments on principles and not on facts. I would appeal to this august House that as the system of nominations has been accepted under the Constitution put forth for India, it ought to be allowed in other places also and it would certainly meet out justice to that section of the population which would be unrepresented otherwise.


4.30.46
Mr. H. R. Guruv Reddy
Sir, I now pass on to the more interesting, if more disturbing factor, namely the North and the South, the States and the non-States. Sir, personally I feel that the North is not separate from the South, nor is the South separate from the North. I am one of those who believe that any one who is given an opportunity, if he has got the requisite qualifications otherwise, should come up. It is only an opportunity that is sought for. It is not a territorial division. We know certain reasons why the North and the South are frequently apprehensive of this or that thing. A man like me coming from the South, the Mysore State, feels that the North has been getting larger representation on this Constituent body than in is due to it and that hereafter it should not be so. Sir, while I honestly feel that the South has been neglected for sometime for various reasons, I do not put the blame for it on anybody or on any section. But I do feel that the South is to some extent neglected. But then it is a, question of opportunity being given to the people of the South. If opportunities ire allowed I am positive that persons coming from the South can, equal if not surpass those coming from the North.


4.30.47
Mr. H. R. Guruv Reddy
Sir, this question of States and non-States is really perplexing. Coming from a State I very much desire that an opportunity is given to someone from the State to be the Chief of India. But then it is again a vicious thing. The States form only one-third of the entire Dominion. And then the qualifications and other considerations that are to be laid down for this purpose is another disturbing factor. So far as I am concerned, I cannot agree to the separation of States and non-States for the purpose of election. As I said, given the requisite opportunity, given the requisite representation to the States, anyone who has got that courage of conviction to speak out boldly, honestly and fearlessly ought to find a place in the Indian Constitution.


4.30.48
Mr. H. R. Guruv Reddy
Sir, it is difficult to create a reservation either for the non-States or for the States or even to set up a rotation as it were, in the Constitution. I emphasise the word 'Constitution'. Sir, these are things which should be looked into and provided for in what we know as 'convention'. We are starting today with a new Constitution for India and the Constitution itself provides for a change. We can work for another three years and If we find any difficulty we could have the Constitution changed suitably. Apart from that, I would never invoke the aid of the legislature for the purpose. As I said, it is only a healthy convention and good feeling and understanding between the North and the South and between the States and the non-States that can solve the problem. No legislation can solve it.


4.30.49
Mr. H. R. Guruv Reddy
In this connection I would like to draw your very kind attention to the Madras mayoralty. There was a lot of bickering so far as the Madras mayoralty was concerned. Some years ago, it should be said to the credit of Sir Ramaswami Mudaliar that he, when he had something to do with that mayoralty, set up a convention. And that convention is being now respected and persons of various communities and various sections are being elected according to the convention laid down. It is not difficult for us to take this illustration and to follow it up even in the election of our President. Sir, I would once more state that it is convention, good understanding, good feeling between the North and the South, between the States and non-States that will solve this problem, not any law or any clause in the law.


4.30.50
Mr. H. R. Guruv Reddy
Sir, with this I pass on to another very small matter but which looms very large, the question of the oath which was very ably put forth by my worthy colleague as an essential matter, and I do not know that lacuna crept into this report on the Union Constitution. No provision has been made here for the oath. Sir, it is a common thing all over the world, in all well-established Governments, that the Head of the State takes the oath on his entry into that high office. It would be becoming and worthy of our Indian Government the President should take the oath before an appropriate authority that he would safeguard the constitution that is being framed now and which he is going to work.


4.30.51
Mr. H. R. Guruv Reddy
With these remarks, Sir, I commend the amendments and principles I have just put forward to the acceptance of the House.


4.30.52
Pandit Lakshmi Kanta Maitra
Sir, I do not want to make a speech. I want to suggest that the pace at which we are moving is very slow. At this rate I am afraid we won't be able to stick to the time-table. I suggest that now that we are discussing only the principles of the constitution, speeches may be confined to the particular clause or amendments under discussion and not touch the entire field of the Indian Union Constitution.


4.30.53
Pandit Lakshmi Kanta Maitra
I entirely agree with you that we should not discuss the entire field of the Constitution but must confine ourselves to the particular amendment that has been moved or the particular clause which is under discussion. I would also request members to limit their speeches to five minutes, unless in a particular case I find that the question is being discussed is of such a nature that it requires a longer time.


4.30.54
Mr. H. V. Kamath
Sir, two amendments moved on the floor of this House yesterday, one by my friend, Rai Bahadur Syamanandan Sahaya, and the other by my friend Mr. Channiah.


4.30.55
Mr. H. V. Kamath
Mr. Sahaya's amendment is to the effect that, where the legislature is bicameral, the members of the Upper House, also must have the right of voting in the election for the President. I stand here, to oppose that amendment. It was asked why, when the members of the Upper House of the Union are allowed to vote, the same privilege should not be extended to members of the upper chambers of the Units. If my friend looks at Chapter II, he will find that the Council of States is proposed to be set up on a different basis from that of the upper chambers of the Units. Moreover, we have visualised the President as being all integral part of the Federal Parliament which will be composed of the President and the National Assembly, the National Assembly in its turn being composed of the Council of States and the House of the People. Where the President is an integral part, an essential part of the Federal Parliament, it stands to reason that both Houses should take part in the election of the President.


4.30.56
Mr. H. V. Kamath
The other amendment was moved by my friend, Mr. Channiah. That amendment is astounding, bordering on the ridiculous. At a time, Sir, when we have regretfully accepted the division of India on a communal basis, at a time, Sir, when fissiparous and centrifugal tendencies are holding the field. at a time, Sir, when most of us here want to see the unity of our country restored to its pristine condition, it is amazing that a member of this House should stand up and draw a distinction between the north and south of our country. I was inclined to think that at least after the march of Agstya across the Vindhyas and after the battle of Rama with Vali and Ravana, this difference between the north and south of India had been obliterated. We have heard of the Maginot Line in Europe; we have heard of the Siegried Line in Europe; we have heard of the Curzon Line, the Durand Line in Europe. If Mr. Channiah's amendment is accepted the day will not be far off when we will have a Channiah line in India between the north and south of India. When we are trying to build a strong State, when we are trying to wipe away all the differences of the past, when the division of the country on a communal basis has been accepted most reluctantly, it is amazing that an amendment of this kind should be propounded on the floor of this House. Precisely for that reason, Sir, I am opposed, for the present at least, even to a linguistic division of provinces. Let us for the present bend all our energies to the task of building up a mighty Indian Union: and let us bend our energies to the task of restoring the unity of our country. Let us, Sir, realize the goal which we have foundly cherished of a strong united India, an independent India marching forward for the welfare of India and the peace of the world; an India where all Indians, be they Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Parsees or Sikhs all small march together, as citizens of one common Motherland, a united, strong and independent India. That is the theme, Sir which is uppermost in our minds. We are still hoping to realize the dream when the unity of our country will be restored. It is in the spirit of the words of that famous song, which is on the lips of all Indians today;

(Har sooba ke rahanewale har mazhab ke prani

Sab bhed aur farak mitake sab goda me teri ake goonthe prema ki mala.

Suraj bankar jag par chamke Bharat nama subhaga.)


4.30.57
Mr. H. V. Kamath
that I oppose the doctrine which was propounded yesterday by my friend Mr. Channiah seeking to divide the North from the South. One of my friends, Sir, said that the South has been neglected. I fail to see how or in what way the South of India has been neglected. If my friend says that the South means only Madras. I differ from him. I would like him first to define the South of India, whether the South means only Madras or Madras plus Bombay and the various other component parts. I for one think that the South has not been neglected. Today it is the two States in the South. Hyderabad and Travancore which are giving us the headache. If it is the result of neglect and if it is the result of being unimportant, I do not know, Sir, what my friend means, These two States of the South today, Sir, are giving most of our statesmen and our leaders a big headache. If my friend thinks that Southern India has been neglected. I do not know, Sir, how he can forget the eminent and leading politicians from Bombay and from Madras who have contributed to the political development, the political evolution of our common Motherland.


4.30.58
Mr. H. V. Kamath
Then, Sir, a point was made out that the oath should be taken by the President of the Federation. I agree, but this is not the place where the oath should be mentioned. The oath will certainly find a place in the Constitution when it comes to be finally drafted. Here we are discussing merely the principles of the Constitution therefore I think that here the mention of the oath to be taken by the President is out of place. For that matter, Sir. we can as well say that the members of the Legislature too should take an oath of allegiance to the country, but you are not mentioning anything like that. They are mere details which are to be taken into account when the Constitution is actually drafted. I therefore, Sir, shall not take the time of the house. I oppose the amendments which were moved by Rai Bahadur Syamanandan Sahaya and my friend, Mr. Channiah.


4.30.59
Shri Ajit Prasad Jain
Mr. President, I support the resolution moved by Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru. The method suggested herein for the election of the President is very appropriate, some of the members present have proposed that the President should be elected by adult franchise. Many arguments have been advanced against this proposal. At one place the resolution says different weight will be attached to the votes of different members, e.g. the vote of the member representing lesser number of people will be considered less weighty and that of the member representing greater number of people will be considered more weighty. I would like to say this much that this balances the defects caused by indirect election. The example of America has been cited where the population is 130 to 140 millions and the President is elected on the basis of adult franchise. I beg to point out that in America it was considered desirable that the Presidential election should not be direct but through "Electoral College". We too have here a proposal for the formation of an Electoral College, the members of which will be elected by the people. Thus the election of our President will also be according to the choice of the people. I had only to say this much but I feel one difficulty in the scheme sponsored by Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru. According to it, the President will be elected through an electoral college. All members of both the Houses of the Federal Parliament--The Council of States and the House of People--will be the members of the electoral college and they will participate in the Presidential election. The members of the Provincial legislatures and the States legislatures too have been given the right to participate in the Presidential election. So far as the votes of the members of the Unit legislatures are concerned, it is said in the proposal that different weight age will be given to them. For example one vote of a member representing ten thousand voters will be considered equal to 10 votes of a member representing one million voters, Sir.


4.30.60
Shri Ajit Prasad Jain
So far as Unit legislatures are concerned this method is very appropriate and desirable. But it has not been clearly stated in the proposal, whether any weightage will be given to the votes of the members of the Federal Parliament (House of people and Council of States) or what will be the value of their votes or the relative position of those votes. One of the interpretations of the proposal relating the unit legislature appears to be that in the present state of affairs, each member of the House of People has merely one vote. If this is correct. I consider the proposal very wrong. In the draft proposal presented to us, it has been stated at a later stage that on an average a member of the House 'of People represents one million voters. If he gets merely one vote, this means that members of the Unit legislature who represent only ten thousand voters get 10 votes and a member of Federal Legislature, e.g., the House of People who represent one million voters gets only One vote according to the present scheme. In my opinion this is not fair. The question of giving due weightage to the votes of the members of the Federal Parliament should be reconsidered so that the people might be properly represented.


4.30.61
Shri Ajit Prasad Jain
There appears another difficulty. It is possible that state may have some sort of nomination and would be difficult to say as to what would be the value of the votes of the nominated members. Again, there might be some constituencies which are not territorial for example, the university and the Lab our Constituencies. So far as the provinces are concerned. we have decided that there would be territorial constituencies and there shall be no special constituencies. But in States it is possible that there may be some territorial and some non-territorial constituencies and some nominations as well. Another difficulty may arise from the method suggested for giving weightages to different votes of nominated members. If you decide that some sort of weightage should be given to the votes of the members of the Federal Parliament also, although the proposal contains no mention of it--the difficulty arises as to what would be the weight of the votes of the members nominated to the Council of State.


4.30.62
Shri Ajit Prasad Jain
However, I wish to draw your attention to the necessity of a clear provision for classifying and giving weightage to the votes of the members of the Federal Parliament.


4.30.63
Shri Ajit Prasad Jain
With these few words, I hope that you will consider my suggestions.


4.30.64
President
I have got three more names in the list. I find some more members standing up wishing to speak. We have already taken one hour today and we took about one hour yesterday on this clause. If we go on discussing at this rate, I do not think we shall be able to complete even one Part by Thursday next when we wish to close. I therefore desire to request the members to cut down their speeches to the minimum and if any point has already been discussed by any member, not to speak on the same point and repeat the same arguments.


4.30.65
Dr. P. S. Deshmukh
May I suggest, Sir the system of giving names should be stopped and opportunity should be given only to that member who catches the eye of the President?


4.30.66
President
I accept that, Hereafter, I shall not accept any slip. Any one who catches my eye will be allowed to speak.


4.30.67
Mr. Yudhisthir Mistra
Sir, I support the amendment of Mr. K. Chengalaraya. Reddy to sub-clause (2) (b) of Clause. Mr. Reddy has moved an amendment to substitute the words "elected members" for the word "members". It would appear to many of the honourable members present here that the word sought to be inserted is unnecessary and superfluous, because tinder the present constitution, the provincial legislatures would have no nominated members. But I would like to remind the honourable members that there is no corresponding change in the constitution of the State legislature. In many of the States, especially in the smaller ones, there is an overwhelming number of nominated members in the legislatures. In fact. in some of the States, there is no legislature at all. I represent the Orissa States and I would submit before this House that in some of the States there is no legislature at all. Wherever there is any legislature, the number of nominated members is so large, that the elected representatives have no voice in the Legislative Assembly. In some of the States, the State Congress and the Praja Mandals have boycotted elections to the Legislative Assembly in view of the unsatisfactory franchise. Wherever there is a legislature, the franchise is narrow and based on communal lines, and it has a large number of nominated members. Sir, if you allow the nominated members to take part in the election of the President, then, some of the States may set up inadequate and bogus representative assemblies and try to influence the election by undemocratic methods. It would be a mockery of democracy if the nominated members are allowed to take part in the election of the President of the future Republic of India. I therefore support the amendment which has been moved by my honourable friend Mr. Reddy.


4.30.68
Mr. Yudhisthir Mistra
At the same time, Sir, I would oppose the amendment moved by Mr. Chandrasekhariah. He says that the President shall be alternately elected from the States and non-States units. It is an insult to the States if such a limitation is placed on the election of the President.


4.30.69
Mr. R. K. Sidhwa
Mr. President. I had no desire to enter into this debate but for one point which was raised by my Honourable friend Mr. Reddy from Mysore State, who advocated the rotation system for the election of the President and in support of that he quoted the instance of the mayorality of the Municipal Corporation of Madras.


4.30.70
An Honourable Member
There are two members from Mysore. The reference may be clarified, Sir.


4.30.71
President
(To Mr. Sidhwa) You have made a mistake with regard to the name of the speaker.


4.30.72
Mr. R. K. Sidhwa
He came from Mysore. Sir, It is true that in the Municipal Corporation of Madras, there is the rotation system for the election of the Mayor. In the first year a Brahmin is elected, in the second year a Non-Brahmin and in the third year a Harijan. A similar convention prevails in the Bombay Municipal Corporation. In the first ear a Hindu is elected in the second year a Muslim, in the third year a Parsi and in the fourth year a Christian. A similar system exists in the Karachi Municipal Corporation also. In the first year a Parsi is elected, then a Muslim, then a Christian and then a Hindu. Also in the Calcutta Corporation, a similar system exists. As I have something to do with this rotation system, in the Municipal Mayoral elections in India, I may say that this rotation was introduced to give an opportunity to every community for the purpose of presiding over this Only honoured office. It is only an honoured office, I repeat, Sir. The Mayor has absolutely no power except that he presides at the meetings of the Municipal Corporation. Let me assure you, Sir, he has no executive power although he is the first Citizen of the city. Therefore, you cannot compare the mayorality with the election of the President. The President of India will be the best man. He will have many executive powers. lie will have to select a Premier and he will have to select his Ministers. He will have power of dissolution of the legislature, Over and above all, Sir, under the proposed constitution, lie will be the Supreme Commander of the Army. Do you want, under these circumstances. Sir, the President to be elected by rotation? I shall certainly strongly oppose the President being elected on any kind of communal basis or the rotation or province wise system being introduced. We must have the best man for the President. If the President elected is the best man, we shall elect him for a second time--the best man whosoever he may be he may have become from the north, south, west or east. We cannot tolerate the election of the President community wise, or province- wise or anywise as I stated. The convention introduced in the election of the Mayor does not apply in the election of the President. The Mayor is merely a figure-head. He only presides over the meetings. He has no executive power. The convention is only meant to give opportunities to the several communities to occupy the honoured and dignified post of the first Citizen of the city, You cannot mix up therefore the conventional system in the election of the President. I therefore strongly oppose this. There is no amendment to that effect, but implicitly or explicitly no reservation or no convention should be made even by our topmost, leaders that, we shall elect the President province-wise or from the north, south, west or east of India, or we shall elect a Parsi, a Christian or a Muslim. The best man should be elected. I therefore, Sir, strongly oppose the convention of election province wise to the office of President.


4.30.73
Shri R. V. Dhulekar
Mr. President, I desire to speak a few words in support of The clause which has been moved much has been said in support of it but I would not say anything about them. I would draw your attention to only two matters.


4.30.74
Shri R. V. Dhulekar
Firstly, some members have said that the system of election is very irregular in the States and some of the States representatives to this Assembly have been nominated either by the government or by the rulers and they should not be allowed to take part in the election of the President. In fairness, we must admit that the rulers, participating in the Constituent Assembly were subjected to such injustice at the hands of the British government that they have grown apprehensive that if they join the union they would be crushed. A burnt child dreads fire. We must not think that they are degraded and demoralised Indians. Personally I think that they were placed in such circumstances under the British government that they could not follow the policy which they should have. Therefore, I do not think it proper to raise this point that the nominated members should not be allowed to participate in the Presidential elections. In my opinion we must accept their request that they should be given time so that they may fully realise on joining the Union that the rulers and their people will have the same rights and status that we have. When they have realised the advantages of Joining the union, their autocracy will automatically vanish and the rulers will, feel that they are common Indians and they have the same rights that the common people have.


4.30.75
Shri R. V. Dhulekar
The second thing to which I desire to draw your attention is this.


4.30.76
Shri R. V. Dhulekar
According to this clause regarding the members of the Provincial legislatures it will have to be considered as to how many people they represent; and in order to give weightage to the votes, the word "weightage" has been included here. In my opinion, it is unnecessary. It is quite possible that some members might have said that at some places with lesser population they had got comparatively more seats than those having greater population. But in my opinion, no member, whether returned from any provincial legislature or State legislature should be considered go narrow minded that he would demand weightage for his votes in the presidential election. I know, in my own province, some members represent 50 thousand voters while some represent ten thousand and others fifteen thousand voter.. But after being elected, he does not think it at all that he represents so many people. He considers himself only a member of the legislature and behaves in a 'way befitting his dignity'. Therefore the inclusion of the world 'weightage' appears odd but at the same time there is no harm in it and hence I do not oppose it.


4.30.77
Shri R. V. Dhulekar
With these words, I support the clause.


4.30.78
President
The Mover, Pandit Jawahar Lal Nehru, may now reply to the debate.


4.30.79
The Honourable Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru
Mr. President, there are many amendments. But the greatest emphasis has been laid on one point: the election of the President on the basis of adult franchise, i.e., everybody should take part in the election. Another amendment is that the word "Rashtrapati" should be Substituted by the word "Neta" or "Karandhar". Still another amendment is that the President should be elected alternatively from the North and the South. Again,there is an amendment which says that the members of the Upper Houses also should take part in the Presidential election. There is yet another amendment; but I do not know whether it has been moved or not. According to this amendment, the President should be elected from the States and non-State portion of the Indian Republic (by rotation) alternately.


4.30.80
The Honourable Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru
Lastly, there is an amendment which deals with the oath of allegiance.


4.30.81
The Honourable Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru
I regret very much that I cannot accept any of these amendments except the one proposing that the word "member" should be substituted by "elected member", though the word "elected" is not a definite improvement. The draft would have thoroughly clarified the point: but in spite of this, if you wish to add the word "elected", I am ready to accept it. Something has been said about the oath also. It is obvious that it will figure in the Constitution. At this stage, it does not seam necessary.


4.30.82
The Honourable Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru
So far as the question of the election of the President, from the North and the South and from the States or non-State units is concerned, it seems to be wrong in principle. It is not desirable that we elect 'the President, once from one class and the next time from the other, and framing of rules and statutory provisions for this purposes is highly undesirable.


4.30.83
The Honourable Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru
In answer to the query, as to why members of the Upper Houses should not take part in the presidential election. I submit that there will be much difference between the Upper Houses of the States Units and those of the provinces. I cannot say which the units will have an Upper House. Another point is that the States and the Provinces will have different standards. No body knows what principles the States and the provinces will adopt. If this right is conceded to the Upper Houses it will create confusion. Therefore, in my opinion. the proposition is correct that in the Centre, both the Houses shall have the right to take part in the presidential election, and in the units only the Lower House. There is a complexity which has not been clarified i.e., whether the units will have greater rights than the Centre, whether the members of the Central Legislature will have one vote or more to balance the voting strength of units. It is for our advisers to make this point clear, Therefore, for the present, in my opinion, as I have already stated and as has already been printed it should be left as it is. I have already stated in the beginning, and I repeat it once again and if you, too reflect Over it, you will arrive at, the same conclusion, that it is best to leave this choice unfettered. I am not prepared to believe that adult franchise is absolutely essential. Obviously, the number of those who will elect the members of the Assembly will be in millions and they are expected to be proper persons. Therefore, when the members of the Assembly themselves are being elected by the votes of millions where is the necessity for electing the President by adult franchise? Therefore, if you desire to frame and promulgate your constitution without necessary delay, then we should avoid complications; otherwise we will not be able to frame our Constitution in the least possible time, and act on it.


4.30.84
The Honourable Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru
If you want to elect the President by adult franchise, then this would mean that we will have to waste much of our time in holding (Presidential) elections and we will not be able to act according to our new Constitution. Therefore, it is my desire that this resolution should be accepted in the form I have put before you.


4.30.85
Mr. Mahomed Sheriff
Will you kindly throw some light on one matter? You have referred to election in Clause 2(a). When you accept the principle of nomination in this amendment, then why do you not accept this amendment also? Why this contradiction between the two?


4.30.86
The Honourable Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru
Which clause did you read?


4.30.87
Mr. Mahomed Sheriff
Page 9, Clause 14 (a).


4.30.88
The Honourable Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru
The question of may accepting or rejecting nomination is not in issue. I accept that particular type of nomination which is recorded herein, that is to say; nominees of units and "scientific bodies" should be taken. This is not the question. I have already said that the President should be elected by the votes of the elected members.


4.30.89
President
I will now put the amendments to vote first. The first amendment which I have to put is the one moved by Mr. Channiah

"That in sub-clause (1) of Clause I after the word "Selected" the words "by rotation either by the North of India or South of India" be inserted."


4.30.90
President
May I point out to the member the great difficulty which I have rent with regard to this. The clause as it sought to be amended by him will read:

"The Head of the Federation shall be the President to be elected by rotation either by the North of India or South of India."


4.30.91
President
That is to say, the members alone of the North in one year and alone of the South in the next election will take part in the election, but I think he means not the members who will take part in the election, but the President himself. I have pointed this out, and shall now put the amendment to vote.

The amendment was negatived.

4.30.92
President
The next one is by Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad

"That in sub-clause (1) of Clause 1, for the words "as provided below" "the words in the manner set out below" be substituted."


4.30.93
President
It is a verbal amendment. I do not know if it is necessary. Anyhow, I shall put it to vote.

The amendment was negatived.

4.30.94
President
Then there is the amendment of Rai Bahadur Syamanandan Sahaya

"That in paragraph (b) of sub-clause (2) of Clause 1, the words "or, where a legislature is bicameral, the members of the Lower House thereof" be deleted."

The amendment was negatived.

4.30.95
President
There is an amendment by Mr. Chengalaraya Reddy that

"That in sub-clause (2) (b) of clause 1, for the words "the members" wherever they occur, the words "the elected members" be substituted."


4.30.96
President
This has been accepted by the Mover.

The amendment was adopted.

4.30.97
President
Then there is an amendment by Mr. Chandrasekharaiya that the following new sub-clause be added after sub-clause (3) of Clause I:--

"3(A) The President shall be alternately elected from the State and the non State Units."

The amendment was negatived.

4.30.98
President
There is another amendment by Mr. Chandrasekha-raiya that the following new sub-clause be inserted after sub-clause (4) of clause 1:-

"(5) Provision should be made for the President to take the oath of office as in the constitution of U.S.A."

The amendment was negative.

4.30.99
President
The next is, Sir, N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar's

"That in the last sentence of sub-clause (2) of Clause 1, for the words 'the votes of the Unit Legislative' the words 'the votes of the members of the Unit Legislatures' be substituted."

The amendment was adopted.

4.30.100
President
I think these are all the amendments that have been moved. Of these two have been carried. Now the Resolution as amended is put to vote.

Clause 1, as amended, was adopted.

4.30.101
President
Now we pass on to Clause 2. Pandit Nehru may move the clause.

CLAUSE 2

4.30.102
The Honourable Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru
Sir, I beg to move:

(1) The President shall hold office for five years : Provided that--

(a) a President may by resignation under his hand addressed to the Chairman of the Council of States and the Speaker of the House of the People resign his offices,

(b) a President may for violation of the Constitution be removal from office by impeachment in the manner provided in sub-clause (2).

(2) (a) When a President is to be impeached for violation of the Constitution the charge shall be preferred by either House of the Federal Parliament but no proposal, to prefer such charge shall be adopted by that House except upon a resolution of the House supported by not less than two-thirds of the total membership of the House.

(b) When a charge has been so preferred by either House of the Federal Parliament the other House shall investigate the charge or cause the charge to be investigated and the President shall have the right to appear and to be represented at such investigation.

(c) If as a result of the investigation a resolution is passed supported by not less than two-thirds of the total membership of the House by which the charge was investigated or caused to be investigated declaring that the charging preferred against the President has been sustained, the resolution, shall have the effect of removing the President from his office as from the date of the resolution.

(3) A person who holds or who has held office as President shall be eligible for re-election once but only once, "


4.30.103
The Honourable Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru
There are, Sir, we might say, three-parts of this Resolution; one relating to the term of office--five years. Now, this is not a matter of high principle, but after consideration we thought five years will be a suitable term. Four will be too little and more than five certainly too much. The rest of it deals mostly with the impeachment of the President. And lastly, this clause says that a person can only hold office twice, that is to say, not only twice successively, or consecutively, but twice altogether That means, no man can be President for more than ten years altogether in his life. The question, as is well known, has often been discussed in the United States of America and normally speaking, nobody was supposed to be President beyond the second term. In the course of the last war, of course, President Roosevelt actually went into the fourth term; but as a matter of fact, ten years is about as much as any normal human constitution can bear this heavy burden. Presumably, when a person becomes President, he will not be too young. He may be in the late forties or fifties and I think it is not right for person to be asked to assume this burden beyond ten years. President Roosevelt, under the stress of circumstances carried on for the fourth term, but he only carried on for two or three months after his election, So I submit that this rule about not holding office more than twice is a good rule and we should adhere to it.


4.30.104
The Honourable Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru
For the rest, I have little more to say. In case there are amendments, I shall deal with them at the end of the debate.


4.30.105
President
I have got a number of amendments to this clause. Mr. Pataskar.


4.30.106
Mr. H. V. Patasker
I do not wish to move my, amendment.


4.30.107
President
Mr. Shibbanlal Saksena.


4.30.108
Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena
Sir, I have given notice of an amendment to the effect:

"That in sub-clause (1) of clause 2, for the figure "5" the figure "4" be substituted."


4.30.109
Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena
Just now Pandit Nehru was explaining why this term of five years has been fixed upon and said that it was neither too long nor too short for the term. of the President. I quite agree with him. But I would like to point one serious flaw. Later in Clause 13, sub-clause (5) it is stated:

"The House of the People. unless soon dissolved, shall continue for four from the date appointed for its first meeting and no longer.....".


4.30.110
Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena
That means that the life of the House of the People will be four years. Similarly the fife of our Provincial Legislatures is also four years. This means that in the first election the President will continue for one year after the life of the Provincial Legislature or the life of the House of the People comes to an end. In the second election, he will be elected after two years after the elections for the House of the People, in the next election after three years and so on. Thus at the time of electing the President the legislatures may become quite out of date and may not truly reflect the public opinion in the country at the time. Every fourth election of the President will be by legislatures due to expire a few months after. This will be a most undesirable situation. It may be urged that legislatures will not always run their fixed four year terms and some may have to be dissolved earlier. This is true, but such dissolutions of legislatures will be rare. Members of some fifteen legislatures will elect the President. If one or two among them have been dissolved before completing their normal term, and their members are freshly elected at the time of the President's election, still the members of the remaining thirteen or fourteen legislatures will not be freshly elected, and the overwhelming majority of the electorate will not truly reflect public opinion in the province at the time of the President's election. Therefore it will be much better if the election for the Presidentship is also held once in four years along with the general election to the Provincial legislatures.


4.30.111
Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena
It may be argued that when the general elections take place there. will be none left in office after dissolution of legislatures except caretaker governments and it is necessary to have at least the President who will not be a caretaker President. But I submit Sir, the President will vacate his office only when his successor has been elected, so that the office will never remain vacant, nor will it ever be occupied by a caretaker President. Under the 5 years system, it is also possible that when a legislature is elected sometime at the end of the fourth year of the President's term of office, the new members may lose the chance of electing the President during their life time.


4.30.112
Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena
I wanted to bring these defects to the notice of the House, but I do not want to press my amendment.


4.30.113
President
Then you do not move your amendment?


4.30.114
Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena
No.


4.30.115
President
Hereafter, I think I shall have to ask the members first to move their amendments and then deliver the speech. Mr. Mahomed Sherif.


4.30.116
Mr. Mahomed Sherif
Mr. President, Sir, my amendment is:

"That in sub-clause (1) of Clause 2, for the figure "5" the figure "4" be substituted."


4.30.117
Mr. Mahomed Sherif
That means that Instead of holding his office for five years, the President shall hold it for four years. My intention is to make the life of the legislature and the tenure of office of the President the same. That will be in consonance with the strict principles of democracy. The Report says that the legislature should last for four years; if that is so, then immediately the legislature goes, the President also must become functus officio and if he still remains President that will be against the principle of democracy. It might possibly be argued that after four years the elections would take place and if the President, should be functus officio then, who should carry on the administration? For this I would suggest that two or three months before the expiry of the four years the election of the President may be held, so that the termination of the four years the President would have been elected.


4.30.118
Mr. Mahomed Sherif
With these observations. Sir, I move my amendment.


4.30.119
Mr. D. H. Chandrasekharaiya
Mr. President, Sir, the amendment which stands in my name runs as follows:

"That in sub-clause (1) of Clause 2, for the figure and word "5 years", the following word be substituted:

"4 years or until the election of a new President whichever event happen later"."


4.30.120
Mr. D. H. Chandrasekharaiya
Under our constitution the term of office of the President is proposed to be fixed at five years, while the terms of the lower houses will stand at four years. Under this arrangement the President becomes one year behind hand during the second term of the Lower House, two years behind hand during the third term and four years behind hand during the fifth term. Thus you will find that the President becomes more and more removed from the popular house, as we advance from the second to the fifth term. This is a state of affairs which cannot be accepted with any reason or logic.


4.30.121
Mr. D. H. Chandrasekharaiya
The President is proposed to be elected by the members of the Federal and Unit legislatures. it would therefore be right that the Presidential election should reflect the opinion of the legislatures concerned and if the Presidential office becomes old and does not properly reflect the opinions of the legislatures, then there might arise the possibility of conflicts between the President and the legislature concerned. It is to avoid this possibility that the term of office of the President should be made coterminous with the terms of the popular houses of the Centre and the Units.


4.30.122
Mr. D. H. Chandrasekharaiya
It may be argued that one year extra is proposed to be added to the term of office of the President, in order that discontinuity in the policies and measures of administration should not happen soon after the legislatures come to an end. I do not think that this will really happen, taking the experience of countries where this system actually prevails. But even granting for argument's sake that this difficulty is bound to occur, it may be easily avoided by continuing the same President for a, short time longer till the new legislatures come into being and the new President is elected.


4.30.123
Mr. D. H. Chandrasekharaiya
Let me refer to the practice adopted in a few well known constitutions of the world. In the U.S.A the President is elected for four years arid he continues during two periods of the lower house. In Switzerland the Federal Council is elected for four years, that being the period fixed for the lower house, as well in the Soviet Union the People's Commissars are elected for four years, while the Council of the Union lasts for the same period of four years. In Ireland the period of the President is 7 years and the same is the period for the lower house. Thus the practice elsewhere seems to be that the period of the term of office of the President coincides with the life of the lower houses. I think it would be worthwhile to adopt the same practice in our constitution. I do not think that there is any particular charm in the number Five. Therefore taking the practice obtaining elsewhere into consideration and in view of the advantage of fixing the same period for both the term of office of the President and the term of the lower houses. I feel that. the amendment I have proposed is a very sound one and I hope that the House will kindly accept the same.

(Amendments Nos. 102, 103 and 104 were not moved.)

4.30.124
Mr. H. V. Kamath
Sir, as the President's position under the constitution is such that he is not likely to misbehave I do not think it is necessary or me to move my amendment No. 105.

(Amendments Nos. 106 to 120 were not moved.)

4.30.125
Rai Bahadur Syamanandan Sahaya
Sir, my amendment runs thus:

'That the following new sub-clause be added after sub-clause (3), of Clause 2 :

'(4) A person who has been removed from the office of the President under sub-clause 2 will not be eligible for re-election for two terms'."


4.30.126
Rai Bahadur Syamanandan Sahaya
With your permission and with the permission of the House I would like to amend my amendment and drop the words "for two terms" occurring at the end. My amended amendment will then read: "A person who has been removed from the office of the President under sub-clause 2 will not be eligible for re-election." The principle suggested in this amendment is of course so obvious that I will not endeavour to place arguments in support and I have no doubt that, in drafting this matter will be set right. A similar amendment was moved to the Provincial Constitution. Hence I thought I might as well place this amendment for your consideration in connection with the Union Constitution.


4.30.127
Mr. H. V. Kamath
Mr. President, as my amendment to sub-clause (3) of Clause 2 is unnecessary I am not moving it.


4.30.128
President
There are all the amendments, of which I have notice to Clause 2. If there are any others. Members who have given notice will please tell me and take this opportunity of moving them. As I see none rising, I think the House can now proceed to the discussion of the Clause and also the amendments.


4.30.129
President
Is there any Member desiring to speak on this Clause?

(Honourable Members "Vote")

4.30.130
The Honourable Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru
There are two amendments moved to this Clause neither of which raises any question of high policy, the last one especially stresses an obvious thing. It is impossible, practically speaking, for a President removed from office to stand for re-election. I do not imagine any high principles involved in this. We are dealing with important matters. If something else has to be done about it, it Will be done later.


4.30.131
The Honourable Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru
As regards the amendment concerning the term of years, that too is not a matter of big policy. We fixed this period for various reasons into which I need not go now, one of them being not to just fit in with the four-year period of the other elections. Now, many members seem to think that, while the elections to the provincial and other legislatures will take place once in four years, this alone will take place every five years and that after sometime it may so happen that the electors will be rather old in the sense of being elected three or four years previously. Well it may be that the five-year period for the President will be a fixed term unless the President dies or is impeached or something happens to him. But, so far as the other provincial, etc. elections are concerned it is obvious and it is highly likely that the four-year period will not be strictly adhered to. Elections will necessarily have to be held from time to time. Something may happen; the Ministry might change; it might lose the confidence of the House and so many other things may happen and there will be so many of the provincial legislatures that you can not say at any time that the membership has remained constant without a change. Membership of the legislatures will be changing from year to year or from quarter to quarter so that this objection that the 'Rashtrapati' will be chosen by an electorate which itself has been chosen several years previously does not hold at all. There will be a changing electorate all the time and the four-year period is only maximum period. The electorate may remain unchanged for one year or 6 months and fresh election will take place as it now does. I submit therefore that, in the balance, the five-year period is better.


4.30.132
President
I will put the amendment to the vote. The question is:

"That in sub-clause (1) of clause 2, for the figure "5" the figure "4" be substitute."

The motion was negatived.

4.30.133
President
Now I shall Put the next amendment to the vote. The question is:

"That in sub-clause (1) of Clause 2, for the figure and word "5 years" the following words be substituted:

'4 years or until the election of a new President whichever event happens later'."

The motion was negatived.

4.30.134
Rai Bahadur Syamanandan Sahaya
Sir, I wish to say a word at the stage I do not think it will be right to take a negative vote on my amendment (No. 121). I would rather leave it to the drafters. A negative vote on this amendment will mean that in the opinion of this House an impeached President will be eligible for re-election. If the Hon'ble Mover is not in a position to accept my amendment I would withdraw it rather than risk a negative vote.


4.30.135
President
I take it that the House grants him leave to withdraw his amendment.

The motion was, by leave of the Assembly, withdrawn.

4.30.136
President
The question is that Clause 2 be accepted.

The motion was adopted.
CLAUSE 3

4.30.137
The Honourable Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru
I beg to move that Clause 3 be adopted. It runs as follows:

''3 Every citizen of the Federation who has completed the age of thirty five years and is qualified for election as a member of the House of the People shall be eligible for election as President."


4.30.138
The Honourable Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru
This is a very simple, proposition and I do not think any argument is needed to support. It has been believed that a person who has not achieved much by the age of 35 is not going to do much later. Nevertheless, normally speaking in India, and more especially in other places, men up to 35 sometimes do not even get a chance to achieve much. Others hold the field. In any case, the age 35 is not a high limit. I think it is a fair limit. It means that a person who is chosen shall have at least a dozen years or so of experience. I think it is therefore a fairly safe age or debarring the candidates. I hope the House will accept the Clause.

(Amendments Nos. 123 to 128 were not moved.)

4.30.139
Mr. H. V. Kamath
While not moving my amendment, I would however, seek clarification from Pandit Nehru on one point. The expression used for a similar purpose in the Provincial Constitution was "reached the age of 35 years" and here we are using the phrase "completed the age of 35 years". I do not know why we are adopting different language here. Do the two phrases mean one and the same thing?


4.30.140
The Honourable Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru
I am sorry I did not hear a word of what Mr. Kamath said. Anyway I am not responsible for the Provincial Constitution. I consider this a better wording. To say 'completed', means definitely what it says. What the other wording means I do not know. (Laughter),

(Messrs. Thakur Das Bhargava, Rajkrushna Bose and H. V. Kamath did not move the amendments in their names.)

4.30.141
President
I think these are all the amendments of which notice has been given. I think there is no other amendment. I shall now put the clause to vote.

Clause 3 was adopted.
CLAUSE 4

4.30.142
The Honourable Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru
I move Clause 4, Conditions of President's office.

"(1) The President shall not be a member of either House of the Federal Parliament and if a member of either House be elected President, he shall be deemed to have vacated his seat in that House.

(2) The President shall not hold any other office or position of emolument.

(3) The President shall have an official residence and shall receive such emoluments and allowances as may be determined by Act of the Federal Parliament and until then, such as prescribed in schedule..........

(4) The emoluments and allowances of the President shall not be diminished during his term of office."


4.30.143
The Honourable Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru
There is one small matter which I thought might be cleared up and I shall await an amendment to clear that up. In sub-clause (1), it says "The President shall not be a member of either House of the Federal Parliament." Obviously he should also not be a member of any provincial legislature. I believe some amendment will be moved to this effect. If so, I will accept it.


4.30.144
Nawab Muhammad Ismail Khan
May I ask the Mover as to what he means by the words "The President shall not hold any position of emolument." Does he also mean that he cannot be a director of a company or merely that he cannot hold any position of emolument under the Government?


4.30.145
The Honourable Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru
He shall not hold any other office or position of emolument, whatever it may be. He cannot hold any other office which brings him some gain.


4.30.146
Nawab Muhammad Ismail Khan
I hope you will make it quite clear.


4.30.147
The Honourable Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru
It is perfectly clear. It is dead clear. As the House knows, the convention his that even the Ministers should not hold directorships of companies. That is the convention in many countries although it cannot be the law. So far as the President is concerned, he should not hold any directorships or any position of profit or gain in business.


4.30.148
Dr. B. Pattabhi Sitaramayya
But that is not conveyed by the wording.


4.30.149
President
We shall have a discussion of the clause when all the amendments have been moved.

(Messrs. Seth Govindas, Ajit Prasad Jain, S. V. Krishnamurthy Rao and Naziruddin Ahmad did not move their amendments.)

4.30.150
Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad
Mr. President, Sir, I beg to move that for sub-clause (2) of Clause 4, the following be substituted:

"(2) The President shall not hold any position or office under the Union or under any Provincial Government, or in or under any local authority or in or under any business concern (whether incorporated or not) in any honorary capacity or for any emolument allowance."


4.30.151
Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad
Sir, I find that this point has struck some honuorable members of this House. What the report says is that the President shall not hold any other office or position of emolument, but it may be that he may hold an honorary office in a business concern. It he is concerned with any religious charitable, educational or similar other institution, there can be no objection, but I think, if he is connected with any business concern even in any honorary capacity, it will be open to serious objection. Any businessman can ask the President to be a patron of his business and he might secure good business because of that. That would be throwing the President into the arena of party politics. I would submit that this sort of business connection should not be allowed. I am only urging this to enable the drafting committee to consider this point. This is all that I desire to submit to the House.


4.30.152
Mr. H. V. Pataskar
Sub-clause (2) of Clause 4, gave rise to doubts and and therefore I tabled this amendment which stands in my name, "nor shall he be interested in any business or profession for gain or profit". Since I now understand that it is not the intention that the President should hold any interest in any business, I am not moving this amendment. All the same, I would request that when the final draft constitution is prepared, this should be made more clear.


4.30.153
Shri T. A. Ramalingam Chettiyar
My amendment refers to appointments after the President has held office. I, will leave it to the Mover to accept it or not, as he likes, and if he does not accept it, I do not want to press it.


4.30.154
The Honourable Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru
What is the amendment referred to it?


4.30.155
President
The amendment which Mr. Ramalingam Chettiyar has given notice of is "that the person who has held office as President shall not be eligible to be appointed to any salaried office in the Federation" i.e., after he has ceased to be a President, he shall not be appointed. The amendment is not moved formally. Therefore we shall proceed further.

(Messrs. D. Govinda Doss, P. Kakkan, V. I. Muniswami Pillay and P.M. Velayudapani did not move their amendments).

4.30.156
K. T. M. Ahmed Ibrahim Sahib Bahadur
Mr. President, Sir, I move:

"That in the last sentence of sub-clause (2) of Clause 1, for the words 'the votes of the Federal Parliament and until then, such' be deleted."


4.30.157
K. T. M. Ahmed Ibrahim Sahib Bahadur
Now, Sir, the President of the Federation is the supreme executive authority of the whole State and as such he should be completely free from any party influence when once he is elected. But if the determination of his emoluments and allowances are dependent on any Act of the Federal Parliament it is quite possible that he will be conscious of the fact that the determination of his salary is subject to party influence and that his actions may on occasions be swayed by such consciousness. It is therefore meet and proper, Sir, that the President's salary should be placed beyond any party influence in order to ensure impartiality in his actions and therefore I have moved this amendment. I hope it will be accepted by the Honourable Mover.

(Messrs. B. M. Gupta, R. K. Sidhwa, Biswanath Das, Thakur Das Bhargava Syamanandan Sahaya, and S. Nijalingappa, did not move their amendments.)

4.30.158
K. T .M. Ahmed Ibrahim Sahib Bahadur
Mr. President, Sir, I move:

"That in sub-clause (4) of Clause 4, for the word "diminished", the word "altered" be substituted."


4.30.159
K. T .M. Ahmed Ibrahim Sahib Bahadur
In the draft it is provided that the salary of the President shall not be diminished, but at the same time there should also be no Provision for the increment of salary during his tenure of office as President. The reason is the same as I pointed out when I moved the previous amendment., i.e., the President should not be in any way conscious that his salary is dependent on any Act of Parliament and it is absolutely necessary that the quantum of his salary should be determined by the Constitution Act itself.


4.30.160
Mr. Ramnarain Singh
Mr. President, I propose:

"that the President must not be a party-man".


4.30.161
Mr. Ramnarain Singh
When the Objectives Resolution enunciating our objectives was moved in the House I put in an amendment that a proviso that no party would be deemed legal in this country, should be incorporated in the constitution. Every party whether named after any person or following any particular principle should be declared illegal.


4.30.162
Mr. Ramnarain Singh
The reason for my amendment is this. In many countries of the world there are party governments and they flatter themselves with the thought that they are democratic. What does democracy mean? It means, "Panchayati Rajya"--the peoples' government. The very word makes it clear that the party system of government is poles apart from democracy. In India it is believed that the "Panch", is God Himself and its rule is God's rule. I venture to say that the very term party system deteriorates at times into a government of the wicked and the sly. Sometimes it seems as if there is no gentle soul in the party. A few sly persons from a party and establish their own government in the name of Democracy. I appeal to the members of this Assembly that the party system be abolished. So long there is a party true of democracy cannot exist. The party system is fatal to democracy.]*


4.30.163
Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru
Mr. President, on a point of order. I would like to know what bearing this speech has on my motion.


4.30.164
President
The amendment which he has moved is 'that the President must not be a party-man'.


4.30.165
The Honourable Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru
I should like to understand its bearing.


4.30.166
Mr. President
He wants to put a disqualification on a candidate who wants to stand for Presidentship.


4.30.167
The Honourable Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru
A disqualification which can be measured, weighed, computed somehow. It must have some relation to fact.


4.30.168
President
So far as the amendment is concerned, I cannot rule it out.


4.30.169
Mr. Ramnarain Singh
Yes, I will just tell you. I am condemning here the party system and suggest to the House that our President should not be a party man. What I mean is this that often the party system of government is mistaken for democracy or Panchayati Rajya. To make it clear let me put a concrete example. Suppose a particular party has 300 members in the Assembly.


4.30.170
President
Please do not discuss the party system at length. You just make out your point that the President should not be a party man. Merits and demerits of the party system cannot be discussed here.


4.30.171
Mr. Ramnarayan Singh
I submit to your ruling, Sir, I shall not discuss that. But it is difficult for me to support the amendment unless we condemn the party system. However, I shall not further press it at the moment. If given a chance, I shall speak on its later. Now I conclude with the remark that it is absolutely essential that the President must not be a party man.


4.30.172
The Honourable Sir. N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar
Sir, I wish to move an amendment to sub-clause (1) of Clause 4. It is in the following terms:

"For sub-clause (1) of Clause 4 the following be substituted:

'The, President shall not be a member of Parliament or of any, Legislature and if such a member be elected President, he shall be deemed to have vacated his seat in Parliament or in the Legislature concerned."


4.30.173
The Honourable Sir. N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar
The Principle of sub-clause (1), which, now, according to draft above the House, applies only to the Federal Parliament will be extended by this amendment to membership of the legislatures of the Units. I have advisedly used the terms 'Parliament' and 'Legislature', because, under the principles adopted for drafting in connection with this document, "Parliament" applies to the legislature of the Federation and the word 'Legislature' is confined to the legislatures of the Units. I have nothing more to say.


4.30.174
President
All the amendments have been moved. The original proposition and the amendments are now open for discussion.


4.30.175
Shri K. Santhanam
Sir, I accept the clause as it is; but I do feel that it requires to be filled up in the drafting stage.


4.30.176
Shri K. Santhanam
My honourable friend Mr. Ram Narayan Singh moved an amendment which in its present form is not suitable. The President has to stand as a party man. But it is essential that after the election, he should give up all his association with any political party.


4.30.177
Shri K. Santhanam
As you know, there has been some discussion as to whether the Speaker of the Assembly can continue to be a party man. It has not yet been decided. I hope in the new constitution, the President, the Governors and the Speakers, will all cease to have connection with any political party.


4.30.178
Shri K. Santhanam
Then, again, there are business connections. Of course, "position of emolument" may cover many things; but it will not cover other things. Take for instance the holding of shares in a company. It is not possible to present the President from holding shares; but it is essential that as soon as he is elected, he must declare his holdings in any company so that the public will know. During his term of office, he should not be allowed to acquire any shares or immovable property except through a special procedure. We must keep the President far above all these complications. Otherwise, all kinds of rumours and slander will be set afloat. I hope the Drafting Committee which will be set up for drafting will go into the matter and give us a good, comprehensive draft which could be put into the constitution.


4.30.179
Pandit Lakshmi Kanta Maitra
Mr. President, Sir, I wish to, put in half a dozen sentences in connection with the amendments which have just been moved.


4.30.180
Pandit Lakshmi Kanta Maitra
In reply to the question of my Honourable friend Mr. Ismail, the mover of the resolution has made it perfectly clear that the Union President will not be entitled to hold any office in any joint stock or limited company. He cannot be a Director of a registered or unregistered body. He cannot be in receipt of any salary or emoluments from any quarter. The principle is very salutary and sound. He should be a man who has no other allegiance except to the State, a man who has for the time being dedicated his whole energy to the service of the State. He should be in a position to give undivided attention to his office.


4.30.181
Pandit Lakshmi Kanta Maitra
While I am clear on this and the House will agree to this, that he should not hold any office of emolument, I think we should go a step further. 1 am inclined to think that the President should not hold any honorary office. For instance, he cannot be the President of a Chamber of Commerce; lie cannot be the President of a Trade Union organisation and the like. My idea is that from such honorary offices also he should be excluded, because, his position might be utilised for furthering sectional interest. I am not moving a formal amendment. I hope and trust that the honourable the mover of the resolution, when it goes for final drafting, will take note of these things and see to it that in the final draft these things are included.


4.30.182
Pandit Lakshmi Kanta Maitra
We are all agreed that the President should be a man, who like Caesar's wife, should be above suspicion. To ensure this, all these steps should be taken and even the extreme step proposed by my honourable friend Mr. Ram Narayan Singh should be taken into consideration. You cannot eliminate a party man from standing for the Presidentship. But as soon as he gets into the office of Union President, he should certainly sever all his political connections and political affiliations, and he should cease to be a party man. That goes without saying. Keeping in view all these things, I hope the honourable the mover will, at the final stage, take such steps as will make the position of the President unimpeachable and above suspicion.


4.30.183
Mr. M. S. Aney
Mr. President, Sir, I have to make one or two suggestions in regard to the words "Position of emoluments" so that when this memorandum goes back to the Drafting Committee for final draft, they may be taken into consideration.


4.30.184
Mr. M. S. Aney
It has been pointed out, and rightly too, that the words "position of emolument" are not comprehensive to include many position in which emoluments are had by persons and therefore the words have to be made more clear. I may point out one or two instances which probably you may not have noted. For example in the C. P. and Berar, there is a system of hereditary village officers known as Patels and Patwaris. Again there are persons who are called Ex-Pargana officers styled Deshmukhs. Deshpande, etc. They were real Pargana officers in olden times and in recognition of that fact, certain emoluments are given to them by the British Government. My honourable friend Dr. P. S. Deshmukh who is our colleague in this House belongs too that class. They get certain emoluments which are known as Rasams; these persons are called Ex-Pargana officers. Up to this time, in all matters of elections, Patils, Patwaris and these Pargana officers in C. P. and Berar used to be considered as not holding a position of emolument debarring a citizen from standing as a candidate for election. The second thing I want to mention is there are members of the old Royal family who are getting certain political pensions. They are not called emoluments. Are we to consider that persons in this position should be debarred from standing for election as President? It is not an emolument but a compensation paid for what was taken from their royal ancestors. It is something in the nature of a private property of the man. These are the three kinds of emoluments, two of which are particularly peculiar to the provinces in which I live I therefore wish that the Committee which is going to draft the Constitution should consider these points while drafting with a view to exclude them from emoluments, in this clause.


4.30.185
Mr. M. S. Aney
With regard to the amendment of my friend Mr. Ram Narayan Singh would like to state that if a man, no matter what party he belongs to, once occupies the Presidentship, he must sever his connections with the party and remain a non-party man, but you cannot expect a man to be a non-party man before he does take that place. It is something like asking a fish not to be in the water. A person must belong to some party, it may not be a political party like the Congress, it may be some other party, he may belong to some religious party. A man being a social being, is supposed to belong to some kind of a party or group and if we use that word 'non-party man' it will be difficult to elect a President. Therefore, although I cannot subscribe to that particular amendment which he has suggested, I accept the principle that once he is elected to that position, he is expected to be a non-party man and he should sever his connection with his party and remain there as a man belonging to all or as a man belonging to none. He must take one of the two positions and only in that case he will be in a position to discharge his duties properly.


4.30.186
President
Mr. Sri Prakasa.


4.30.187
Shri Sri Prakasa
Listening, Sir, to some of the speeches almost compels me to repeat what I said-in another place that it seems that some members at least are of the opinion that the President should be a person who has no ostensible means of livelihood. (Laughter). I think, Sir, that we should have some trust in the person whom we are putting up for the Office of the President. We should not fetter him in any way. If we do not like the man's profession, then we need not put him up at all. But if we like the man, we can trust him to do his best as President and not allow his profession, to interfere with his actions. We can understand your prohibiting a man from practising law or practising Medicine as long as he is the President of the Republic but it would not be fair to, expect him to give up all or any means of livelihood that he may possess as a non-President simply because he is elected to the office of the President.


4.30.188
Shri Sri Prakasa
How, I ask, would it be possible for a person to transfer all his property, if he has any house property, landed property, shares, etc. to someone else who should keep all these things in trust for him against the day when he returns to non-official life? How are you going to be sure that the person is going to get back on relinquishing his office.all the property which he possessed before he became President? I could agree, if you have a provision that a person who has once been a President will be guaranteed a sufficient competence for the rest of his life. In that case I can understand any member wanting to deprive the President of all or any of his possessions that he may have had before. Even lawyers find it difficult to go back to their profession after they have been out of it for a long time. I am particularly worried about persons who like myself, may possess some landed property. (Laughter.) Before all these landed properties are abolished in your province and mine, there may be some provision made for persons--not that I am a candidate--who are in that position so that they could stand for the Presidentship. There may be some provision so that persons who are in the unfortunate position of possessing some properties of that nature may not be wholly debarred.


4.30.189
Shri Sri Prakasa
Sir, it would not be fair either for the person who is put up for the Presidentship to be required to declare all the shares that he may possess in various companies. Suppose he forgets one or two non-paying shares that he possesses e.g., in the National Herald of Lucknow........


4.30.190
Shri Balkrishna Sharma
May I know on a point of information, viz., why has he taken it for granted that the person will have divest himself of all his properties as soon as he takes up his office.


4.30.191
Shri Sri Prakasa
I thought that was what Mr. Santhanam was after.


4.30.192
Shri K. Santhanam
I merely wanted him to declare his shares so that we will know.


4.30.193
Shri Sri Prakasa
I think, Sir, we must look at the man whom we are putting in the President's position and not at his property or at his shares or anything else. If we trust the man, we ought to Put him in that office. If we don't, we ought not to put him there. Even if you make a beggar a President, he can be as dishonest as the biggest shareholder or anyone else. Honestly does not necessarily depend upon the economic position of the individual. Honesty is something apart, What we want is that our President should be a person above suspicion; and whether he is already already possessed of any property or not does not really matter. I think we should not hedge in the position of President by any of the provisions that we are seeking to introduce.


4.30.194
Shri M. Ananthasayanam Ayyangar
Sir, it is rather surprising that we should hear these words from our friend Shri Sri Parkasa. It is not that he has entirely misunderstood the scope of the amendment. If he should be chosen as the President, let him continue to be in possession of his properties. But we will assume he becomes the Commerce Member. He ought not to deal in shares the moment he becomes a Member. Otherwise, if a Commerce Member of any Government or the President gets into the share market, there is an assurance that that particular share for which he goes in is a sound one. The next day he may sell them away. He will be in a position to monopolize the shares. We are not going to clothe the President of the Federation with such powers to traffic in immoral business--there are various kinds of immorality. Now, Sir, my friend Mr. Santhanam's amendment is that we should insist, upon the President to declare what shares he possesses. My friend Mr. Sri Prakasa says there may be a share lurking in some corner and he may not know. I don't think he will be so negligent about his own affairs. But he expects the President to be negligent about his affairs. As regards business, even if he is a honorary President or Director of a business, and may receive only sitting fees, all the same when he has to give assent to a particular Bill, he may be induced to send it back, particularly if those provisions affect his bank or concern. I don't mean to say that a particular thing will arise but it shows the necessity why the President should not be connected with these directly or indirectly.


4.30.195
Shri M. Ananthasayanam Ayyangar
Then as regards his being a party man, Sir, it is impossible unless he is a wooden block or a wooden tool. He ought to belong to one party or other. After he is elected, it must be obligatory that he should resign all his connection with the previous party and absolve himself of the allegiance that he owes. To that extent, one may reasonably expected but to say that he ought not to be a partyman is impracticable. I am trying to find out one but I am afraid we may not be able to get a non-party man at all. I can only think of a pial school teacher as a non-party man. Even he may be inclined in favour of his District Board President who may be a party man. Therefore. it is impossible to come across a non-party man in any sense of the word. It is enough if he gives up his connections with his party after he becomes President of the Federation or the President of the Union. I do say, Sir that all these limitations and qualifications are necessary so as to ensure that proper administration and proper men will be available.


4.30.196
President
There is no other speaker. Has the Mover of the clause anything to say in reply?


4.30.197
The Honourable Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru
Sir, a great deal has been said about the emoluments of the President. It seems to me that it is very difficult to make lists of offices which he should not hold. Only a general principle can be laid down and carefully no doubt, but subsequently the rest depends a great deal on convention. If you start making long lists, it means that there may be many things left out which he can do. So normally speaking, one will have to depend upon convention. The point is that he should not be actively connected or associated with the management of any gainful office. Obviously, in the modern world, if he is a at all well-to-do, he will have some shares or like Mr. Sri Prakasa he may be a landholder or he may have some other property. There is no chance as far as I can see of Mr. Sri Prakasa being prevented from standing for the Presidentship and I would deem it a calamity if it were so. So I submit that at this moment one need not go further into this question but leave it as it is,-- and not Only for the drafting but for the convention to grow up.


4.30.198
The Honourable Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru
In one matter I am inclined to agree with what Mr. Santhanam said, although I do not think it is necessary to put it down, and that is that any person in high responsible office should make some kind of disclosure of his connections with business and of his holdings, etc. I think there would be an advantage in that, whether he is a President or whether he is a Minister or any other person in high responsible office. (Hear, hear.) I accept. Sir, the amendment moved by Sir N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar, which clarifies sub-clause (1).


4.30.199
The Honourable Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru
There is the question I believe of the emoluments and allowances of the President. A suggestion has been made that some other words should be used instead of "diminished". After consideration we came to the conclusion that "diminished" was the right word. We could use "varied" or "increased or diminished" but on the whole "diminished" was considered the best. The point is that the legislature has in its power to do anything it chooses, but it must not exercise its power to the detriment of the person who has been chosen the President. There is no question of increasing his allowances or emoluments unless the Parliament so desires. You need not check Parliament doing anything, but there is the slight danger possibly of Parliament or the people from making the position of the President impossible. Therefore You say it should not be "diminished." In these days, one does not quite know, suddenly there might be inflation and it may affect the situation so much that all normal standards of salaries and allowances might have to change. So I don't think any change is needed there.


4.30.200
The Honourable Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru
Last of all, the amendment moved in regard to the President not being a party man--now, I don't know, but certainly I have a certain sneaking sympathy with such a proposition. But inspite of that, it seems to me completely impractical. What is a party man? No doubt, one thinks in terms of the huge party machines running political elections. But it is almost impossible for you to advise all of them. There are all kinds of parties and a person does not become bad because he belongs to a small party or a big party. Everybody is associated, I am afraid, with some group or association. The point is that the President should not function as a partymen after he is elected. That, on the whole, is so. I am not myself clear in own mind as to what his relation to the party he belongs to should be after his election. However, the question does not arise. But in any event, he should function as any one should function, whether he is a partyman or not, completely impartially when he is in high office. So Sir, I regret I am unable to accept any amendment except Sir N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar's.


4.30.201
President
I will now put the amendments to vote. I will first put the amendment moved by Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad

"That for sub-clause (2) of Clause 4. the following be substituted:

(2) The President shall not hold any position or office under the Union or under any provincial Government, or in or under any local authority or in or under any business concern (whether incorporated or not) in any honorary capacity or for any emolument or allowance."

The amendment was negatived.

4.30.202
President
Now the amendment moved by K. T. M. Ahmed Ibrahim Sahib Bahadur

"That in Sub-clause (3) of clause 4, the words 'as may be determined by the Act of the Federal Parliament and until then, such' be deleted."

The amendment was negatived.

4.30.203
President
There is another amendment by the same member that--

"That in Sub-clause (4) of clause 4 for the word 'diminished' the word 'altered' be substituted."

The amendment was negatived.

4.30.204
Mr. President
Then there is an amendment by Mr. Ram Narayan Singh that the following be inserted as sub-clause (5) of clause 4:

"(5) The President must not be a party-man."


4.30.205
Mr. Ram Narayan Singh
I do not press my amendment.


4.30.206
President
I take it the House allows him to withdraw his amendment.


4.30.207
Honourable Members
Yes.

The amendment was, by the leave of the Assembly, withdrawn.

4.30.208
President
The amendment moved by Sir N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar

"That for sub-clause (1) of Clause 4, the following be substituted:

'The President shall not be a member of Parliament or of any Legislature and, if such a member be elected President, he shall be deemed to have vacated his seat in Parliament or in the Legislature concerned.' "

The amendment was adopted.

4.30.209
President
Now the Resolution, as amended, is put to vote.

Clause 4, as amended, was adopted.

4.30.210
The Honourable Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru
Sir, I move:

"Clause 5.--Appropriate provision should be made for election to fill casual vacancy is the detailed procedure for all elections, whether casual or not, being left to be regulated by Act of the Federal Parliament:

Provided that--

(a) an election to fill a casual vacancy shall be held as soon as possible after, and in no case later than six months from, the date of occurrence of the vacancy; and

(b) the person elected as President at an election to fill a casual vacancy shall be entitled to hold office for the full term of five years."


4.30.211
The Honourable Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru
The word "casual" here has not been very happily used, Sir; but I propose to accept an amendment to delete it from the various places.


4.30.212
President
I shall take up the amendments now.

(Messrs B. M. Gupte, A. K. Ghosh, Rajkrushna Bose, Biswanath Das and S. Nagappa. did not move their amendments Nos. 151 to 155).

4.30.213
Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad
Sir, I beg to move:

"That in proviso (b) to Clause 5, the words 'at an election' be deleted."


4.30.214
Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad
Sir, this is a purely drafting amendment which aught to be accepted.


4.30.215
Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad
The proviso says:

"The Person elected as president at an election..."


4.30.216
Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad
The words "at an election" are redundant, as he has been elected. The very fact that he is the person 'elected' as President makes it perfectly clear that he has been elected at an election. The moment you say elected as President' the words 'at an election' are necessarily implied, and are therefore redundant. My amendment, as I said, is purely a drafting amendment and it should be accepted. for obvious reasons.

(Messrs. K. Chengalaraya Reddy, Shibbanlal Saksena, Gokulbhai D. Bhatt, D. H. Chandrasekharaiya and C. Subramaniam, did not move their amendments Nos. 158, 159, 161, 162 and 163).

4.30.217
The Honourable Sir N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar
Sir, the Honourable Mover has already referred to the use of the words "casual vacancies" in this clause. This expression has given rise to a number of difficulties which deserve to be avoided. Casual vacancies are generally vacancies which occur in the middle of a prescribed term for a particular office, and when they are filled up, the person who gets into the office is supposed to be in the office only for the remainder of the term. But the whole object of this clause is that the person elected for the vacancy should start on a full term of office, and therefore it is desirable that the drafting of this clause should be so changed as to bring out the intention much more clearly than it does now. For achieving this end, I move the following amendment.

"That for Clause 5, the following be substituted:

'5. Vacancies in the office of President.--Appropriate provision should be made for elections to fill vacancies in the office of President, whether occurring before, or at, the end of the normal term of an incumbent of that office, the detailed procedure for elections being left to be regulated by Act of the Federal Parliament:

Provided that in the case of a vacancy occurring before the end of the normal term of a particular incumbent,

(a) the election to fill the vacancy shall be held as soon as possible after, and, in no case, later than six months from, the date occurrence of the vacancy; and

(b) the person elected as President at such election shall be entitled to hold office for the full term of five years'."


4.30.218
The Honourable Sir N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar
I do not think any more words are necessary to explain it.


4.30.219
President
The amendments have been moved. The amendments and the Resolution are now open for discussion.


4.30.220
Mr. Jagat Narain Lal
Sir, I have to say a few words about the amendment moved by Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad. He seems to think that the amendment proposed by him is merely a drafting amendment; but it is not so. Actually the vacancy may be filled in more ways than one. If the vacancy has been filled otherwise than by regular election, say by nomination or otherwise, than the person shall not be entitled to hold office for the full term. Therefore, I submit, Sir, that the amendment proposed by Mr. Naziruddin Ahmed is not an amendment which can be accepted.


4.30.221
President
There is no one else who wants to speak on the motion. The Mover may now reply.


4.30.222
The Honourable Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru
Sir, I accept Sir N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar's amendment, that is all.


4.30.223
President
Then I shall put the amendments to vote. The amendment is:

"That in Proviso (b) to Clause 5, the words 'at an election' be deleted."

The amendment was negatived.

4.30.224
President
Then there is the amendment moved by Sir N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar. It has been accepted by the Mover, but it has to be accepted by the House.

The amendment was adopted.

4.30.225
President
The amendment becomes the substantive clause. Now I put Clause 5, as amended, to the vote of the House.

Clause 5 as amended, was adopted.

4.30.226
President
It is now just 1 o'clock. The House stands adjourned till 10 o'clock tomorrow morning.

The assembly then adjourn till 10 of the clock on Friday, the 25th July, 1947.

The Constituent Assembly of India met in the Constitution Hall, New Delhi, at Ten of the Clock, Mr. President (The Honourable Dr. Rajendra Prasad) in the Chair.
PRESENTATION OF CREDENTIALS AND SIGNING OF THE REGISTER
The following Member presented his Credentials and signed the Register:
Mr. Mihir Lal Chattopadhyaya (West Bengal: General).
AMENDMENT OF RULES

4.31.1
President
The first item of the agenda this morning is a motion by Shri Sri Prakasa.


4.31.2
Shri Sri Prakasa
Mr. President, Sir, I have the honour to move:

"That after Rule 5 of the Constituent Assembly Rules the following new rule be inserted:-

'5-A. Notwithstanding the provisions of Rules 4 and 5 above, the Governor General of India, may in pursuance of His Majesty's Government's Statement of June 3, 1947, order; fresh elections to the Constituent Assembly from the areas mentioned in para 14 of that Statement and thereupon the members already elected from the said areas, whether or not they have taken their seats in the Assembly in the manner prescribed in Rule 3, shall be deemed to have vacated their seats; and the members newly elected shall be deemed to have been duly elected as members of the Assembly.'

This Rule shall have retrospective effect from June 3, 1947."


4.31.3
Shri Sri Prakasa
Sir, I venture to place this motion before the House with three objects. The first is that I should like to regularise some of the very undesirable incidents that have occurred during the last few months. Secondly, I want to vindicate the honour of this Assembly and, if you will permit me to say so, with respect, your own honour as the President of this Assembly. And, lastly, I should also like to lodge a protest against the manner in which many things have been done during the last few months (hear, hear). Many old members of the Assembly who were originally elected were, so to say, summarily dismissed; new elections were ordered' and new members were elected in their places.


4.31.4
Shri Sri Prakasa
Sir, when this Assembly was first elected-it does not matter how It was elected-it claimed to be what it obviously was, a Sovereign Body, fully entitled to make its own Rules of Procedure. It was quite clear that an Assembly like this could not go on without any rules for its own conduct and therefore we prepared a regular pamphlet that gave all the Rules of Procedure of this House. No person could claim that he was ignorant of the existence of these rules. If anyone had taken care to look into this pamphlet he would certainly have found Rules 4 and 5 staring him in the face, which laid down in unequivocal language the method by which new members of this Assembly could be chosen after other members had vacated their seats in the manner prescribed. What has happened, however, is that certain negotiations took place between certain people behind the back of this House, certain agreements were come to, some members were, so to say, summarily dismissed from this House, new elections took place and new members were elected in their places. And-we had to acquiesce in that agreement. Whether we like it, or not, the fact is that new members have come and old members have gone, and in the bargain our dear country has been cut up into two. I think, Sir, that it is high time that we should at least regularise this procedure by inserting, a rule of our own so that we may at least save our faces and be able to say that what has been done has been done according to a definite rule framed by ourselves.


4.31.5
Shri Sri Prakasa
Now, Sir my second purpose is to vindicate the position of this House and the honour of its President. I Looked in vain during those fateful days to see you mentioned anywhere, in the course of those negotiations and to be assured that you were consulted. You may have been consulted as a Member of the Interim Government and as a member of the Congress High Command; but you were nowhere in the picture as President of this Assembly. I have no doubt that if you had been Consulted as President of this Assembly, punctiliously careful as you are of the proprieties, you would certainly have asked this Assembly, for its own opinion on the subject.


4.31.6
Shri Sri Prakasa
When, Sir, you asked the Assembly whether it would permit me to move a simple Resolution like this the other day you will surely have consulted the Assembly on such a vital matter if you had been consulted as President. We would have been amply satisfied if we could have been assured by you that you had agreed to the procedure On behalf of the Assembly, that was not sitting at the time. You were perfectly entitled to act on our behalf. The Assembly, however, if I may say so has been completely ignored. The other day when Pandit Govind Ballabh Pant referred to some sort of a party mandate, you very rightly pot up and said that the Assembly does not recognise any parties. But, if I am not mistaken, over and over again during those fateful days, the leaders of the two major parties' were referred to in statement after statement that appeared in the Press. So, while you do not recognize the existence of any party so far as this Assembly is concerned we have to acquiesce in an arrangement that had been come to behind our backs by what are described as leaders of major parties in the country. In this connection I feel that the insertion of this rule might right the wrong to some extent, and we may at least have the feeling that what has been done has been done according to the rules of our Assembly themselves.


4.31.7
Shri Sri Prakasa
Lastly,-- and this is as far as I am concerned the most important Part--I would like to lodge a protest against all that has happened. I do not think it was right either on the part of the leaders referred to in those statements or on the part of the Governor-General not to have consulted you, Sir, as our President and the Assembly in that important matter. You know that those negotiations have resulted in the cutting up of our country which is not to our liking. I have no doubt, Sir, that if the original procedure had been followed, and if all who had been elected to this Assembly had attended it and the matter had been placed before the house in the proper manner, we ourselves might have agreed gladly or otherwise-to the very arrangement that was finally come to over our heads. We would in that case have had the satisfaction that the representatives of the country met in this Hall, and after solemn deliberation decided that for the time being at least in the interests of the country it would be best if we have two separate Constituent Assemblies and two separate parts of the country governed by two Governments. But, as it is, the whole thing has been flung at our face in a manner which it is difficult for an ordinary person to understand,-much less to appreciate. In any case, as things are, there is nothing else for us to do than to agree, as gracefully as possible, to what has happened. I hope that I shall have the unanimous support of the House to my motion to insert this new rule in the Rules of Procedure of this House.


4.31.8
Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad
Mr. President, Sir, I find myself in a difficulty in regard to this Resolution. But with regard to the Honourable Member's desire to regularise any irregularity if then is one, I have full sympathy. Then again with regard to the vindication of the honour of yourself, Sir, I also fully sympathise. Then, as regard the protest against many things that have happened, I feel that I should express my neutrality. Thinks happened, in an in an overwhelming manner with which we poor fellows had nothing to do.


4.31.9
Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad
Coming to the merits of the Resolution, it says: that the Governor-General of India, may, in pursuance of His Majesty's Government's Statement of June 3, 1947, order fresh elections to the Constituent Assembly from the areas mentioned in para. 14 of that Statement.


4.31.10
Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad
Sir, in this famous paragraph are included the following areas:

(1) Sylhet which is now beyond the jurisdiction of India;

(2) West Bengal which is now within the jurisdiction of India;

(3) and (4) East Bengal and West Punjab which are outside the jurisdiction of India; and

(5) East Punjab which is within our jurisdiction.


4.31.11
Pandit Lakshmi Kanta Maitra
I want to know, Sir, whether the Honourable Member is in order in raising a discussion, on the whole of His Majesty's Statement, in connection with this Rule? The Honourable Member has referred to that Statement in extenso and to parts of it which have no bearing on the motion before the House.


4.31.12
President
I think he was referring to paragraph 14 of the Statement because the motion under consideration itself refers to it, and developing his argument. He is in order.


4.31.13
Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad
That is exactly my position, Sir. In fact, these areas are referred to by implication in the resolution under consideration. I was referring to the areas mentioned in paragraph 14.


4.31.14
Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad
Then it is said that as a result of the election of those members and in consequence of the proposed election, the members who have already been elected in the first election will from that date be deemed to have vacated their seats. It assumes therefore that till the proposed election the members who were originally elected at the first election would retain their seats, although I understand that all of them have resigned. Then again it is also sought to be made out that upon the proposed election the newly elected members-I believe members who would be elected hereafter- should be deemed to have been elected, and what seems to be impracticable and absurd is that they should be elected with back effect, namely with effect from June 3. I submit that there are three elections to be considered; the first election the second election through which we, some of new-comers have come, and the proposed third election. The resolution ignores altogether the second election through which some of us have come. Then the implications of this are that the members who were elected at the second election have no focus standi as their place will be occupied by us those elected at the first election and things said and done by us in this Assembly would have to be erased from the pages of the report. Then, let us consider the probable time when the third election is likely to take place. The second election took place within about a month of the June 3 Statement, that is in the beginning of July. This third election can thus take place within about a month from this date that is about the 25th August. If that is so, serious complications will arise. The resolution refers to election from all the areas including those areas which will then be outside India. By 15th August, a new transformation in the country will take place. Two new Dominions will come into existence, and it would be a serious proposition to say that the Viceroy, Lord Mountbatten, will order fresh election from the areas over which he has no jurisdiction. In these circumstances, I submit that resolution is impracticable. It will load serious anomalies. The resolution purports-at least so the speaker made out-to regularise what has happened it seeks to vindicate the honour of this House. The Honourable Member supposes that those very members who have been elected at the second election will automatically be elected at the third election, if any. I beg to submit that some of us may not be able to come. It may be that we will have a new set of members. In that case, the so-called regularisation of the election of members like us goes to the wind. I will ask, what is to become of our assertion that we have come here as loyal and law-abiding citizens of India? If we go out, will that declaration stand or will that go? Then what will become of the acceptance by Choudhury Khaliquzzaman Saheb of the National Flag on behalf of the League group here, if he fails to come? Then again, what will become of our signatures in the Great Book which is to, go down to history? Will they be scored out and erased? What will become of the T.A. and daily allowances which we have received? Will the monies have to be returned or will that be made over to the next set of members to be elected and who are to be our legal heirs and representatives? These are some of the serious anomalies which face us in accepting the resolution as it stands. I have already submitted that I am in full sympathy with spirit which actuated this resolution. The resolution is however impracticable. It is said that the honour of this House will be vindicated by this. I believe that the honour of the President will not only be vindicated but will rather be stultified. The Honourable the President has in his wisdom allowed us to take part in the proceedings and do other things in, the House. If the resolution is carried, I think it would stultify the action of our own President. I submit that, if the real desire of the Honourable Member is to safeguard the rights and prestige of the House, we could have done it by straightforwardly declaring that we adopt the second election- That would regularise the second election in a decent manner. That will regularise irregularities if any, and safeguard the honour and prestige of this House, I repeat I am in full sympathy with the spirit which actuated the Honourable Member in moving this resolution, but there are practical difficulties and the best way would be for the House to adopt the second election. With these few words, I submit that the resolution in its practical implications cannot be accepted, and therefore I respectfully beg leave to oppose it.


4.31.15
Haji Abdul Sathar Haji Ishaq Sait
May I draw the attention of the Honourable Member to the last clause of the resolution which says that this Rule shall have retrospective effect from June 3, 1947?


4.31.16
Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad
That does not solve the problem at all. The point is, will those gentlemen, those Honourable Members who have been elected, coma back, in a body in the third elections. Can anyone guarantee that? If the same Honourable Members are elected once again, then this retrospective clause has some meaning. Retrospectivity with regard to members who would he elected for the first time at the third election has no practical meaning, so far as my humble judgment goes. Then there will be overlapping of two batches of members, the first batch and the second batch who will, according to the Resolution, both be members simultaneously for a period. With these few words, Sir, I respectfully oppose the adoption of this resolution.


4.31.17
Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar
Sir, I am in entire agreement with the object of the Honourable Mover of this resolution. At the same time, I must say that I find it difficult to understand it. The resolution gives power or seeks to give power to the Governor-General in pursuance of H. M. G. s Statement of June 3 to do this or that even in the future. I cannot understand at all why the Governor-General should be brought into our rules. Mr. Sri Prakasa’s object obviously is to validate something that has been done, something bad according to him, and I agree with him that was not done with due propriety. I agree that we should validate it but not by making any fundamental changes in our rules, even giving powers to the Governor-General in the future about it. So I suggest, Sir, that instead of considering this resolution as it is in this form, it might be referred to a small committee to redraft it with the object of merely making it a validating measure. I would suggest a committee consisting of Mr. Shri Prakasa, Sir Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar and Sir B. L. Mitter.


4.31.18
Jawaharlal Nehru
This is a legal matter and so I have suggested the names of these three lawyers although Mr. Sri Prakasa is not much of a egatived lawyer. I do not think it will take very much time to redraft it and bring it forward as a resolution, not as an amendment to the rules.


4.31.19
Jawaharlal Nehru
I agree with what my friend Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru has just said. In fact when I tabled this Resolution at the being of this Session, the N. W. F. P. referendum was in the offing and there was the prospect of three more members being dismissed-they have since been dismissed and this is the reason why I have given this power to the Governor-General. Now this is finished, and so far as I can find out there is nothing for the Governor-General to do in this behalf so far as the H. M. G. ‘s Statement of June 3 is concerned. We might just as well have this in the form of a Resolution as suggested by Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru and I am quite agreeable to this Committee being appointed and to bring forward the whole thing in a sort of validating Resolution. In that case I shall ask for leave of the House to withdraw my motion.

The motion was, by leave of the Assembly, withdrawn.

4.31.20
The Honourable Mr. Hussain Imam
What about Assam? Election is still in the offing there.


4.31.21
Shri Sri Prakasa
This Committee will have to consider Assam also. It is just as well that it should.


4.31.22
Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar
I was just going to point out that the Resolution as it is drafted has that lacuna also. It does not cover members from Assam other than Sylhet. So I think the best course is, as has been suggested by Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, that the matter be referred to a Sub-Committee and the Sub-Committee might redraft the Resolution, because, there is, as far as I can judge, no difference so far as the object is concerned. May I take it that it is the wish of the House that this Resolution be referred to a Sub-Committee consisting of Mr. Sri Prakasa, Sir Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar and Sir B. L. Mitter?

The motion was adopted.
REPORT OF THE UNION CONSTITUTION COMMITTEE

4.31.23
President
We shall now go on to the consideration of the Report of the Union Constitution Committee. We shall take up Clause 6 of Part IV.

CLAUSE 6

4.31.24
Jawaharlal Nehru
Sir, I beg to move clause 6 in regard to the Vice-President:

“(1) In the event of the absence of the President or of his death, resignation, removal from office, or incapacity or failure to exercise and perform the powers and functions of his office or at any time at which the office of the President may be vacant, his functions shall be discharged by the Vice-President pending the resumption by the President of his duties or the election of a new President, as the case may be.

(2) The Vice-President shall be elected by both Houses of the Federal Parliament in joint session by secret ballot on the system of proportional representation by means of the single transferable vote and shall be ex-officio President, of the Council of States.

(3) The Vice-President shall hold office for 5 years.”


4.31.25
Jawaharlal Nehru
I might mention, Sir, that I propose to accept some amendments to, this Resolution if and when they are moved. They are rather amendments regarding the wording of the clause and one or two lacunae have to be filled in this clause. With regard to the age of the Vice-President, it is the desire of the House, that his age should be fixed also as 35 as that of the President. I am prepared to accept it.

(Shri A. K. Ghosh did not move his amendment No. 165.)

4.31.26
Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad
Mr. President, Sir, I beg to move that for sub-clause (1) of Clause 6, the following be substituted:

“(1) When the President is absent from the Union or when the office of the President is by reason of his death, resignation or removal from office, or when the President is on account of illness or other cause unable to perform his duties, his functions shall be discharged by the Vice-President during the period (if such absence, or such vacancy or such inability as the case may be.”


4.31.27
Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad
Sir, the original Clause contains certain expressions which to my humble mind raise some amount of difficulty. I have suggested this amendment so that the House will consider the difficulty and the House or the Drafting Committee will consider them. The clause allows the Vice-President to function in certain contingencies. Sub-clause (1) refers to the absence of the President. Absence from where is not clear to me. We know that provincial ministers function even in their absence from their headquarters. Does the absence of the President mean absence from the Union, when he goes outside his area to a foreign country or when he leaves his headquarters. I suppose what is meant is “absence from the- Union”. That is what I have attempted to incorporate in my amendment, The second difficulty is that the Vice-President should act when incapacity is established. There is great difficulty. In determining what incapacity means and implies. The President may act in a certain way. One man might take the view that he has shown incapacity. The President might say that the critic has failed to appreciate, his capacity, and many others might be willing to agree with him. There is no court of law or tribunal “which can adjudicate upon the incapacity”. Then the question arises. Is the President supposed to be incapable of discharging his duty? This creates a similar uncertainty. So this uncertainty should be removed. Incapacity is a very doubtful expression which may lead to serious complications and squabbles.


4.31.28
Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad
Then the, other condition is “failure to exercise and perform his powers- and functions”. That is also equally vague. It is not clear as to what is meant by “failure to perform the powers and functions of’ his office” and this is also open to the same arguments and objections as the word ‘incapacity’. So I have attempted to submit for the consideration of the House a sub-clause which eliminates the fundamental difference, the objectionable features provided the House considers the same. Apart from that, there is nothing new in the proposed sub-clause which I have submitted, for consideration. I submit that these serious permits should be taken into consideration and the principle of the sub-clause which I have submitted may be accepted, if agreed to. We are not now considering the real draft but to eliminate certain difficult problems, certain objectionable features principles. The amendment embodies certain principles and attempts and nothing more. With these words I request the Honourable Mover of the Resolution to consider the same and in possible give effect to the principles embodied therein.


4.31.29
President
I take it that the word ‘vacant’ is dropped after the words.......... or when the office of the President is by reason of his death, resignation or removal from office” in your amendment.


4.31.30
Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad
Yes, Sir, The word ‘vacant’ should be inserted. It was due to hurry that I lost sight of it. I am grateful to you for pointing it out. The word ‘vacant’ is to be so read in the context indicated.

(Shri Jadubans Sahai did not move his amendment, No. 167 in the list.)

4.31.31
B. Pocker Sahib Bahadur
Mr. President, Sir, I beg to move:

“That in sub-clause (1) of Clause 6, the words ‘or incapacity or failure to exercise and perform the powers and functions of his office’ be deleted”.


4.31.32
B. Pocker Sahib Bahadur
In fact, the reason for this amendment have in some way been explained by the previous speaker. I submit, Sir, that these expressions are not only very vague, but they are also unnecessary and superfluous in view of the other parts of the section where such contingencies can be met. Who is to declare his incapacity or failure to exercise and perform the powers and functions of his office, or what is the criterion or determining it, these are matters too vague and there is no necessity for such a clause at all. Because, if a man is found to be incapable or fails in the discharge of his duty, there is the remedy of removal from office. Therefore, Sir, I do not think that it is either necessary or, advisable to have such a vague clause as that in the Statute. Therefore I move this amendment.


4.31.33
President
Mr. Gupte, your amendment is the same as the amendment which has just been moved.


4.31.34
President
Mr. Subramaniam, Mr. Diwakar, Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad, your amendments are the same as the one just moved.

(Amendments Nos. 169, 170, 171 and 172 were not moved).
(Messers. Rajkrushna Bose and Shibbanlal Saksena did not move their amendments, Nos. 173 to 176).

4.31.35
Shri D. H. Chandrasekharaiya
Mr. President, Sir, I beg to remove :

“That for sub-clause (2) of Clause 6, the following be substituted:

‘(2) The Vice-President shall be elected by the same electoral college’."


4.31.36
Shri K. Santhanam
Sir, there is an amendment in my name in the supplementary list, to sub-clause (1) of Clause 6.


4.31.37
President
I will take up the amendments in the supplementary list also.


4.31.38
Shri D. H. Chandrasekharaiya
I beg to, move:

“That for sub-clause (2) of Clause 6, the following be substituted:

‘(2) The Vice-President shall be elected by the same electoral college as is applicable to the election of the President and by the same method and he shall be an ex-officio President of the Council of States’.”


4.31.39
Shri D. H. Chandrasekharaiya
Under the Union constitution, the President is proposed to be elected through an electoral college consisting of the members of the two Houses of the Federal Parliament and the members of the Unit legislatures, while the Vice-President is elected only by the members of the two Houses of the Federal Parliament. This means that in the election of the Vice-President, the members of the Unit legislatures will have no hand, whatsoever. I for one have not been able to see as to why this difference is made in the method of the election of the President and the Vice-President. The Vice-President is as much an important functionary of the Federation as the President himself. As you know, he is to act for the President during his absence, land, besides he is to preside over an important chamber of the legislature namely the Upper House. I think that the same electoral college which elects the President can be made use, of without much difficulty for electing the Vice-President. In the United States of America, the Vice-President is elected through the same electoral college that elects the President. The same method may be adopted here with great advantage. I therefore urge that this amendment of mine is a very reasonable one and that the House will be pleased to accept it.


4.31.40
President
I think, Mr. Santhanam, you had better move your amendment at this stage.


4.31.41
Sri K. Santhanam
Sir, I move:

“That for sub-clause (1) of Clause 6, the following be substituted:

‘During the interval between the occurrence of a vacancy in the office of President and

its filling up by election and when the President is unable to discharge his functions win to absence, illness or other cause, his functions will be discharged by the Vice-President'.”


4.31.42
Sri K. Santhanam
This is largely a drafting amendment and many of the other speakers have explained why a change is required. I have tried to put in it the briefest and most lucid form possible.

(Messrs. Rajkrushna Bose, A. K. Ghosh, H. V. Pataskar, Brajeshwar Prasad, H. J. Khandekar and S. V. Krishnamoorthy Rao did not move their amendments, Nos. 178 to 183).

4.31.43
Mr. B. M. Gupte
Sir, I beg to move:

“That in Clause 6 the following be inserted as new sub-clause (3) and the existing sub-clause 3 be renumbered as sub-clause 4:

‘During the time the Vice-President is acting in the place of the President, the Council may if necessary elect a temporary Chairman’.”


4.31.44
Mr. B. M. Gupte
Sir, the Vice-President is to be the ex-officio President of the Council of States. While he is acting for the President, he cannot function as the President of the Council of States. Therefore Provision has to be made for a temporary Chairman and that is done by my amendment.

(Messrs. Rajkrushna Bose, H. V. Pataskar and Shibbanlal Saksena did not move their amendments, Nos. 185 to 187.)

4.31.45
Shri D. H. Chandrasekharaiya
Mr. President, Sir, the amendment which stands in my name reads as follows:

“That in sub-clause (3) of Clause 6, for the figure and words ‘5 years’ the following figure and words be put in:

‘4 years or until the election of a new Vice- President whichever event happens later’.”


4.31.46
Shri D. H. Chandrasekharaiya
The terms of office of the President is fixed at five years and it is proposed to fix the term of office of the Vice-President also for the same period. I do not see any reason as to why the periods for both the President and Vice-President should be one and the same.


4.31.47
Shri D. H. Chandrasekharaiya
It was urged in the case of the President that he should continue for sufficient time so that arrangements for electing a new incumbent may be finished. But such reasons will not apply in the case of the Vice President and it will be reasonable and advantageous to synchronize the period of the Vice-President with that of the Lower House. As I explained yesterday, what happens under this arrangement is that he becomes more and more removed from the Lower House as it advances from the second to the fifth term. That is a position which is not very happy.


4.31.48
Shri D. H. Chandrasekharaiya
The House may be aware that in the U.S.A. the Vice-President is elected for four years along with the President and the provision for having a Vice-President in the Union Constitution must have been thought of in the light of the precedent existing in the American Constitution. If that is so, we should be ready and willing to follow the practice adopted elsewhere. The American Constitution is more then 150 years old now and considerable experience must have been gained in working the same. In framing our own Constitution it would be useful to accept the principles or methods adopted elsewhere. It is only by profiting by the experiences of others that. We can make our Constitution more perfect and practical than by inventing something new of which we may not know much. I feel, Sir, that the term of four years for the Vice-President is really in the best interest of the country and is a sound constitutional arrangement.


4.31.49
Shri D. H. Chandrasekharaiya
I have suggested that we might fix the normal period of the Vice- President at four years. But as pointed out in the amendment he may be continued for short period thereafter till a new legislature comes into existence and a new Vice-President is elected. This will enable the office of the Vice-President to remain always filled. I therefore commend this amendment to the kind consideration and acceptance of this House.

(Amendment No. 189 was not moved.)

4.31.50
Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad
Mr. President, Sir, I beg to move:

“That in Clause 6, the following new sub-clause (4) be inserted:

‘(4) The provisions of Clause 4 above shall, mutatis mutandis, also apply to the Vice- President’.”


4.31.51
Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad
In Clause 4 certain conditions are laid down for the office of the President. It seems reasonable that the same, in so far as they are applicable, be also made applicable to the Vice-President. This is only a drafting amendment.


4.31.52
Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava
Mr. President the amendment which I wish to move is as follows:

“That the following sub-clause be added after sub-clause (3):

‘(4) No person, who has not completed the age of 35 years, can be elected as the Vice-President’.”


4.31.53
Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava
There does not appear to me the necessity for mentioning many reasons for (the adoption of) this amendment. By accepting Clause (3), the House has accepted and is committed to the principle that no one below 35 years of age can be the President. And because the Vice President has to act in place of the President therefore there is little doubt, that the Vice-President should not be under 35 years in age. Besides, the Honourable Member (the Mover) has also expressed his readiness to accept this amendment. Therefore I do not want to waste the precious time of this House on other reasons (in favour of this amendment).

[Shri Mohanlal Saksena did not move his amendment. (No. 3 of Supp. List I).]

4.31.54
President
I think these are all the amendments of which I have notice. I take it that no other member has got any amendment of which he has given notice, Now the original clause and the amendments are open for discussion.


4.31.55
Mr. Tajamul Husain
Mr. President, Sir, sub-clause (1) of Clause 6 lays down that in the event of the President’s incapacity or failure to exercise and perform the powers and functions of his office, the Vice-President shall carry on such duties. In other words, Sir, if the President is incapable or fails to carry out his duties, the Vice-President shall act for him. I find, Sir, there are two amendments to this resolution. The amendments are in these words:

“that the words ‘or incapacity or failure to exercise and perform the powers and functions of his office’ be deleted.”


4.31.56
Mr. Tajamul Husain
That means that if the President is incapable or fails to do his duty, the Vice-President shall have no power, to act for him. The question that will arise is that if the President is incapable or deliberately does not do his duty, who, will act for him. Suppose he becomes suddenly ill or insane. Surely there must be somebody to carry on the duties of the, President. With all due respect to the Honourable the Movers of the amendment, I find the amendments are meaningless and therefore I have no option but to oppose it. Now Sir there are two Officers, Heads of the States; one is the President and the other the Vice-President and if the President is ill, of course the Vice-President will act for him but when the Vice-President is doing the work of the President and acting for the President, there is no provision as to who will act for the Vice President when he becomes temporary President.


4.31.57
Mr. R. K. Sidhwa
Suppose the third man also falls ill?


4.31.58
Mr. Tajamul Husain
If the Vice-President is acting as President, then there should be someone to carry on the duties of the Vice-President. There is an amendment by Mr. Guptewhich says that as soon as the Vice-President acts for the President, a Chairman should be temporarily elected to carry on the duties of the Vice-President. Now, Sir, I have been interrupted by my Honourable Friend Mr. Sidhwa from Sind. He says, Well, what will happen if the third man is ill? If I were to agree with him I would say, have the fourth man as well. The only amendment before us is that there should be a Chairman. I support it.


4.31.59
Mr. Tajamul Husain
Mr. Bhargava has just now moved an amendment that as there is an age-limit for the President of the Republic there should be also an age limit for the Vice-President. I think, Sir, this amendment is reasonable because after all the Vice-President automatically becomes President, if the President is dead, and it will look very anomalous that when the permanent President is 35 the Vice-President should be 22 or 21 years of age. I support that amendment.


4.31.60
Mr. Tajamul Husain
With these words, Sir, I have finished.


4.31.61
Mr. Mohammed Sheriff
Mr. President, in my opinion the words “or incapacity or failure to exercise and perform the powers and functions of his office,” should be expunged from sub-clause (2). If these words are retained intact, then I think, there will be marry complications and we will have to face numerous difficulties. The purport of Section 6 is that the President is liable to be removed from office, if there is not a proper use of the proposed powers. The exercise of the powers that have been proposed for the President, is a “relative term”. It is probable that you might consider proper what to me might seem improper and also that others might consider those powers proper which I might consider improper; therefore as I have already stated, this is a matter which is totally ‘relative’. For this reason, I think that these words may be deleted and the remaining ones allowed to remain as they are. My other request is that the appointment of Vice-President should be on the basis of Adult Suffrage. While making the speech concerning the election of the President, the point which I kept in view was, that so far President and Vice-President are concerned-their appointments should be by way of direct election. Even though Pandit Nehru has said many things against this principle, I, as a supporter of democratic principles think it proper that the election of the Vice-President should be on the basis of adult suffrage. With these words, I support the amendment which my colleagues have moved.


4.31.62
President
I understand that Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru is in a position to accept some of the amendments. I am asking him to accept such amendments, as this will cut short the discussion.


4.31.63
B. Pocker Sahib Bahadur
On a point of order, Mr. President, I would just like to make this submission. The Honourable Member ‘who spoke just now has evidently dealt with some amendments, of which one is mine own. I am not in a position to know whether he supported it or he opposed it or what he mid. Therefore it is only just and, fair that I should know his attitude. May I request you therefore, Mr. President, to ask that gentleman to give a gist of his own speech in English? He is capable of doing that. He knows English well.


4.31.64
President
I have ruled before this that I cannot compel a member to speak in a particular language and if the member is suffering under that disability, I think he and the speaker can consult each other and find out what the latter’s attitude is. (Laughter).


4.31.65
Jawaharlal Nehru
Sir, the various amendments that have been moved fall roughly in two or three groups. I agree with most of the amendments in the sense that the wording of this Clause 6, as it has been printed, is not very happy. I think in regard to the first matter, i.e. “incapacity”, that word is unfortunate. Of all the various amendments put forward I feel that the one which is shortest and clearest is Mr. Santhanam’s. That, I think, meets most of the difficulties that have been pointed out. Therefore, I accept it.


4.31.66
Jawaharlal Nehru
I also accept Shri Gupte’s amendment:

“That in Clause 6 the following be inserted as new sub-clause (3) and the —existing sub-clause (3) be renumbered as sub-clause (4);

‘(3) During the time the Vice-President is acting in the place of the President, the Council, may if necessary, elect a temporary Chairman’.”


4.31.67
Jawaharlal Nehru
Lastly, I accept the amendment of Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava:

“That the following sub-clause be added after sub-clause (3) :

‘(4) No person who has not completed the age of 35 years can be elected as the Vice-President’.”


4.31.68
Jawaharlal Nehru
I do not think there are any other amendments on my proposal which I can accept.


4.31.69
Mr. Jagat Narain Lal
I want to have some clarification: Sub-clause (2) provides for the method of election. It says:

“The Vice-President shall be elected by both Houses of the Federal Parliament, in joint session by secret ballot on the system of proportional representation by means of the single transferable vote and shall be ex-officio President of the council of States.”


4.31.70
Mr. Jagat Narain Lal
In case there is only one Vice-President to be elected, what is the meaning of having the election carried on the basis of proportional representation? We have got in our Constituent Assembly Rules, Rule 6, sub-clause (6) the process of elimination. I just want the matter to be clarified, whether in case there is only one Vice-President proportional representation would be necessary.


4.31.71
President
I am advised by those who are supposed to know these rules of representation that this system is proportional representation can be applied even in case there is only one vacancy to be filled in.


4.31.72
Mr. Jagat Narain Lal
Sir, I know that even in the case of the election of the President the system of proportional representation has been provided for and we have already accepted that rule. But still, I think It is our duty to point out that where there is only one person to be elected, the process of elimination which we have already provided for in the Constituent Assembly Rules is the best method. In that rule commends itself to the House, I submit, Sir, it is not too late even at this stage, to say that when the final drafting is done we should provide for that rule to apply here, instead of the present one which does not seem to have any meaning in order to fill a single vacancy.


4.31.73
President
As I have already said, those who are supposed to know these rules tell me that this system can be applied even when there is only one candidate to be elected. But if the Honourable Member has any doubts, I may request Sir N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar to explain that view-point.


4.31.74
The Honourable Sir N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar
Sir, I think there is some want of comprehension of the principle underlying the system of proportional representation. It can certainly be applied to cases where only one vacancy is to be filled. The application of this principle really ensures that the successful candidate should be returned by an absolute majority of votes. If there are more candidates than. Two, it may be that, if you apply the simple majority rule, the person who does not get 51 per cent. Of the votes cast in the election might have to be declared elected; whereas, if you apply the principle of proportional representation, you will, by the system of egativedd votes, be able to get a candidate finally declared elected by an absolute majority. That is why, even in cases where the seat to be filled is only one, we provide that it should be by the system of proportional representation by the single transferable vote.


4.31.75
Mr. Jagat Narain Lal
Sir, I do not propose to enter into further discussion about this point; but my purpose only to draw the attention of the House to it. I will read sub-clause (5) of Clause 6 of the Constituent Assembly Rules and draw the attention of Sir Gopalaswami Ayyangar to it. Sub-clause (5) says:

“Where there are only two candidates for election, the candidate who obtains at the ballot the larger number of votes shall be declared elected. If they obtain an equal number of votes, the election shall be by the drawing of lots.”


4.31.76
Mr. Jagat Narain Lal
And sub-clause (6) reads:

“Where more than two candidates have been nominated and at the first ballot no candidate obtains more votes than the aggregate votes obtained by the other candidates, the candidate who has obtained the smallest number of votes shall be excluded from the election, and balloting shall proceed, the candidate obtaining the smallest number of votes at each ballot, being excluded from the election, until one candidate obtains more votes than the remaining candidate or than the aggregate votes of the remaining candidates, as the case may be, and such candidates shall be declared elected.”


4.31.77
Mr. Jagat Narain Lal
I think, Sir, Sir Gopalaswami Ayyangar has been referring to this method. I do not know if the system of proportional representation refers to a method like this.


4.31.78
The Honourable Mr. Hussain Imam
May I explain, Mr. President?


4.31.79
President
Yes.


4.31.80
The Honourable Mr. Hussain Imam
The basic principles of proportional representation are the fixation of a quota. Fixation of quota takes place by dividing the number of votes by the vacancy plus one, and adding one to the result. For instance, if there are 100 voters and the vacancy is one, the quota will be 100 divided by two, which gives 50 plus one. So any person who does not secure 51 votes will not be elected. The quota is not filled up if nobody secures this number. The man who gets the least number of votes is eliminated; the votes go to the others successively until a person has secured 51 votes. As soon as 51 votes are secured by a candidate, he will be declared elected.


4.31.81
The Honourable Mr. Hussain Imam
This is a short method of expressing the idea which prevails in elections in France where also elections are hold on the basis that the President must have an absolute majority. There they have repeated ballots; but our framers have shortened the process by adopting the single transferable vote. They have attained the same object which France has, but by a simpler and more straightforward method.


4.31.82
President
I think we had better leave it at that.


4.31.83
President
Does anybody wish to speak about the amendments or the original Clause?


4.31.84
Jawaharlal Nehru
Sir, it is all finished. Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru has replied.


4.31.85
President
No, he has not replied. He has only referred to the amendments he is prepared to accept.


4.31.86
M. Ananthasayanam Ayyangar
Sir, I want the Drafting Committee to take note of certain inconveniences that may arise by allowing the clause to stand as it is. No amendment is necessary at this stage. The Vice-President can be an outsider belonging to neither the Council of States nor to the Lower House-the House of the People; under the existing law, in the Council of State the President as well as the Deputy President are both members of the House; the Vice President under the Constitution will be an extra member with a vote in case of difference of opinion. This matter has therefore to be considered. It has to be considered for the reason that we expect both the Houses to be absolutely elected, except in the case of the Upper House where ten seats are reserved for nomination. He may fill one of the nominated seats instead of adding to the seats already provided for in the latter clause.


4.31.87
Jawaharlal Nehru
Secondly, he may be a member of the Lower House-the House of the People in which case provision has to be made that he will Cease to be a member of the Lower House the moment he is elected Vice-President of the Federation and ex-officio President of the Upper House. Under the existing law, there is provision for a President and a Deputy President for the Upper House, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru accepted the amendment of Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava, that a temporary Chairman may be elected whenever the President of the Upper House who is the Vice-President of the Union acts as the President of the Union, Instead of that, I would suggest that as soon as the Vice-President is elected for the Union, a Deputy President may also be elected for the Council of States who normally act’s when the President is not there. You know, Sir, that in the Assembly there is the President and the Deputy President. The Speaker cannot sit all day long and the Deputy Speaker takes his place now and then. Likewise provision has been made in the Government of India Act for a Deputy President who will constantly officiate for the President in the Council of State whenever the President, even during the course of the day is not able to sit, when the sitting goes on. Therefore, instead of having a temporary Chairman, a Deputy President may be appointed from among the Members of the Council of States to officiate when the President who is the Vice-President of the Union is unable to preside.


4.31.88
M. Ananthasayanam Ayyangar
Thirdly, he may be a member of any House or any legislature elsewhere, in which case also provision has to be made that he ceases to be member of any of those Houses.


4.31.89
M. Ananthasayanam Ayyangar
All these, I would like the Drafting Committee to take note. Of, before they place a detailed Bill, before the House.


4.31.90
M. Ananthasayanam Ayyangar
As regards the amendment which seeks to reduce the period of five years to four years I see no reason for accepting it. Whether it is four years or five years does not matter so long as the full term of a member of the Council of States is six years which is the normal period after the first retirement by rotation, so that we will not extend it beyond six years.


4.31.91
M. Ananthasayanam Ayyangar
I therefore find no reason for this amendment and it need not be accepted.


4.31.92
President
I will now put the amendments to vote. There are two amendments which are in the nature of substitutions of sub-clause (1) of Clause 6 one by Mr. Santhanam and the other. By Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad I will put Mr. Santhanam’s amendment first.


4.31.93
President
The question is:

“That for sub-clause (1) of Clause 6 the following be substituted:

‘During the interval between the occurrence of a vacancy in the office of President and its filling up by election and when the President is unable to discharge his functions owing to absence, illness or any other cause, his functions shall be discharged by the Vice-President’”

The motion was adopted.

4.31.94
B. Pocker Sahib Bahadur
It is not necessary to put the amendment of Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad and Mr. Pocker Sahib.

The question is:

“That for sub-clause (2) of Clause 6 the following be substituted:

‘(2) The Vice-President shall be elected by the same electoral college as is applicable to the election of the President and by the same method and he shall be an ex-officio President of the Council of States’. ”

The motion was negatived.

4.31.95
President
The question is:

“That in Clause 6 the following be inserted as new sub-clause (3), and the existing sub-clause (3) be renumbered as sub-clause (4):

‘(3) During the time the Vice-President is acting in the place of the President, the Council may if necessary elect a temporary Chairman’.”

The motion was adopted.

4.31.96
President
The question is:

“That in sub-clause (3) of Clause 6 for the words ‘5 years’ the following words be added :

‘4 years or until the election of a new Vice- President whichever event happens later’.”

The motion was negatived.

4.31.97
President
The question is:

“That in Clause 6, the following new sub-clause (4) be inserted:

‘(4) The Provisions of Clause 4 above shall mutatis mutandis, also apply to the Vice-President’.”

The motion was negatived.

4.31.98
President
The question is:

“That the following sub-clause be added after sub-clause (3):

‘(4) No person who has not completed the age of 35 years can be elected as the Vice-President’.”

The motion was adopted.

4.31.99
President
I think the sub-clauses will have to be renumbered and the House will give permission to the Drafting Committee to renumber the sub-clauses. I will now put to vote the clause as amended.

The question is:

“That the clause, as amended be adopted.”

Clause 6, as amended was adopted.

4.31.100
The Honourable Sir N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar
Sir, I beg to move that Clause 7 be adopted. There is very little that I need say on this clause. The executive authority of the Federation in any State has really to be vested in the head of the State; in this case it will be the President of the Federation. The supreme command of the defence forces of the new State is also to be vested in the head of the State and that explains sub-clause (2) (a).


4.31.101
Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar
Practically all the amendments that have been given notice of relate to sub-clause (2) (b). On this point I understand a motion will be made by Sir Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar for adjourning consideration of this particular item as the matter is being examined with reference to Certain aspects of the question that have been brought to notice. That examination will, we hope, be concluded in a day or two, and when we meet next on Monday we shall probably be in a position to consider that on its merits.


4.31.102
The Honourable Sir N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar
Sir, I move.

“7. (1) Subject to the provisions of this Constitution the executive authority of the Federation shall be vested in the President.

(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provisions:

The supreme command of the defence forces of the Federation shall be vested ‘in the President;

(b) The right of pardon and the power to commute or to remit punishment imposed by any court exercising criminal jurisdiction shall be vested in the President, but such power of communication or remission may also be conferred by law on other authorities.”


4.31.103
Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar
Sir, I move that the consideration of sub-clause (2) (b) be postponed; I do not think it is necessary to give any detailed reasons for this. The clause requires closer examination with reference to the powers of the provincial Governor, the position of the States, etc. and if the House agrees the consideration of this clause may be taken up on Monday.


4.31.104
President
The question is:

“That the consideration of the Clause be postponed.”

The motion was adopted.

4.31.105
The Honourable Mr. Hussain Imam
Sir, what will be the position about amendments? When the new version of the clause comes up will an opportunity be given to the House to move amendments to it?


4.31.106
President
Yes, certainly; when certain changes, are proposed members will be given an opportunity to give notice of amendments.


4.31.107
The Honourable Sir N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar
The procedure may be that when this examination is concluded notice of an agreed amendment will be given by somebody and copies of that will be circulated to Honourable Members who will be at liberty to propose amendments to that amendment

CLAUSE 8

4.31.108
The Honourable Sir N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar
Sir, I beg to move Clause 8, viz:

“8. Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the executive authority of the Federation shall to the matters with respect to which the Federal Parliament has power to make laws and to any other matters with respect to which authority has been conferred on the Federation by any treaty or Agreement, and shall be exercised either through its own agency or through the Units.”


4.31.109
The Honourable Sir N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar
This merely states the general principle that executive authority is co-extensive with legislative authority. The only exception is in respect of matters which are provided for by special treaties or agreement and that occurs at the end of this clause.

(Amendments Nos. 201 and 201-A were not moved).

4.31.110
Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar
Mr. President I have given notice of an amendment to Clause 8 as Clause 8-A.


4.31.111
The Honourable Sir N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar
Sir, Clause 8 may be put to the House first. The amendment proposed is to have, a new Clause as 8-A.


4.31.112
Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar
As a matter of fact I have got notice of two amendments, one by Sir Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar and the other by Mr. Ananthasayanam Ayyangar for the addition of a new clause. I had better dispose of clause 8.


4.31.113
President
As no one wishes to speak on Clause 8 I shall put it to the vote.

Clause 8 was adopted.

4.31.114
Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar
Mr. President, I seek to amend Clause 8 in the following manner.


4.31.115
President
It is not an amendment to Clause 8, but an addition as Clause 8-A.


4.31.116
Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar
Yes. Sir I may mention that, in the course of the clause, I have referred to the expression ‘the Union and substituted ‘Federation’. I trust the House will give me leave to substitute the word ‘Federation’ for the word ‘Union’. That is a slip. This is the amendment I am moving:

“That after Clause 8, the following new clause be inserted:

‘8-A (1) The Government of the Federation may, by agreement with a Indian State but subject to the provisions of the Constitution, in regard to the relationship between the Indian Federation and an acceding Indian State, undertake any legislative, executive or Judicial functions in that State.

(2) Any such agreement entered into with an Indian State not acceding to the Federation shall be subject to and governed by any Act relating to the exercise of foreign jurisdiction by the Parliament of the Federation.

(3) If any such agreement covers any of the matters included in an agreement between a Province and a State under Clause 8 of the provincial constitution, the latter shall stand rescinded and revoked.

(4) On an agreement as per the provisions of sub-clause (1) being concluded the Federation may, subject to the terms of the agreement, exercise the legislative, executive or judicial functions specified therein through appropriate authorities.”’


4.31.117
Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar
In support of this Clause, with your leave, I would like to say a few words. The object of this clause is to bring it in line with a clause already pawed by this House in regard to the provincial constitution in the provincial sphere. That confers powers on the provinces to undertake the administration of certain departments ceded to them by a State as a result of an agreement in the provincial sphere. The object of this clause is to give an overriding power to the Federation. So far as sub-clause (1) is concerned, it refers only to acceding States. The acceding States may accede to the Federation in respect of particular subjects. Even in regard to the other subjects, they may be willing to enter into an agreement with the Indian Federation in regard to the exercise of particular functions. The object of this Clause is to enable the acceding States to enter into such agreements with reference to subjects not included in the terms of accession.


4.31.118
Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar
The second sub-clause refer to States which do not accede to the Federation, but yet may be willing to enter into agreement with the Indian Federation. Any such agreement will of course be subject to any Foreign Jurisdiction Act that may be passed in the exercise of the plenary powers of the Legislature as a Sovereign Legislature. That makes provision for it. “Any such agreement entered into with an Indian State not acceding to the Federation shall be subject to and governed by an Act relating to the exercise of foreign jurisdiction by the Parliament of the Federation.”


4.31.119
Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar
The third sub-clause is intended to prevent any conflict between the Provinces and the States on the one hand and between the Federation and the States on the other. Even in the provincial constitutions we have made a provision to the effect that it shall be subject to the control of the Federal Government. The object of this sub-clause is that if an agreement is entered into between the Federation and a State and, that agreement covers the field already covered by the agreement between the Provinces and the State, this agreement between the Centre and the State must have dominance over the agreement entered into between the Provinces and the State.


4.31.120
Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar
Clause 8(4) simply states what exactly is the effect of an agreement “On an agreement under the provisions of sub-clause (1) being Concluded, the Federation may, subject to the terms of the agreement, exercise executive, judicial and legislative functions specified therein through the appropriate authority.” It more or less is a provision corresponding to a provision already passed by the House in regard to an agreement between the provinces and the States, I would ask the House to accept the proposal contained In Clause 8-A.


4.31.121
Col. Shri Maharaj Himmat Singhji
Mr. President, we have had no notice of this amendment. Kindly give us time till Monday to consider it and give notice of amendments if necessary.


4.31.122
President
This amendment was circulated to members.


4.31.123
Col. Shri Maharaj Himmat Singhji
It was not circulated to us. Many others besides me have not received notice.


4.31.124
The Honourable Mr. Hussain Imam
Notice was received at 4 p.m. yesterday.


4.31.125
President
Notice was sent at 4 p.m. If the suggestion of the Honourable member is accepted, we Should hold this over to enable members to consider this amendment and give notice of amendments to it. I think members should have sufficient time to give notice of amendments, I think on the whole it will be desirable to postpone consideration of this.


4.31.126
The Honourable Sir N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar
I shall have no objection, Sir.


4.31.127
The Honourable Mr. Hussain Imam
Everybody should have time to give notice of amendments.


4.31.128
President
Yesterday we decided that notice of amendments can be given to clauses which are to be considered on the following day, by the evening of the previous day. If time is required to give notice of amendments to amendments, I do not know where we will end.


4.31.129
The Honourable Mr. Hussain Imam
The usual practice in such cases is for the Chair to suspend rules of business and to allow the members to move their amendments, if the Chair considers that the matter is urgent.


4.31.130
President
I think it will be much better to pass it over. So we shall take up the consideration of this at a later date. Similarly, the next addition by Mr. Ananthasayanam.Ayyangar may also be held over.


4.31.131
M. Ananthasayanam Ayyangar
I have no objection.


4.31.132
Mr. T. Channiah
There is one amendment standing in in my name.


4.31.133
President
We shall take up all the amendments when we take up the clause.

CLAUSE 9

4.31.134
The Honourable Sir N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar
I beg to move Clause 9:

“The Executive authority of the Ruler of a Federated State shall continue to be exercisable in that State with respect to Federal subjects, until otherwise provided by the appropriate Federal authority.”


4.31.135
The Honourable Sir N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar
At the present moment, both federal and unit subjects are within the jurisdiction of the executive authority of an Indian State. When federation comes into existence and certain subjects are assigned to the Centre, their administration which, is already in the hands of the State authorities, it is proposed, should continue in these hands until the appropriate federal authority makes other provision for their administration. The general principle, as I have already stated in connection with the previous clause, is that the executive authority of the federation is co-extensive with its legislative authority. That principle is respected in this clause. The only thing that is provided for here is that where that administration is in the hands of the State authorities now, that agency should continue, until the federal legislature or other appropriate federal authority chooses to make other provision. That is really for the purpose of preventing a hiatus in administrative jurisdiction particularly at the time of the inception of the federation. There are amendments to this, Sir, but I shall not deal with those amendments in any detail. But there is one amendment in the names of a number of Prime Ministers of Indian States. That amendment is real a reproduction of section 125 of the present Government of India Act. I have since given notice of an amendment in substitution of it and, if the Prime Ministers who have given notice of amendment agree to withdraw their amendment, I shall move mine.


4.31.136
President
As I understand it, Sir Gopalaswami, the amendment of which notice has been given by the Prime Ministers is to be inserted as Clause 9-A. It is not in substitution. Is that the one you are speaking of?


4.31.137
The Honourable Sir N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar
I stand corrected. I think what you have stated is correct, but I say that, if that particular addition which is proposed by the Prime Ministers is not moved, I shall be prepared to move an amendment to Clause 9 which I hope will be acceptable to them.


4.31.138
Sir B. L. Mitter
In view of Sir Gopalaswami Ayyangar’s amendment which he proposes to move, we do not move the amendment which stands in our name.


4.31.139
The Honourable Sir N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar
I move that at the end of Clause-9 the following be added:

“In cases where it is considered necessary.”


4.31.140
The Honourable Sir N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar
These words hardly need any explanation.


4.31.141
President
We will now take up the other amendments. Mr. Chandrasekharaiya.


4.31.142
Mr. D. H. Chandrasekharaiya
Mr. President, Sir, I beg to move that for Clause 9 the following be substituted:

“The Executive authority of the Ruler of a Federal State shall continue be exercisable in the State with respect to federal subjects subject to inspection of and the directions from the federal head of the executive.”


4.31.143
Mr. D. H. Chandrasekharaiya
Sir, the clause as it stands provides for the exercise of authority in regard to federal subjects by the rulers of federating States until other arrangements are made by the federation. Now, this exercise of authority is not made subject to the supervision and control of an appropriate federal authority. Such an uncontrolled exercise of authority in respect of federal subjects is neither correct nor helpful. I have therefore proposed in this amendment that the exercise of authority should be brought under the inspection and direction of the head of the federal executive. This is one aspect of the amendment.


4.31.144
Mr. D. H. Chandrasekharaiya
The other aspect is that the State authorities are proposed to be used for administering federal subjects only for a time till other arrangements are made by the federation. My point is that if the State authorities could be used for a temporary period, why should they not be used permanently. Since the exercise of authority by the States is proposed to be’ controlled and directed by the head of the federation, any mistakes committed can be pointed out then and there and the administration set right. So far as the States are concerned, there will perhaps be a limited number of federal subjects for administration, and in such a case, will not be undertaking a responsibility beyond their capacity to shoulder. Besides, there are bigger States like Mysore, Baroda, etc., which have got efficient modern and well-organised administrations and I am sure that any other arrangement will not come up to the level already attained by such administrations.


4.31.145
Mr. D. H. Chandrasekharaiya
It has, however, been proposed by Sir N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar that the words “In cases where it is considered necessary” may be added at the end of Clause 9 to serve as a compromise between differing views. I do not think that such an amendment will improve the situation very much as it gives room for saying that it is considered necessary in every case.


4.31.146
Mr. D. H. Chandrasekharaiya
In conclusion, firstly I propose that provision should be made for inspection and control of federal administration within State limits and secondly, State authorities should be permitted to administer Federal subjects on a permanent basis. I pray that the House will be pleased to consider and accept the amendment proposed by me.


4.31.147
Mr. Himmat Singh K. Maheshwari
Mr. President, Sir, the amendment which stands in my name is a comparatively minor one. It only, seeks to substitute for the words “by the appropriate Federal authority” occurring in Clause 9 the words “by virtue of a Federal law” I will read out the clause as it will be if the motion is accepted:

“The executive authority of the Ruler of a Federated State shall notwithstanding anything in this Constitution, continue to be exercisable in that State with respect to matters with respect to which the Federal Legislature has powers to make Laws for that State, except in so far as the executive authority of the Federation becomes exercisable in the State to the exclusion of the executive authority of the Ruler by virtue of a Federal Law.”


4.31.148
Mr. Himmat Singh K. Maheshwari
The word ‘authority’, Sir, is not so very clear. It might mean and Under Secretary of the Federal Government. What therefore I wish the House to accept is a provision that where the executive authority of a Federation has to be exercised in a State, it should be by means of a Federal Law and not merely by an order of a Federal authority. Perhaps, Sir, the amendment is quite unnecessary because the drafters of the clause might ultimately have intended to make this expression more clear. I am not certain at all and in any case my object will be served if the Drafting Committee will kindly consider this matter at the appropriate time.

(Messrs. Kishori Mohan Tripathi, B. M. Gupta, Bishwanath Das, H. R. Guruv Reddy, Jainarayan Vyas, S. V. Krishnamurthy Rao and K. Chengalaraya Reddy did not move their amendment, Nos. 204 to 210).

4.31.149
President
I think these are all the amendments of which I have been given notice. Now the clause and the amendments are open to discussion. Does any member wish to speak about either the Clause or the Amendment?


4.31.150
Shri Mahavir Tyagi
Sir, this part of the Constitution is very important because it concerns a vast number of people of India residing in the States. At present, they enjoy enough powers of internal administration but in spite of this, in every state there is a Resident who represents the Paramount power. He has some voice in the administration and exercises a check on the powers of the rulers. Often he has safeguarded the rights of the people. If with the end of the-office of the Resident, the Assembly does not provide some via media for safeguarding the peoples’ rights, I venture to say, Sir, our functions of constitution-making will not be considered successful. When the States and their people join our Union, it is the duty of the Assembly to look to the welfare of the States’ people and protect their rights. I stand here to take a little of your time so that the States people, may not have cause to complain that when the question of the peoples’ rights came before the Assembly, it remained silent and sacrificed the interest of the people in order to get the co-operation of the rulers. I do not want to delay the proceedings by bringing any amendment, because all the rules and provisos which are being framed here will come up before the Assembly in their final shape. Then it will have the right to negative and change them. What I mean is this: At present there is a Resident who exercises some control and check on the powers of the rulers. But with the abolition of his office there is no machinery to control the authority of the rulers. The Negotiating Committee must place before the House-now or later at some opportune stage in very clear terms as to what arrangements it has made to control the authority of the rulers. In the present set up, the rulers have all the powers that the Union will have and also powers which they do not possess at present. Its result will be that the despotic and autocratic States will become all powerful and there will be no check on them. There are many States which have no legislature at all. Under the circumstances if the present wide and discretionary powers are allowed to remain with the rulers, their joining the Union would be an advantage to them. We are paying this as the price to include the States in the Union. If the rulers are allowed to retain their present absolute powers, very ruler will be a gainer by joining the Union, because the States People have so long been fighting against of the Congress and other such organisations and now not receive this help any more from them. Henceforth the rulers will use their powers in their own arbitrary manner. Therefore, though it is proper to concede the rulers whatever powers they at present enjoy or to give them power similar to that of the Union, some restrictive provision must be incorporated in the Constitution so that they may not misuse the powers granted to them. When the Government of India Act was being framed in 1935 such restrictive provision was suggested in it in order to check the authority of the rulers. It is clearly stated in the said Act that any law of the States, which is contrary to or is incompatible with that of the federation, shall be deemed null and void and- the law of this Federation shall prevail. The only difficulty at Present is that instead of one, there are two Dominions now, one of Pakistan and the other of India. Both the dominions are anxious to include in their Dominion a greater number of States than their rival. Because of this rivalry. The Princes are raising the price of their co-operation higher. I do not consider It desirable to concede to them more and more powers only in order to include them in our dominion They are not willing to forego any of their powers in order to join the Union. By joining the Union they will be gainers in as much as they will receive military protection from the Unions, but what benefit is that to us? We will only increase a member In our family. The States will receive tremendous help from this vast Dominion but in return for the privileges how many of their rights are they ready to concede to us? We must have everything before us. Every detail of the negotiation that is going on between our Negotiating Committee and the States must come before the House. It is only then, when we have considered all these that we should decide as to what power the rulers should be allowed to retain and what amount of control the Union should exercise over them. This clause, as it stands at present, grants wide powers to the States, but it does not mention as to what power the Union will have over them. , I do not want to put any obstacle to the passage of this resolution but I want to that this must be established as a convention that when a member speaks it is not imperative for him either to oppose or support the resolution. When an important matter is being discussed in the House a member must have the right to express was views without supporting or opposing the motion so that his views may be recorded. I stand here only for this purpose that my views may be recorded and our Negotiating Committee may know that a section of the House entertains such views. I want that my speech should bring to light what “liberties” the States halve and what further powers we are granting to them, I demand that when we are representing here the people of the States, the rulers must not be given powers beyond what they had. They have had ample powers. When they have joined the Union, the office of the Resident will be abolished and some of the States will become despotic. Therefore, without meaning any offence to and without making any allegation against any State I wish to say that when the States are joining our family the Indian Union-they must respect the principles and our democracy. Despotic states have no place in our Union. Because of the assurances from some leaders States may fill today that they will have all the liberties in the Union’, but I want to make it clear to them. That, though the House is accenting all their terms, their joining the Union will put their despotism in danger. India and this Assembly will soon put an end to despotism and the States must join the union with this definite knowledge. The general public demands it and, if for some reasons this Assembly cannot do away with despotism the nation will, after the expiry of the existing Assembly, call a new Constituent Assembly which will not only solve our economic Problem but the political problem too. That revolutionary Assembly will not allow even a trace of despotism to remain in India. The Union of India will not allow the black spot of despotism to remain long on her fair face. This is what I have to say.


4.31.151
The Honourable Mr. Hussain Imam
Mr. President, the remarks made by the last speaker asking for a minimum of democracy in the constituent units of the Federation is one on which I hope there will be no difference of opinion in this House. There are certain standards, and certain measures which are regarded as the bare minimum, as the sine qua non of a decent existence; and it is wrong in this age for anyone to claim. The privilege of divine right to rule as they please. I am one of those persons who believe in moderation as well as in negotiation. But there is a limit beyond which you cannot carry on these two processes. There are certain bedrock principles which have to be accepted. Because of the fact that the foreign Government had sanctioned the existence of 560 state units, it is not necessary that this Constituent Assembly should also accept the separate existence of these units. In these days it is almost a common principle that various small units cannot fight in the battle of life. Look at egativeddtion and cottage industry. Cottage industry is every day being eliminated. We are trying to protect it and give it support because it is to the greater advantage of the worker than the mill industry. Similarly, if it were to be greater advantage of the common man to have the 560 units, I for one would have supported them. But many of the units are so small that they themselves have considered it essential to join together and form bigger units. This is a move in the right direction and if it is developed to the full extent to which it should be developed, it is possible to allow them to exist even today. But if individuality prevails and if the move for having a union of States where they can give common privileges and common advantages to which a citizen is entitled is not put forward, I am afraid that the existence of the States will be egatived. I endorse the appeal of the previous speaker that this Assembly and those who are in charge of negotiation should look to it that the right of the common man in the States which is as precious to us as the citizens of British India is safeguarded. (Hear, hear.) They must be protected with as much care and as much solicitude as we are taking in the other units, the provinces. There should be a minimum standard of democracy, and minimum rights of citizenship which should not be denied to anyone in the Continent of India. No matter whether it is a big State or a small State, they must all strive to uplift and if we cannot uplift, we will be failing in the charge which has been entrusted to us. Independence is not worth anything if we allow a large part of the units to remain in the same degraded condition in which they existed before the departure of the British. I therefore endorse the appeal and hope that something will come out of it.


4.31.152
Mr. Jainarain Vyas
Mr. President, at present the whole question of States is not before the House but we have only to consider as to what authority the Princes should be given in respect of central subjects. Therefore I shall confine myself to this only and I would like the House also not to go beyond the scope of the subject.


4.31.153
Mr. Jainarain Vyas
It is true that the Princes or the States are going to have the powers and authorities which they do not have in the current set-up. But the words (of the resolution) show that power would continue with those who had it: not more than this, unless some other arrangements are made by law. In spite of this, as our Federal subjects are numerous and of various types it is apprehended that the powers granted to the Princes in respect of these subjects might be abused in some States. But now that we have joined the Union, we may hope or rather we should appeal to the Rulers to fall in line with the rest of India. The Provinces too should be requested to make proper use of the powers granted to them Under the circumstances, we need not oppose such clauses or sections. Mr. Tyagi has just said many things with reference to the general question concerning states. I am a State subject and represent the States people. I do admit that the representatives of the States people do no hold the same status as the ministerial representatives hold. They speak on behalf of the Government of the States. We have not attained this status. Really this is a painful position for us. But this certainly does not mean that we have given up all hopes of securing our real status. It is impossible for us to remain long in this position. I hope our Union will exercise its influence over the Princes, their ministers and the governments to see that the representatives of the people have equal share in the internal administration of the States. And if for certain technical reasons or legal complications this cannot be done, I hope we shall try to settle the matter by negotiation. However, if our negotiations with the Princes tail to secure an amicable settlement, after 15th of August the Rulers and the States people will stand in opposition to each other The people have strength enough to settle their own affairs. We are grateful for the sympathy shown to Liz. But at the same time I wish to say that our attitude would not seriously affect the federal Subjects. It might affect the Union which would consider its own interests. Such is our hope. With these words, I supper the original resolution.


4.31.154
Mr. S. V. Krishnamurthy Rao
Mr President, Sir, I had myself brought an amendment that in these matters the representatives of the people in the States, may have a voice but I withdrew that amendment because an amendment by Sir N. Gopalaswamy Ayyangar was accepted by the Ministers of the-States. In this I see the dawn of a new era in the States. I hope the ministers have accepted this amendment with all the implications behind it. We the peoples’ representative from the States, are in a very delicate position. On the one hand we do not want to take any attitude which will jeopardise the Union of India. Unity is the prime need of the hour. On the other hand, we have to safeguard the interests of the people of the States. With this view, we have accepted the amendment of Sir N. Gopalaswamy Ayyangar. By the acceptance of the amendment, Sir, we believe that even in the States, minimum standards of democratic Governments will be established ere long, because the acceptance of this amendment in the Union Federation means the acceptance of the adult suffrage for the election of the representatives to the Federal Assembly and also the acceptance of the Citizenship Rights and the Fundamental Rights. I am sure the acceptance of these fundamental principles will have its own repercussions on the administration in the States, With this hope in view that ere long the Ministers who are charged with the heavy responsibility, will do their duty not only to their Rulers but also to the Union Federation and the people of the States, and will see that responsible Government will be established in the territories of the states, with this hope, I support the Resolution as amended.


4.31.155
Diwan Bahadur Sir A. Ramaswami Mudaliar
Mr. President, I have only a few words to address this august Assembly on, this very important subject. Some of the States’ Representatives-I use the word ‘Representatives with some hesitation,-the official Ministers of the States as they have been described,-have given notice of an amendment which tries to incorporate Section 125 of the Government of India Act. That Act suggested that the executive power of the Federation will be carried out by the States and the Rulers of the States through their own Officers and that the Federation should be content to have what may be called the right of inspection to see that that authority was properly exercised. There are a great many States where even now, whatever is India, the required on behalf of the Federation or the Government of India the work is carried out essentially by the State Governments and the executive authority of the States. During the years when the Government of India Act was under consideration at various Sessions of the Round Table Conference it was pointed out that while the States which acceded to the Federation would have no objection to legislation being passed on the coded subjects by the Federal Legislature, the power of executive authority should still rest in the Officers of the States. This is to say that the Federation shall have legislative authority alone, but that for the administration of those subjects which States had ceded, the administrative authority, the executive responsibility may still vest in the States. This was the position taken up as far back as 1930. Things have marched very far in some of the States during the intervening period and there are indications that in many States things will march further still in the direction of a closer association of the people of the States in the administration of the States. There is no doubt whatsoever that the trend of events, the march of public opinion, the awakening in the States themselves and the very fact that the States may accede to the Union and send their representatives to the Union Legislature, all these facts will tend to quicken the progress and the process of the greater association of the people of the State in the administration of the State. (Cheers). I do not want to refer to any individual State, but I had in mind States which very shortly will give such an amount of power to the subjects of the States that there will be very little feeling in the matter in those States, at any rate. Even in 1930-31 those who represented the States in the Round Table Conference took the view that while the legislative power may be readily conceded to the Federal Parliament, the executive power must vest in the States to be exercised by the officers of the State. I venture to think-it is not a proposition that I am putting forward on behalf of any bureaucratic or undemocratic administrator of a State, but it is a proposition which may very well be put forward on behalf of the subjects themselves-that the executive authority in those States must vest in the authorities or the officers of the State. While that executive authority is to be imposed by a Federation through its own officers, who is it that will lose the exercise of that authority, except the very subjects who through their responsible representatives will be in charge now to a certain extent. And hereafter, to a much greater extent, for the affairs of the State? If, therefore, the Federation intervenes with its own executive set-up in the administration of a State, I venture to think it, is not the Ruler who is going to lose much or anything at all; it is those representatives, those popular representatives as they are called, those who will be in charge of administration by closer association of the people in the administration, it is they who will forego the right of exercising their authorities in those States. It may be said that in provinces to a certain extent federal jurisdiction is exercised by federal executive authority. But I believe the Union Constitution Committee and those who have taken part in these proceedings have egative that there is a fundamental. Distinction between Provinces and States. I do not know whether Provinces are altogether too happy or will be happy over the decisions that have been so far taken with reference to the powers of the Federation in the Provinces. The list of subjects, Provincial and the Concurrent List have still to be examined by this House. What the fate of that examination will be I do not venture to say. But after all, Sir, I have not always been associated with States-my association has been of very recent times and for years-30 years of my public life have been spent in what till the 15th of August may be described as British Indian Provinces. I venture to express the view that there is a very strong urge in the Provinces that as far as possible, what has been the subject of our agitation decades, namely, provincial autonomy, should be a very real thing indeed. Provinces rare not likely to easily yield to the suggestion that a strong Central Government means a Central Government with a vast number of subjects to administer. My own view of a strong Central Government is not that, For what purpose should a Government be strong in the Centre? I venture to think that if that Position is clearly and analytically examined, you will come to the view that for certain subjects arid with reference to certain powers, the Central Government.-the Federal Government-should have ample plenary and exhaustive powers, but that does not mean that, taking a subject like even patents or strong Central Government is created by vesting the rights over patents or copyrights in that Centre. It may be for other reasons, that it may be desirable. It may be done by co-operation, by co-ordination, by the idea of the agency that is established at the Centre which will have not the power, at least to a certain extent, the advisory capacity to bring about that co-ordination, but let us not, because we think in terms of a strong Central Government, forget the fact that strength does not lie in expansiveness, a wide variety of subjects coming under the scope of the Central Government. In fact, my own view is that the more subjects you bring under the Federation, the weaker you make it. So I would press very strongly when the time comes-if I may be permitted for a moment to say on behalf of the Provinces, forgetting my new avathar—I would press very strongly in favour of provincial administration having the widest possible power in consonance with the strength of the Central Government. There are occasions, of course, when an emergency arises when I would be willing to have the Federal Government over-run the whole of the sphere of the Federation. When an emergency is declared or proved to exist, then all these restrictions which we had even under the Government of India Act may well disappear and the Central Government may have all these powers; but normally, in day to day administration, in the absence of such an emergency, I venture very strongly, very respectfully and with great humbleness to urge that, Provinces should have as much and as wide powers as possible. If that is the case, Mr. President, a fortiori, the States should have even wider power and except for those subjects that they accede there ought not to be any interference in the States and so far as this power of administration, is concerned, I venture to state that States may be left to administer their own subjects. I understand that there may be some difficulties in some areas, some States, to confer the power on them to administer these subjects. I understand that the amendment of my Honourable friend Sir N. Gopalaswamy Ayyangar wants to preserve that position and to take care of that situation. It may be so. It is from the point of view that we have not pressed the amendment which goes the whole way before this House at present. But barring such exceptions, the general rule shall be and must be that the States which can administer properly, which have an administrator, whether popularly elected. Or unpopularly based, who carried on the administration on correct administrative principles, those States cannot and should not have their administrative sphere encroached upon by the Federal Government. I think some of the States at least can show a record of administration which is-in the presence of such a large number of provincial representatives and provincial ministers, I dare not say what otherwise I would have liked to say-which is at least riot less efficient than the administration in the provinces. With that record, I venture to think that it will be accepted by everybody in this House that as far as possible, in as many States as possible where there is no question of the administrative machinery not rising to the occasion, that administration shall be that of the State itself. I therefore want to make the position perfectly clear that in accepting the amendment of Sir N. Gopalaswamy Ayyangar we are not giving up the essential principle that it shall be the rule that States shall have their own executive authority and that in special cases exceptions may be made.


4.31.156
Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar
Sir, I had no idea of speaking on this Resolution, especially after an agreement had been reached between the Mover of the Resolution and certain representatives of the States. In dealing with this subject, it is unnecessary for me to go into the question as to the relative sphere of the Federation or of the Provinces in the Federal structure. I may have a good deal to say in favour of what Sir Ramaswamy Mudaliar has stated, namely, that the strength of the Centre does not depend upon the number of subjects assigned to it but upon the nation-building and nation-preserving subjects being in the hands of the Centre and the Centre being necessarily equipped with the machinery for enforcing its power throughout the area. But that is entirely irrelevant in the consideration of the question now before the House. The essential principle underlying the previous clause is that the executive power must be co-extensive with the legislative power. If the Federation has the power to pass certain laws it must have the necessary power to enforce those laws throughout the Federation. That is the common-sense, accepted constitutional principle to which no exception can, be taken, either by State protagonists or provincial protagonists.


4.31.157
Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar
The second question is, how is this executive power to be exercised? It may be exercised through the instrumentality or agency directly appointed by the Federation, or it may, for the time being, employ a Stale or provincial agency. But the ultimate power and responsibility must rest with the Federation which must be satisfied that an efficient administration is carried On. If an efficient administration is carried on in State A, or State B or State C, very well. The Federation will not interfere. But the Federation is the sole judge and the only judge of the efficiency of the administration throughout the Union, and every State agency and every Provincial Agency and every other agency must be the agency of the Federation to that extent. The object of this amendment is very simple. If the State machinery is functioning properly, then you need not interfere; let the status quo continue. But the ultimate power will rest with the Federation, that is the principle to which we are committed. But that does not mean that the Federation or the Federal executive win go on experimenting. Why should it? For example, if the postal service or some other service is efficiently and properly conducted by’ the State agency, then the Federation will not have any need or business to interfere. If on the other hand, the State agency does not carry on the administration properly, the final authority must rest with the Federation. That is the principle of this amendment and I do not think that any State cap take exception to it. It is really a midway solution between two extreme views. One view is that here and now the Federation must start off with a special agency for the purpose of carrying on this work. That is one extreme view. The other view is that the existing state of things must continue, especially when they are satisfactory. The view taken in this clause is that if and when the agency is found to be ineffective by’ the Federal authority, it will be up to the Federal authority-and they are the sole judges of the situation-to interfere. Let there be no misunderstanding on this point. The principle of Section 125 of the Government of India Act is expressly departed from in this Constitution. It is not a question of parleying between the States and the Federal authority. It is a question of the responsibility of the Federation. It is but a matter of prudence. It is a matter of giving stability to the administration. When the administration of a particular subject is efficient through the State agency, that agency may continue to be employed. But there is no denying the fact that so far as the principle of this clause and the earlier clause is concerned, the ultimate responsibility for the proper execution of the laws which the Federation is passing is with the Federation and Federation alone and the principle that the executive power is co-extensive, in general, with the legislative power is not to be departed from. It is on that ground, Sir, that I support the amendment moved by Sir N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar with the modification, and on no other ground.


4.31.158
Sri K. Santhanam
Sir, I am glad that Sir Alladi has explained the fundamental principle of the federal system so clearly and emphatically. I shall met try to cover the same ground. But there is one point mentioned by Sir Ramaswami Mudaliar which also requires our attention. He suggested that as the States are getting egativedd it may not be so objectionable to leave in their hands the executive authority on federal subjects. Sir, I do not think this is correct. To the extent the States get more and more egativedd, the distinction between the Provincial and Federal subjects must become clearer and clearer. That is my view. When a Ruler or his Dew an defies the Federation it may be easy to deal with him because the Federal authority will get the support of the people. But if the Federal subjects are under democratic States then the people themselves may get a vested interest and they may defy the Federal authority. Therefore- in all federal schemes, as far as possible, the powers of the Federation and the powers of the units are kept distinct. The executive authority of the Federation is egatived in all Federal subjects and the autonomous units have the executive authority only in their own subjects, This distinction is carried to such an extent in the United States of America that even in the matter of courts the Federal laws are enforced by the Federal Judiciary and the State Laws are enforced by the State Judiciary. In course of time, the Indian Federation also will have to follow the same principle. I agree with Sir Ramaswamy Mudaliar that the strength of the Federation does not depend upon the number of subjects it administers. The Indian Federation may have only a handful of subjects-four or five. But so long as it has absolute and undivided authority over those subjects, it is bound to be strong. I am sorry Sir Ramaswamy Mudaliar brought in these issues, particularly the issue as to what constitutes the strength of the Federation. What should be the scope of the Federal subjects and what the scope of the Provincial subjects is an entirely different issue on which many of us will go a long way to agree with him. But this particular clause has nothing to do with it. Assuming that we define the Federal subjects, to what extent should Federal authority extend over these subjects? That is the issue of this clause. Sir Alladi has, of course, stated and explained the general principle. I say that to leave the Federal authority in the hands of the States will he even more dangerous when they become democratised. There may be conflicts between all-India patriotism and unit patriotism, and local conflicts can be dangerous. The Provincial authority may set in motion disintegrating forces which we should seek to avoid even from the very beginning. Therefore, let us make it quite clear that it shall be open to the Federation to take the executive authority in all Federal subjects whenever it chooses to do so. For the present, it may be left in the hands of the State, but the power to resume it, whenever the Federation may think fit, should be with the Federation. The argument that more and more the authority in the States will be with the people, has no relevance whatsoever. ‘In fact. It operates against leaving the authority in the hands of the States. Therefore, let us have the Federal authority intact for the Federation. I suggest that, when the final draft comes, there should be no doubt left as to the power of the Federal authorities to resume their executive functions in Federal subjects as they have been defined in the list.


4.31.159
Shri Gopikrishna Vijayvargiya
Mr. President, Sir, I come from an Indian State. The motive in my mind is that our country should have a strong Centre. Unfortunately our country consists of many parts. In some Indian States and in districts and provinces too, in a wave of local patriotism people wish to possess more ‘autonomy’. This will make our country weak and the Centre will not remain strong.


4.31.160
Shri Gopikrishna Vijayvargiya
I wish to tell you that we all, the States also, shall have to surrender (rights) so as to invest the Centre with the maximum power, to make it and the country strong. Under the present circumstances, the scope of executive functions in States should not be enlarged. As suggested by Sir Mudaliar the mere number of Federal subjects, by themselves are not enough to create a strong Centre. This is correct but some subjects have to be assigned to the Centre and the ultimate authority about them should not be left to the discretion of the States.


4.31.161
Shri Gopikrishna Vijayvargiya
The Central affairs of the States and provinces should be entrusted to the Centre. The minimum possible executive power should be with the States and provinces. It is not proper to keep the maximum power with them. In small countries like Switzerland and others, the executive authority is left with the units, but in India we cannot do so, as that would not be free from risks. Therefore excessive power should not be handed over to the States. The federal authority in the States should as far as possible be exercised through a federal machinery. But as suggested by Sir Gopalaswami Ayyangar, in the beginning it is not necessary to add a provision to this clause. We would not object to it. But I think it proper to create a strong Centre in the Country and the States should not grudge it. If we want to make the Centre strong, we shall have to hand over at least some subjects to the Centre. Without it our country cannot progress. Hence it is in the hands of the States and the provinces that if they intend having a strong Centre, they should confer upon the Centre the maximum power. We must make our Centre strong and along with this the powers of direction and inspection should vest in the Federation. The States should not seek to possess as, much power as possible. Therefore, at present I do not oppose it. As it is, the amendment of Sir Gopalaswami Ayyangar should be accepted but this should be our aim, that the Centre be made as strong as Possible.


4.31.162
Mr. R. K. Sidhwa
After Sir Gopalaswami Ayyangar’s speech it was very good of Sir Alladi to have made the position very clear as to what the object of this resolution is. He has in unmistakable terms stated that the final authority shall vest in the Federation: Sir, we congratulate the States’ representatives who have been good enough to participate in this Constituent Assembly and I also congratulate those of the States who have given a lead in this matter and made it clear for others to enter it. I also desire to tell them that while one part of the country is becoming democratic, the other part of nearly ten crores of people cannot remain under autocratic rule. It has been a principle with us and we have declared that when India becomes free we shall see to it that our States’ brethren also become free. Therefore in this august Assembly, when we have all met together-and I am very glad that it is so-the Rulers, their representatives and the peoples of the States, that we should tell them that was our object and desire. I am very glad that some of the Rulers do feel that they cannot expect one part to rule autocratically and the other to rule democratically. I do not want to go into the details of various States but I know of some States where there are no local bodies, no municipalities, and where there are Legislative Assemblies there is a majority of nominated members. Days of nomination are gone. There should be all elected representatives both in the municipalities and the legislatures. The nomination period has gone, and if you want to make it democratic, abolish all these nominations. I would suggest to the Rulers that they must have elected Legislative Assembly members with powers to junction as it will be in the provincial legislatures. Please also see that elected members, local bodies and municipalities are also established where they do not exist. I know of a State where a printing press is not allowed to be established. I do not want to mention the name of that State. It is a fairly big State. I do not want to record a discordant note on this. Our spirit is equally good but we want to tell the Rulers today that the time has come when we have to implement the pledge given to the States people. We have been telling them “when the time comes to obtain our freedom we shall see to it that you also shall get it,” and I therefore take this opportunity of telling the people of the States that we, shall strain every nerve and see that the people of the States are also ruled-exactly in the manner we rule in India.


4.31.163
Mr. M. S. Aney
Mr. President, Sir, the amendment under discussion is a compromise arrived at between the Ministers of some of the important States who are fortunately present here and who, have joined the Constituent Assembly to help us and the spokesmen of non-official members of the Constituent Assembly representing British India. Therefore, the proper persons to explain the implications of this compromise are those who are parties to that compromise. We have yet to hear what Sir Gopalaswami Ayyangar has to say. But one of the important members of the ministerial party, Sir Ramaswami Mudaliar, has made a speech and tried to explain the point of view which he had in mind in accepting the compromise which is embodied in this amendment. I only want to make a general observation and not any specific suggestion. The point of view is perfectly clear to my mind that as a general rule the executive authority of a State shall be continued to be exercised by the ruler in respect of federal subjects. There is a warning however to the States in the clause that a certain standard of administration is demanded of them. I believe at present, at least, the Assembly is in this mood. It does not want the Federal authority to exercise its powers to bring about a change in the administration of the States. It expects that the force or great events and the circumstances which we have to fact, will have the desired effect upon the psychology of those who have to administer the States. The signs of progress are already there. It has begun, and we hope it will continue uninterrupted for some time. We have come to a compromise and let us for the time being rest our faith in that hope. We can tell them that if the time comes the Federal authority will not be wanting in exercising its powers in cases where it may become necessary in course of time. I think the wording is sufficiently clear. Those who have got the interest of the country at heart will easily understand the importance of mutual responsibility and obligations that the Federal authority and the States have to bear in mind. We want to make a strong India, by encouraging the States to take part in the Union and by bringing about concord between the Union and the States. Our attempt should be to bring about this desirable result viz., a strong India. That strength lies in the willing co-operation between the acceding States and the Federal authority. Therefore the policy of the Federal authority will be to maintain the essential unity. The proper thing for the State to do is to enlist the sympathy of their people by associating them with the State administration and that too as quickly as possible.


4.31.164
Mr. M. S. Aney
With these few words I support the amendment.


4.31.165
Sir B. L. Mitter
Sir, it is somewhat surprising that an innocent and agreed amendment should have evoked so much eloquence and a certain amount of heat also. What are the implications of this amendment? There are two implications: one is that the amended clause postulates the supremacy of the Federation. The last words are: “until otherwise provided by the appropriate Federal authority in cases where it is considered necessary.” This shows that the ultimate authority is the Federal authority. The first part which says “The executive authority of the Ruler of a Federated State shall continue to be exercisable in that State with respect to Federal subjects” merely continues the status quo.


4.31.166
Sir B. L. Mitter
The constitution which we are framing in this Assembly is not an unreal thing. We have got to take the facts in the country as they are into consideration and in the light of those facts prepare an appropriate constitution, one of the facts being that in some of the major States some of the Central subjects are administered by the State authorities. It has not caused my embarrassment to anybody. It has not occasioned any inefficiency. Well, if that be so, that State-of affairs will Continue. It you find that there has been any abuse or inefficiency, there is Power In the Federal legislature to make adequate provisions. This is a simple clause embodying two principles, first is supremacy of the Federal authority and second the continuance of the status quo.


4.31.167
The Honourable Sir N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar
Sir, we have had a most interesting debate, if I may say so on an issue which is certainly an important one, but an issue on which I thought those who took somewhat differing views had already come to an agreed settlement. I do not wish’ to add to the eloquence ‘that has been spent upon this issue in the last one hour and more. I wish only to say, Sir, that the basic principle of, this clause is that the executive authority of the Federation is co-extensive with its legislative authority, that, normally, it is the Federation that is responsible for the proper administration of Federal subjects But we have taken the existing facts into consideration where a large number of Indian States are actually administering what will be Federal subjects in the new Constitution. We are providing that the existing state of things should continue, but that continuance is necessarily subject to the overriding control of the Federation itself, whenever it chooses to impose that control. We cannot get away from that position As Sir B. L. Mitter pointed out, the supreme authority in regard to the executive administration of the Federal subjects is vested in the Federation. I should reverse the position that Sir Ramaswami Mudaliar contended for. He seemed to think that the general principle should be that the executive authority in relation to Federal subjects should vest in the States, but that, as an exceptional measure, the Federation should take over the administration into its hands whenever that becomes necessary. What I wish to point out is that the general principle should be that it is the Federation that is responsible for the executive administration of Federal subjects, but that it will not, unless it considers it necessary, interfere with the State administration of Federal subjects where it, is in existence today and where it is efficient according to proper standards.


4.31.168
The Honourable Sir N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar
Now, it was said by the mover of one amendment that the taking over of executive administration in respect of the States should be done by Federal law and not by any kind of Federal authority as indicated in the Clause. I would only mention to him one range of subjects, viz., External Affairs. A very large portion of the field of External Affairs is covered not so much by legislation as by executive action. In such cases it would be absolutely unnecessary for us to look to a Federal law for the purpose, of the executive administration of External Affairs being carried out in the proper way within the limits of Indian States.


4.31.169
The Honourable Sir N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar
So far as this particular matter is concerned, Sir, I consider that in regard to the executive administration of Federal subjects there is no fundamental distinction, as was pointed out by Sir Ramaswami Mudaliar, between the Provinces and the States. The only distinction is that the States are actually administering some Federal subjects while the Provinces are not doing so. But, so far as the right to administer them Is concerned, I do not think there is any distinction between the Provinces and the States. Now what really distinguishes the Provinces and the States is only that different kinds of internal administration exist in the two areas. I do not wish to go into this wider field which some of the speakers have covered but I do wish to endorse and emphasise one out which was I think made by Mr. Santhanam and that is this: The need for the taking over of the executive administration of Federal subjects by the Federation will not be less, but perhaps will be greater when democratic institutions become more common in the States than they are today. After all we have got to consider that the principle of a Federal system is to divide the administration or the exercise of sovereign powers between the Centre and the Units. And I do not see why any hesitation should be felt with regard to accepting- this position, because after all the federation is as much a part of the constitution which the people and the rulers of the States have to reckon with as the State constitution be. In the federal legislature the States will be adequately represented, and when for example a federal law is passed providing for direct administration of federal subjects by the federation, that law will be one in the passing of which the representatives of the States have had a voice, and therefore I could see no real principle involved in contending that you must reverse the general principle in the States from what it has to be in the provinces. I do not wish to say more, Sir, on a subject on which there is agreement as to what we actually should do. I think the House is generally in favour of accepting the amendment that I have moved. I wish to say nothing more.


4.31.170
President
I will now put the amendments to the vote. The first is an addition of four or five words to the clause which, Sir Gopalaswami himself proposed, that at the end of Clause 9 the following be added:

“In cases where it is considered necessary.”


4.31.171
President
I take it that the House accepts that.

The motion was adopted.

4.31.172
President
There are other amendments which have been moved. The amendment of Mr. Chandrasekharaiah that for Clause 9 the following be substituted:

“The executive authority of the ruler of a federated State shall continue to be exercisable in the State with respect to federal subjects subject to inspection of and the directions from the head of the federal executive.”

The motion was negatived.

4.31.173
President
Then the other amendment by Mr. Himmatsingh Maheswari is that for Clause 9 the following be substituted:

“The executive authority of Ruler of a Federated State shall notwithstanding anything in this constitution continue to be exercisable in that State with respect to matters with respect to which the Federal Legislature has’ powers to make laws for that State, except in so far as the executive authority of the Federation becomes exercisable in the State to the exclusion of the executive authority of the Ruler by virtue of a Federal law.”

The motion was negatived.

4.31.174
President
Then I will put the original proposition, as amended by Sir Gopalaswami to vote.

Clause 9, as amended, was adopted.

4.31.175
President
Honourable Members will: remember that Mr. Sri Prakasa moved a resolution in the earlier part of the day which was referred to a committee of three members of the House, for redrafting and submission before the House. That is now ready. If Honourable Members like to pass it today......


4.31.176
Many Honourable Members
Yes.


4.31.177
Shri Sri Prakasa
Sir I move that:

“Notwithstanding anything contained. In the Rules of the Constituent Assembly in regard to its composition, methods of election, and termination of membership all elections which have been, or may be duly His Majesty’s Government's statement of June 3, 1947, shall be deemed to be valid, and the Assembly so constituted shall be deemed to be and always to have been validly constituted, and all proceedings hitherto had, shall be deemed to valid."


4.31.178
Shri Sri Prakasa
Sir I move.


4.31.179
Mr. H. V. Kamath
Sir may I suggest that, Clause 68 of the Rules of Procedure of the Constituent Assembly makes provision for removing any difficulties that may arise? It empowers the President......


4.31.180
President
The proposition has been placed before the House to remove the difficulties that have been noticed. Does anyone want to say anything about this?

(No member rose).

4.31.181
President
Then I will put the proposition to the vote.

The motion was adopted.

4.31.182
President
The House is adjourned till Monday at 10 O' clock.

The Assembly then adjourned till Ten of the Clock, on Monday the 28th July, 1947.

The Constituent Assembly of India met in the Constitution Hall, New Delhi, at Ten of the Clock. Mr. President (The Honourable Dr. Rajendra Prasad) in the Chair.
PRESENTATION OF CREDENTIALS AND SIGNING OF THE REGISTER
The following Members presented their Credentials and signed their names in the Register:
1. Pandit Chaturbhuj Pathak (Central India States Group).
2. Major Maharaj Kumar PushpendraSinghji (Central India States Group).
3. Sir Jwala Prasad Srivastava (United Provinces: General).
ELECTION OF MEMBERS TO THE STEERING COMMITTEE

4.32.1
President
Members will recollect that there were two Members to be elected to the Steering Committee. I have pleasure in declaring Mr. Ramchandra Manohar Nalavade and Mr. Suresh Chandra Majumdar duly elected as Members of the Steering Committee, they being the only names whose nominations were received for the two vacancies.

REPORT OF THE UNION CONSTITUTION COMMITTEE

4.32.2
President
We shall now proceed to the consideration of the clauses of the report of the Union Constitution. The held-over clause is Clause 8.


4.32.3
H. V. Kamath
Before we proceed to the day's business, I have a little request to make. May I do so? Will you be so good as to direct that our National Flag be presented to every Member of this august Assembly, who will treasure and cherish it as a worthy memento of the historic occasion on which it was adopted unanimously and with acclamation by this House, the occasion on which a great new Free State was born?


4.32.4
President
That is a matter which will require a little consideration and after consulting the Steering Committee, I will make an announcement later.


4.32.5
Mr. Tajamul Husain
May I know Sir, if this season is going to end on the 1st of August? The information is necessary because we have to book our seats previously.


4.32.6
President
I have been considering the matter this morning. We have been going on slowly with the consideration of the clauses. At the rate at which we have been going, I do not know whether we shall be able to finish the consideration of all the clauses before the 31st I am anxious myself that this Session should end by the 31st so that the Members might go and return again on the 15th of August, when they have to return here and we may have another short session after that for considering the report of the Union Powers Committee and the Advisory Committee and certain other matters. So far as I am at present advised, I think we shall end this Session on the 31st but I am hoping that the Members will bear that in mind and will cut down the discussions as far as possible consistently with efficiency of the discussion and complete the consideration of this Report by the 31st. We have still four days for that purpose.


4.32.7
Tajamul Hussain
May I know one thing? Do we understand that this Session will end on the 31st whether the Union Committee Report is finished or not, as we have to book our berths beforehand? It win be better to definitely fix a date whether the work is finished or not.


4.32.8
President
As I have already stated, as at present advised, 31st is going to be the last day of the session.We held over discussion of two Clauses 7 and 8. Shall we take them up now?


4.32.9
Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar
We can now take up Clause 8-A that was moved by Sir Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar, which was held over for discussion.


4.32.10
Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar
I think we have passed Clause 8. We shall take up Clause 8-A which was moved by Sir Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar. I do not know if members have got that before them. I shall read it out:

"That after Clause 8 the following new clause be inserted:

'8-A. (1) The Government of the Federation, may by agreement with any acceding Indian State but subject to the provisions of the Constitution in regard to the relationship between the Indian Federation and an acceding Indian State, undertake any legislative executive or judicial functions in that State.

(2) Any such agreement entered into with an Indian State not acceding to the Federation shall be subject to and governed by any Act relating to the exercise of foreign jurisdiction by the Parliament of the Federation.

(3) If any such agreement covers any of the matters included in an agreement between a Province and a State under Clause 8 of the Provincial constitution, the latter shall stand rescinded and revoked.

(4) On an agreement as per the provisions of sub-clause (1) being concluded, the Federation may, subject to the terms of the agreement, exercise the legislative, executive or judicial functions specified therein through appropriate authorities'."


4.32.11
B. M. Gupta
A verbal amendment Sir:

"That in item No. 5 of Supplementary List I, dated 24-7-47, in sub-clause (3) of the proposed clause 8-A, after the words 'the latter' the words 'to the extent it is covered by the agreement with the Federation' be inserted."


4.32.12
Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar
I accept the amendment.


4.32.13
President
Does anyone else wish to say anything about it?

(None rose to speak.)

4.32.14
Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar
I will now put the amendment to the amendment to vote. It has been accepted by Sir Alladi.

"That in item No. 5 of Supplementary List I, dated 24-7-47, in sub-clause (3) of the proposed clause 8-A, after the words 'the latter' the words 'to the extent it is covered by the agreement with the Federation' be inserted."

The amendment was adopted.

4.32.15
President
I now put the clause as amended.

Clause 8-A, as amended, was adopted.

4.32.16
President
We now go to Clause 10.

CLAUSE 10

4.32.17
Jawaharlal Nehru
This is a very simple clause, Sir:

"10. There shall be a council of ministers with the Prime Minister at the head, to aid and advise the President in the exercise of his functions."


4.32.18
Jawaharlal Nehru
I beg to move this.


4.32.19
B. Pocker Sahib Bahadur
There are a number of amendments of which I have got notice. Mr. Pocker Sahib Bahadur.


4.32.20
Haji Abdul Sathar Haji Ishaq Sait
He has left and he has authorised me and one or two other members to move his amendments.


4.32.21
President
Mr. Ahmed Ibrahim. Sahib Bahadur.


4.32.22
Haji Abdul Sathar Haji Ishaq Sait
Both of them have left. I do not know whether you can permit me to move it.


4.32.23
President
Any other member can move it. You desire to move it?


4.32.24
Haji Abdul Sathar Haji Ishaq Sait
I move:

"That for Clause 10 the following be substituted:

10. There shall be a Council of Ministers elected by the National Assembly by a system of proportional representation by single transferable vote and the council of ministers shall be responsible to the National Assembly'."


4.32.25
Haji Abdul Sathar Haji Ishaq Sait
I do not think, Sir, any elaborate speech is required on this. The amendment is very simple and clear and I hope this will be accepted by the House. I move.

(Amendments Nos. 213 to 217 were not moved.)

4.32.26
H. V. Pataskar
I have given notice of this amendment in order to make it clear that the principle of collective responsibility will be applicable to the council of ministers to be appointed under this clause. As Sir N. GopalaswamiAyyangar has given notice of another similar amendment in the supplementary list, I do not propose to move this amendment (No. 218).


4.32.27
Mr. President, Sir, the amendment which I want to move is this:

"That the following be added at the end of Clause 10:

'The Prime Minister shall select the other Ministers and the whole ministry shall be responsible to the legislature and act on the principle of joint responsibility in the discharge of the duties of the Ministry'."


4.32.28
I need not remind members that it has been laid down in the objectives Resolution that a democratic form of Government shall be established in the Indian Union. The question now is whether the democratic government should be of the Ministerial type or of the Presidential type as is the case in the U.S.A. So far as the provincial constitutions are concerned we have accepted the principle that responsible democratic government should be established except as regards a minor point about the powers of the government. The principle to be followed in the Union Government should be that the Prime Minister should be the pivot of the whole administration. He should have full powers, and the President would be merely a constitutional head; and he should be given no individual powers or discretion. Whatever the President will do should be on the advice of his ministers. This is a good principle and for this, the British model is regarded as an example by the whole world. This is a model of executive powers which leads to the good and welfare of the people. After great deliberation and mature consideration the Union Powers Committee did not adopt the Presidential constitution of the U.S.A. For this reason, this amendment is based on the British model, though the House is already committed to it. Even then, it should be clearly stated in the Union Constitution that the voice of the Prime Minister would be the final voice and the President will merely echo it. On no occasion shall the voice of the Premier be Routed. Secondly, the Prime Minister should have the right to choose his cabinet colleagues, and the principle of collective responsibility should be adhered to.


4.32.29
I need not emphasise this any more; I would like to say in the end that these three basic amendments, which are based on democratic principle, may be accepted by the House.


4.32.30
H. V. Kamath
Sir, my amendment is covered by the amendment of Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava. So I do not propose to move my amendment.


4.32.31
Kazi Syed Karimuddin
Mr. President. Sir, my amendment is:

"That the following be added at the end of Clause 10:

'That the Executive of the Union shall be non-parliamentary, in the Sense that it shall not be removable before the terms of the Legislature and a member of the Cabinet or the Cabinets may be removed at any time on impeachment before a judicial tribunal on the ground of corruption or treason.

The Prime Minister shall be elected by the whole House by single transferable vote. Other Ministers in the Cabinet shall be elected by single non-transferable vote'."


4.32.32
Jawaharlal Nehru
Sir, there was a discussion at the time of the passing of the recommendations of the Provincial Committee regarding this issue but that decision is not binding when we are considering the Union Constitution. My submission is that the parliamentary system which is functioning in India under the 1935 Act has miserably failed as far as the Local Self-Government, Local Boards or Municipalities are concerned. All over India you must have noticed that there have been deadlocks and as the worthy leader of the Muslim League said, it does not suit the genius of the people. As far as the Provincial Assemblies are concerned, there was success to some extent because the Congress was fighting the British Imperialism and all conflicting elements were reconciled on that issue. The Muslim League had an ideal of Pakistan and the majority of Muslim members were elected on the Muslim League ticket, but with the disappearance of British Imperialism, with the disappearance of the programme of liberating the Indian people, and with the attainment of Pakistan there will be a plethora of parties and groups. There might be communists, socialists, Muslim Leaguers and many others. To expect such a large majority as we had in the past will be impossibility. There will be many groups and to except that there will be a very solid and absolute stability for the Government will be a myth. We have seen in the past that in the working of the Provincial Constitution in the Provinces the Opposition was neglected, ignored and sometimes punished. We have also seen that the parliamentary system which is existing at present created favouritism and nepotism in regard to those people who were supporting the Ministry. The Ministers were serving the members of the party more than the people. A Minister was not a humble servant of the Nation but he was a humble servant of those who were supporting him in the Cabinet and therefore I say that this scheme has not worked well in the past. At a time when India is attaining the cherished goal of independence, what do we find around us--arson, killing and looting. Why, because there is weak executive manned by Ministers who depend for their existence on the support of those people who are interested in communal tension. Everybody is not Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru. Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru when he went to Bihar, announced that people would be bombed if they continued the rioting but there was not a single minister, either Muslim or Hindu in the whole of India who took this attitude. Diamonds are rare, stones are numerous. What we want to-day is a stable Government. What we want today is a patriotic Government. What we want to-day is a strong Government; an impartial and unbending executive, that does not bow before popular whims. To-day there are weak and vacillating executives in all Provinces who are amenable to influence of the members of the Party and it is impossible for them to displease if they want to continue in the seats that they occupy. Now it is said that the parliamentary system of Government is democratic. America is a democratic country and the Constitution that is prevailing there is also democratic. We find that there is a non-parliamentary executive and the whole administration of the country is divided into 3 parts, one is the Judiciary, the other is the Executive and the third is the Legislature. It is impossible, for the Executive to defy the policies laid down by the Legislature and there is the Judiciary to check the excesses of the Executive. Under the circumstances when there is communal tension everywhere, and when there are disruptive forces in this country, there is no other go except to have an Executive which is non-removable by the vote of the legislature. The other day when an amendment was moved at the time of the consideration of the Provincial Constitution, Dr. Pattabhi wanted to explain from a higher plane, although he was speaking under impulse, that the non-parliamentary executive was not suited to the conditions of India. Instead of that he argued about the separate electorates in India. He argued about the Communal Award which was beside the point. There is no communal question in America and in spite of that, this non-parliamentary executive has been adopted there. This is a country of different religions. This is a country of different ideologies. This is a country with different cultures. At a critical moment in the history of India when we do not want internal strife, when we want a formidable Government to be a bulwork against all aggression, it is necessary that in the interim period at least there should be a non-removable executive and non-parliamentary executive. The salvation of Indian people lies in this. There will be neither any favouritism nor nepotism and I plead with the House to accept my amendment.


4.32.33
Mr. D. H. Chandrasekharaiya
Mr. President, Sir, my amendment is to the effect that "provision should be made to give adequate representation to the States in the Council of Ministers". Beyond suggesting that the point raised in this amendment be kindly kept in view at the time when the Ministry is actually formed, I do not propose to press it.


4.32.34
President
Mr. Gokulbhai Bhatt.


4.32.35
Gokulbbai Daulatram Bhatt
Sir, Clause 10 lays down that there will be a Council of Ministers and a Prime Minister. But it does not state how the Ministers will be selected or approved. Will the Cabinet Ministers be members of the Parliament? What clauses lay down that they will be members of the Parliament? What should be their salary? Can any changes be made in it? There is no mention of this anywhere. I want to emphasise that it would be better to make all this clear here, as we have done in the draft constitution for the provinces. But our constitutional experts and people more conversant with law than myself say that this is a matter regarding the Union, the Centre, and that it is no use dilating on it because when the final draft will be prepared, the matter will be considered and everything will be clear. I think that it is very necessary to mention as to how the Cabinet will be formed. But we have been assured that all this will be in accordance with what has been laid down in the provincial constitution. With this hope and also in view of the opinion and advice that this amendment should not be moved, I do not want to place it before the House.


4.32.36
N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar
Sir, as the clause now stands in the draft, it does not say anything about the manner in which the Council of Ministers is to be chosen and the responsibility of that Council to the Legislature. A number of amendments have been tabled on this aspect of the matter and in order to cover the essentials in respect of these matters, I have given notice of this amendment, that at the end of Clause 10 the following be added:

"The Prime Minister shall be appointed by the President and the other Ministers shall be appointed by the President on the advice of the Prime Minister. The Council shall be collectively responsible to the House of the People."


4.32.37
N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar
Very few words are required from me to explain the content of this amendment. The Prime Minister is to be invited by the President to form a ministry and naturally by convention the President will invite the leader of the party which by itself or together with the support of other groups in the House is able to command a fairly stable majority. The other ministers will be chosen by the President on the advice of the Prime Minister. Provision is made for collective responsibility to the Lower House or the House of the People. Generally, the responsibility is only to that House, not to the Parliament as a whole. I notice that in one of the amendments it has been suggested that there should be both joint and several responsibility. I do not think in the case of a Government we need copy the practice which perhaps is common in the framing of ordinary private contracts between a Board of Directors possibly and other people. It is sufficient I think that we provide for the collective responsibility of the Council to the House of the People. Sir, I move.


4.32.38
President
These are the amendments of which I have notice. The clause as also the amendments are now open to discussion.


4.32.39
Tajamul Hussain
Mr. President, Sir, Clause 10 says that there shall be a Council of Ministers with the Prime Minister as the Head to aid and advise the President in the exercise of his functions. Sir, there is no mention in this Clause as to how the Council of Ministers is to be created. Therefore I find, Sir, that an amendment has been moved to the effect that each Minister shall be elected by the Assembly by the principle of proportional representation by single transferable vote and the Council of Ministers shall be responsible to the Assembly. Now, Sir, we can safely divide this amendment into two parts; the first part is that the Ministers are to be elected by the Assembly; the second part is that the Cabinet of Ministers are to be responsible to the Assembly. As regards the second part, I entirely agree. If the Council of Ministers have no majority behind them in the Assembly they will not remain in office or if there is a vote of 'no confidence' against them, even then they will get out. Therefore this part of the amendment I can quite appreciate. But as regards the first part, namely, that the Ministers shall be elected by the Assembly, I am afraid, Sir, I have not been able to appreciate. If the Council of Ministers are to be elected by the members of the Assembly by proportional representation by means of the single transferable vote, then, Sir, what may happen? There may be a small party and if there is single transferable vote by proportional representation, that small Party may succeed in electing a Minister. Now, Sir, that party may not have the same political view as the majority party in the Assembly. Therefore in a Cabinet there may be Ministers with two divergent views and opinions. Now, Sir, if that happens there will be no team work in the Ministry and this cannot be called a stable Ministry. After all we have seen that the English system in this connection has been tried for centuries in England and it has worked well. What happens in England? The leader is summoned by the Head of the State, i.e. the King and is appointed Chief Minister or Prime Minister. This Chief Minister or Prime Minister has to submit the names of the other Ministers and in consultation with the Prime Minister the Head of the State or the King and is appoints all the Ministers. Then, in that case the ministry is stable; for when the Prime Minister has got the majority in the House, he will carry on, and if he has not, he will not. But to have two different kinds of ministers in the same Cabinet, I am afraid, I am not able to appreciate.


4.32.40
Tajamul Hussain
Now, Sir, another amendment is to the effect that the Union Executive shall be non-Parliamentary and should he irremovable, and that a member of the Cabinet may be removed at any time on impeachment before a judicial tribunal on the ground of corruption, etc., and that the Prime Minister shall be elected by the whole House by single transferable vote, while the other Ministers shall be elected by single non-transferable vote.


4.32.41
Tajamul Hussain
Now, this amendment too can be safely divided into four parts The first part is that the Cabinet should be non-parliamentary--should be irremovable. That is a thing which I cannot appreciate--the non-parliamentary complexion of the cabinet. It appears to me rather antidemocratic. If the cabinet does not carry the confidence of the House it must be removed. It cannot remain even for one minute, after it has lost the confidence of the House.


4.32.42
Tajamul Hussain
The second part is that the Ministers may be removed by impeachment before a judicial tribunal. I am afraid I am not able to appreciate that point also. If a Minister does not have the confidence of the House, and if there is something against him, he can be removed by bringing up the matter before the Legislature. Why drag him before a judicial tribunal? I do not know how this is going to work in a democratic system, such as the one we are hoping to have for our country.


4.32.43
Tajamul Hussain
And the third part is that the Prime Minister should be elected by the whole House by single transferable vote, but the other members of the cabinet are to be elected by single non-transferable vote. I am not able to understand what advantage the Honourable Mover expects under this arrangement. If the whole House elects a person, the man who has the larger majority will be elected. Suppose there is a House of 150 arid one party--I will not say the Congress or the League, because there will be no old Congress or old League in Hindustan parties will be on different lines--that one party, say, the Socialists number 100 and the opposition number 50.


4.32.44
Kazi Syed Karimuddin
Sir, how does the Honourable Member know that there will be no League or Congress party?


4.32.45
Tajamul Hussain
I am glad I have been asked that question. There should not be any such parties, Sir. The sole object of the Congress was to achieve complete independence, without the interference of a foreign power and it has succeeded. The Congress has achieved its object. The League's object was the partition of the country and have Pakistan and they have got that. Both the parties have achieved their respective objects and they have finished their work. What the Congress wanted, the Congress has achieved and what the League wanted, the League has achieved; now there is no difference at all between the two, we are all in India and are Indians but our rights must be protected.


4.32.46
President
The Honourable Member will please confine himself to the discussion of the point. The future of the Congress and of the League is not before the House for discussion.


4.32.47
Tajamul Hussain
But the Honourable Mover had asked me to explain why I said there would be no League nor Congress Party as of old creeds and I thought I had your permission to explain; but now that I do not have it, I will not say anything more about that. I will only say that there will be no parties on the lines we have known them, because both the Congress and the League have achieved their objects. Both parties will have new creeds in future.


4.32.48
Tajamul Hussain
I was saying this. Suppose in a House of 150, one party has 100 members. That party will-elect the leader who will be the Prime Minister. Suppose there are two candidates and the successful candidate gets 60 votes and the rest 40 oppose him. He still becomes Prime Minister. But what will happen if the opposition of 40 Members combine with the rest 50 in the House? Then the House will be divided as 90 against 60. The Leader cannot be chosen by the Party which has the largest majority in the House. It is just possible, in that case that the man who ultimately becomes the Prime Minister will be a man of the opposition. That is undemocratic and is against that system of democracy which I admire--the English system of democracy. I think that as far as possible, in order to suit our Indian ways, we should adopt as much of the English constitution as we can.


4.32.49
Tajamul Hussain
I oppose the amendment.


4.32.50
Tajamul Hussain
Lastly, there is the amendment moved by Sir N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar-which is also the same as that of Pandit Bhargava--providing for the selection of the ministers and the appointment of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister, it says, should be appointed by the President who will appoint the other Ministers on the advice of the Prime Minister and the Cabinet shall be responsible to the whole House. That is the system which is prevalent in the House of Commons and I support this amendment. As I said, it has worked very well in England and there is no reason why it should not be equally successful in our country. I support the amendment of Pandit Bhargava also.


4.32.51
H. V. Kamath
Mr. President, Sir, this clause seeks to lay down the basis of our national federal executive. Two amendments have been moved to this clause, amendment No. 212 and amendment No. 221 which, in effect, seek to weaken this national executive. My friend Mr. Kazi and my friend Mr. Hussain praised respectively the American model and the British model. Here Sir, we are not concerned with which model or which type we are going to embody in our constitution, whether it is, the British, American, Russian, Turkish or the French or any other for the matter of that. Here, Sir, we are concerned with the principles of a democratic, efficient and dynamic government. After all what is needed today is an efficient and dynamic government which will clear the mess that has been made in this country which will lift this country of ours out of the rut into which it has fallen. The most elementary as well as the most fundamental principle, to my mind, 'of a democratic, efficient and dynamic government is that while every shade of political opinion and every school of thought should be adequately represented in every legislature,--because in a legislature two heads are better than one, twenty heads are better than two and two hundred heads are better than twenty--, in the case of the executive, specially when we are planning a dynamic executive, the reverse is the case. Here, Sir, in an executive it should be that twenty heads are better than two hundred, two heads are better than twenty and in an emergency even one head is better than two. In an emergency where prompt action and quick decision is needed, dynamism is required one head is better than two heads. But these amendments seeks to lay down a basis for the executive which if accepted would weaken the executive and would practically render it passive, unstable acid static and render it unable to cope with the tasks that lie ahead of us. After all a cabinet or an executive is not a Shivaji ka Barat or an assorted museum piece or a mere Khitchri, but we want to make the executive a really dynamic executive. Here on the floor of the House my friend Mr. Kazi eulogised Pandit Nehru for what he had done in Bihar. I wish, Sir, that many of us were in a similar position to praise and eulogise the leaders of the Muslim League when similar and worse things happened in Bengal and some other parts of India. It is well known that when these outrages were committed in East Bengal and many other parts of India, when men were massacred, women were humiliated and children were burnt in fire and oil no leader of the Muslim League raised his little finger nor did even one Muslim League leader go into those parts and did what Pandit Nehru did in Bihar. Is this the way in which we are going to build up a strong united India? Is this the spirit that is going to animate us in future? Only yesterday I read a statement from the head of the Muslim League where he mentioned Pakistan and Muslim India. I expected that at least after the division of India into Pakistan and India or Bharatvarsha on a communal basis the hatchet had been buried fathoms deep. But the same spirit is abroad and that spirit has not been stilled. People thought of Pakistan and the rest of India........


4.32.52
President
The Honourable Member should confine himself to the subject under debate.


4.32.53
H. V. Kamath
I was trying to make out that today what is needed is a dynamic spirit of unity, of action, of sacrifice and of faith. Let us not forget the grand, beautiful vision painted by our poet, Viswakavi Rabindranath in words of matchless beauty. That vision should animate us and guide us in our future labours 'so that we can all build up a great India worthy of our past and worthy of the sacrifices which our martyrs have undergone. Permit me, Sir, to quote those words which picture a vision of matchless beauty:

"Where the mind is without fear and the head is held high,

Where knowledge is free,

Where the world has not been broken up into fragments by narrow domestic walls,

Where words come out from the depth of truth,

Where tireless striving stretches its arms towards perfection,

Where the clear stream of reason has not lost its way into the dreary desert sand of dead habit,

Where the mind is led forward by Thee into ever widening thought and action,

Into that heaven of freedom, my Father, let my country awake."


4.32.54
H. V. Kamath
Jai Hind.


4.32.55
President
I understand that Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru would like to accept some of the amendments. If so it might cut short the discussion to some extent. I should like him to make a statement before the discussion proceeds further.


4.32.56
Jawaharlal Nehru
Sir, I venture to intervene in order, to make clear which of the amendments I am prepared to accept and which not. Four amendments have been moved. I may say at the outset that I am prepared to accept Sir Gopalaswami Ayyangar's amendment and not the others. Pandit Bhargava's amendment is more or less the same; it is only a question of wording. The others raise entirely different issues; for instance, the issue of ministers being, elected by proportional representation. I can think of nothing more conducive to creating a feeble ministry and a feeble government than this business of electing them by proportional representation and I would therefore like the House to reject this amendment.


4.32.57
B. Pocker Sahib Bahadur
The other one raises a completely different issue, as to what the nature of the constitution should be. For instance, Mr. Karimuddin's amendment says that "that executive of the Union shall be non-parliamentary, in the sense that it shall not be removable before the term of the legislature," etc. That raises a very fundamental issue of what form you are going to give to your constitution, the ministerial parliamentary or the American type. So far we have been proceeding with the building up of the constitution in the ministerial sense and I do submit that we cannot go back upon it and it will upset the whole scheme and structure of the constitution. Therefore I regret I cannot accept this amendment of Mr. Karimuddin or of Mr. Pocker Sahib.


4.32.58
Jawaharlal Nehru
As to the other point raised it is perfectly true that the original draft that I placed before the House was not at all clear on various matters It was not clear because there was no intention of drafting it here. These are certain indications for future drafting and some things were obviously taken for granted. It was taken for granted that the Prime Minister would be sent for by the President because he happens to represent the largest party or group in the House; further that the Prime Minister would select his ministers and further that they would be responsible to the House collectively. All that was taken for granted, but perhaps it is better to put that down clearly and the amendment moved by Sir Gopalaswami. Ayyangar puts that down very Clearly. Therefore I accept that amendment and I hope the House also will accept it and reject the others.


4.32.59
Hussain Imam
Sir, I had no intention of intervening in this debate because the subject matter of debate as to whether the executive should be parliamentary or non-parliamentary is one which though of great academic interest is not practical politics due to opinion in India being so much in favour of the British model that it is useless for any one to try and sing the praises of the American system and get it adopted. Constitutions are made--although there is an element of finality about them--only for a time; and I hope to live and see the British model dethroned, just as British power is-being dethroned, and the better model adopted. But I have been forced to come here because of the speech of Mr. Kamath. Mr. Qazi spoke in praise of the activities of Pandit Nehru in Bihar. I was an eye-witness and saw his torn shirt and the amount of labour that he put in. When an opposite party man admires the other it is not an occasion to be utilised for maligning that party. The endeavour should not be to accentuate differences but to bring about greater unity.


4.32.60
Hussain Imam
Singularly ill-timed was the attempt of Mr. Kamath to state certain facts which were terminological in exactitudes. It is wrong to say that the League High Command never condemned the atrocities perpetrated on non-Muslims.


4.32.61
President
I am afraid we are straying into irrelevant discussion.


4.32.62
Hussain Imam
I am not going to discuss this matter. I am simply mentioning that what he mentioned were not the facts. The fact that Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru went to Bihar was due to the reason that the Congress High Command was in control there, and the Congress High Command was in a position to intervene. But in Punjab the League was not the party controlling the Ministry: it was under section 93; in the N.W.F.P. the Congress was in power.


4.32.63
President
I would remind the Honourable Member that we are not considering the conduct of any Ministry or of Pandit Jawaharlal. Nehru or of anybody else. We are discussing a simple clause of the Constitution. I would request him to confine himself to that.


4.32.64
Hussain Imam
I hope you will not allow such digression to be made by others as well.


4.32.65
Hussain Imam
Sir, I was saying that the American system has got great advantages which are not appreciated at the moment. A few days ago I learnt that Harold has written a book condemning the American system of having an irremovable executive. He has praised the British system which we are adopting. What are the facts of the British system? The fact that the executive is removable in Britain does not differ materially in the day to day administration from the irremovable character of the American system. The power of not voting supplies, which is the essential part of the Ministry's working, is vested in the Legislature so that in the British system as well as in the American system the Legislature is absolute, though in the American Constitution there is the Presidential Veto. But there again they have provided so many checks and balances that the Presidential Veto can be overthrown by a two third majority of the House of Representatives and the Senate. So you find that the control of the purse by the Legislature is absolute practically in the Parliamentary system and in the non-parliamentary executive system of America.


4.32.66
Hussain Imam
Now, so far as legislature is concerned, the same thing applies. The Legislature is supreme with certain safeguards. Now, the very fact that a man is appointed who is not a member and the other man is appointed who is a member does not make any great difference in the day to day administration.


4.32.67
Hussain Imam
Some people have rightly opined that in times of crisis it is better to have one central control rather than a multitude of small minds working together and bringing about a kind of chaos. Well, if a system can work better in times of crisis, I do not understand why it should fail when there is no crisis. Crisis is an extraordinary state of affairs, a really complicated and difficult state of affairs. If a system can work at such a time, it stands to reason that it will work and work smoothly when the times are normal. I, therefore, am of opinion that the non-parliamentary system by means of which the President who gets not less than 51 per cent of the votes of the entire Nation is a, better custodian of the Nation's interests than the Prime Minister who, after all, represents only one constituency and the majority of his own party members. The Illustration which Mr. Tajamul Husain has given was a little amiss. He said that the Prime Minister can be elected by the Opposition and the Government party combined together. He gave an illustration that, if there are 100 men in one party and 50 in another, then at the time of electing the leader, 60 vote for one and 40 for another. 'The man who was rejecting by his own party, and might have gone over to the other party, secures 50 votes from the second party and 40 from the first and gets elected in spite of the fact that the majority of his own party was not with him. That apprehension is perhaps, based on inexperience. In political parties the differences which exist inside are never Ventilated outside. A man who will betray his own party and go over to the opposition will not get a single vote of his own party. In. these says of democracy, such things are not possible. Rare instances of this nature may perhaps exist in one corner or other, but on broad outlines, you cannot have this kind of fissiparous tendency. Will the Opposition support a Quisling from the Government? How can that position be allowed ? He is not a partyman. That is a contingency which will not arise. But the possibility that a Prime Minister might represent only a minority of the House is worth considering. The system of party working is such that if you belong to one party and secure the votes you are likely and almost sure to get all the votes in the instance which Mr. Tajamul Husain gave, what: will happen is that the man who secures 60 votes out of 150 will ultimately be the Prime Minister. Now you ask the President to act not on his own judgment, but on the judgment of this man who secured A minority of the votes of the House. He gets 60 out of the 150 votes, of 40 cent only.


4.32.68
Hussain Imam
I therefore regard that the system whereby discretion is left to the President to nominate his own Ministers is more democratic and based on better and sounder principles than the system of copying the British model. The British system was found unequal to the task when was worked in France where the tendencies are to have small groups and parties. They found there ever and anon that the British system was unsuitable. U.S.A. has a different system giving the' President perfect. latitude to form a Government suited to the occasion. For instance, during the war President Roosevelt nominated two Members to his cabinet from the party in Opposition, and they were given very important portfolios. So you have the same system of coalition Government in America without any of the defects which a coalition presupposes. A coalition his composed of divergent elements, each pulling in different ways. I personally think that the American system is not a quarter as bad as has been stated. It is said that the executive is not removable. But the fact is that the executive is more, easily removable in the American system that in the British system. Many Members will remember the howl which was raised when Lord Templeton (Ex Sir Samuel Hoare) was turned out of the British Cabinet in the days of the Spanish crisis.


4.32.69
Hussain Imam
But in America everyday you find one Secretary of State being turned out and another being appointed General Marshall has just come in without any furore being made. There is no one to question the right of the President to select an executive head for the time being. I do not wish, Sir, to detain the House by making a long speech. I wish only to make my position clear. This is my personal opinion, not that of my party, but I thought that it would be better if I explained that the American system is not as bad as it has been painted by its traducers.


4.32.70
Mahboob Ali Beg Sahib Bahadur
Mr. President, Sir, Clause 10 as amplified by Sir N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar introduces a type of executive which is British and which is commonly known as parliamentary. The amendment moved by Kazi Syed Karimuddin Saheb seeks to amend this clause by introducing a mixed type of executive, the Swiss type. Now, let us examine whether the type of executive contemplated by the amendment of Kazi Saheb is undemocratic, is impracticable and does not meet the present circumstances in the country.


4.32.71
Mahboob Ali Beg Sahib Bahadur
Under these three heads it is necessary for this House to deal with this subject. Now, Sir, as you know, the British parliamentary system is not a statutory one. It is a historic growth covering several centuries of struggle between the people and the king, to snatch as much power as possible for the representatives of the people to administer the State. It is no doubt true that members of the Parliament are elected; and after the members are elected, the leader of the majority party is called by the Head of the State, viz., the King, to form the Government, i.e., tie chooses his own ministers. Up to the stage of the return of the members to Parliament, it is democratic. From that stage, it ceases to be democratic, for the leader of the majority party may choose anyone he pleases. The ministers no doubt belong to the party Which has been favoured by the electorate, but particular ministers, are not chosen by the members of Parliament. Then, Sir, the Government is formed, and it is in the saddle so long as it carries the confidence of the Parliament. But take the case of a certain section of the Parliament not being satisfied with the executive but unable to throw out the Government. It may be that that small section are the people in whom he majority of the electorates have confidence. The anomaly is that the electorate, the real sovereign, is not in a position to throw out the Cabinet. You will therefore see, Sir, that he parliamentary executive ceases to be really democratic. In the first place, parliament does not choose the ministers; in the second place the electorate cannot turn them out. So, really, Sir, from that stage the parliamentary democracy obtaining in England which is sought to be introduced here is not democratic. Let us examine the position taken by Kazi Saheb. After the elections take place, the members of Parliament will elect their own ministers. So, Sir, it is more democratic than the British parliamentary type. There are two processes. One is that members of the Parliament are elected by the people, and the second is that the members of Parliament, the real representatives of the people, elect their own ministers. Let us see whether the system which is sought to be introduced by this amendment is practicable in the circumstances obtaining in the country. I once before said that the democratic system of election of members of Parliament and the election of the Cabinet must be one which will reflect all the section of the country.' It is no use being blind to the realities of the situation. It is no doubt true that people should not think in terms of sections, communities, and special interests. But every day we find that even the parties like the League and the Congress, both inside and outside this House, have always been saying there must be protection of minorities--religious minorities, sectional minorities and the oppressed minorities and minorities belonging to different tracts of the country. These facts. Let us not be blind to these facts. Now if the Leader of the arty is called upon by the, Head of the State, what he does naturally--and we expert him to do it--is that he would form a Cabinet of men consisting of persons representing some interests or some communities. He is going to do that. It may be by convention or good sense, bat that is going to happen. But if that does not happen and he cannot be forced to do it, then, Sir, there will be a lot of discontent, distrust and all that sort of thing. So if we provide in the Constitution itself a democratic system of forming a Cabinet by electing ministers and you introduce a system of election which is called proportional representation by the single transferable vote for non-transferable vote as the cue may I be, then it will be satisfactory. it win be democratic and it will reflect all the sections of the people. Besides that, Sir, as I submitted, it is not possible for the people to turn out a reactionary Cabinet. The party in power may still consist of a majority of persons who are reactionary and whom the electorate may have no confidence. But in any case the Cabinet will continue and is expected to continue for the full term of four or five years.


4.32.72
Mahboob Ali Beg Sahib Bahadur
In this amendment you have the advantage of the democratic method of electing persons to your Cabinet and having elected them, you ask them to continue, while the person who is elected under the British type always stands in fear of being turned out. So, Sir, if you make this executive not removable for the period, he will be in a better position to work, develop schemes and see to their completion. So, Sir as I said. this Swiss type has got the advantage of being democratic at certain stages. It is possible for all sections of the country to be represented, it will work better and can complete its schemes and in the present circumstances of the country, is the most suitable and there is nothing wrong in introducing this system. Further, let us remember these systems--the Swiss and the American types--are the result of the experience gained by the other countries where democracy has worked, and it is the considered opinion of the that the British system is not democratic. After all, who holds the power even in that democracy, in that Parliament? Virtually it is the Prime Minister or his executive; and on account of what is called the discipline in the Party what is considered to be good by that party, Cabinet or the Premier must be followed by all the Members or else disciplinary action will be taken against them. I therefore think, Sir, that the Swiss system that is contemplated by the amendment of Kazi Syed Karimuddin has much to commend it.


4.32.73
President
I think we have had enough discussion on this clause and I would like to put the amendment and the clause to vote now.


4.32.74
I move closure.


4.32.75
President
There is a closure moved by Mr. Munshi. I take it that the House accepts the closure.


4.32.76
President
The question is:

"That for Clause 10 the following be substituted:

'There shall be a Council of ministers elected by the National Assembly by a system of proportional representation by single transferable vote and the council of ministers shall be responsible to the National Assembly'."

The amendment was negatived.

4.32.77
President
I will put the amendment of Kazi Syed Karimuddin to vote:

"That the following be added at the end of Clause 10:

'That the Executive of the Union shall be non- parliamentary in the sense that it shall not be removable before the term of the Legislature and a member of the Cabinet or the Cabinets may be removed at any time on impeachment before a judicial tribunal on the ground of corruption or treason.

The Prime Minister shall be elected by the whole House by single transferable vote.

Other Ministers in the Cabinet shall be elected by single nontransferable vote'."

The amendment was negatived.

4.32.78
President
I will now put Sir Gopalaswami Ayyanger's amendment to vote:

"That at the end of Clause 10, the following be added:

'The Prime Minister shall be appointed by the President and the other Ministers shall be appointed by the President on the advice of the Prime Minister. The Council shall be collectively responsible to the House of the People'."


4.32.79
President
This has been accepted by the Mover.

The amendment was adopted.

4.32.80
President
There is another amendment by. Mr. Thakurdas Bhargava. I think that is covered by this amendment and it is not necessary to take the vote of the House on it.


4.32.81
President
I will now put the original clause as amended by Sir Gopalaswami Ayyangar's amendment.

Clause 10, as amended was adopted.
CLAUSE 11

4.32.82
President
Clause 11. Sir Gopalaswami, Ayyangar.


4.32.83
N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar
I beg to move Clause 11.

"11. The President shall appoint a person being one qualified to be appointed a judge of the Supreme Court to be Advocate General for the Federation, to give advice to the Federal Government upon legal matters that may be referred to him."


4.32.84
Shri Gokulbai D. Bhatt
Sir, I withdraw my amendment in favour of the amendment to be moved by Sir Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar.


4.32.85
Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar
Mr. President. I beg to move the following amendments to clause 11.

"(1) That in clause 11 after the word 'referred', the words 'or assigned'; be inserted.

(2) That at the end of clause 11 the following be added:

'by the President or are assigned to him under this Act or by any Federal Law, to exercise the powers and discharge the duties vested in him under this Act or under any Federal Law and in the performance of his duties he shall have right of audience in all courts in the Union of India. The Advocate-General shall hold office during the pleasure of the President and shall receive such I remuneration as the President may determine'."


4.32.86
Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar
This is merely a formal amendment, because there are three sets of duties. There are duties which are assigned to him by the President. There are other duties which are referred to him. There are statutory duties under various Acts. It is only to see that the provision is complete that this amendment is moved. I presume there will be no opposition to this.


4.32.87
President
The clause and the amendments are now open for discussion.

(No member rose to speak)

4.32.88
President
I shall put them to vote unless Sir Gopolaswami Ayyangarwants to say anything.


4.32.89
N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar
I accept the amendments.


4.32.90
Mr. President
I shall put to vote the amendments first:

"(1), That in clause, 11 after the word 'referred' the words 'or assigned' be inserted.

(2) That it, the end of clause 11 the following be added:

'by the President or are assigned to him under Act or by any Federal Law, to

exercise the powers and discharge the duties vested in him under this Act or under any Federal law and in the performance of his duties he shall have right of audience in all courts in the Union of India. The Advocate-General shall hold office during the pleasure of the President and shall receive such remuneration as the President may determine'."

The amendments were adopted.

4.32.91
President
The clause, as amended, is put to vote.

Clause 11, as amended, was adopted.
CLAUSE 12

4.32.92
N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar
Sir, I beg to move Clause 12 which runs in the following terms:

"12 All executive action of the Federal Government shall be expressed to be taken in the name of the President."


4.32.93
N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar
Very little is required by way of explanation.

(Messrs. M. Ananthasayanam Ayyangar and Kazi Syed Karimuddin did not move their amendments.)

4.32.94
President
I do not think there is any other amendment to this clause. If any member has given notice of any amendment to this which I have not, noticed, he may move.

(No member rose to speak.)

4.32.95
President
As there is no other amendment, I shall put the clause to vote.

Clause12 was adopted.
CLAUSE 13

4.32.96
President
Clause 13.


4.32.97
R. K. Sidhva
There is a new clause 12-A, Sir. The additional clauses treat stands in my name reads thus:

"That after Clause 12, the following new clause be added:

12-A. The Federation shall make laws for--

(1) the Socialist system of economy nationalisation of high industries, administration on co-operative basis of trading enterprises;

(2) equalisation of capital by private owners;

(3) prevention of exploitation;

(4) abolition of unemployment, and guaranteeing the right of work to every citizen;

(5) recreation, annual vacations, leave with wages for maternity period, child welfare, rest homes, clubs and comfortable dwelling houses for all classes of workers;

(6) right to maintenance in old age, family provision in cast of sickness or loss of capacity to work, free medical aid.........."


4.32.98
President
I think these would Come under Part III. When we take it, you may move this. So far as the fundamental rights are concerned, they have already been accepted by the Constituent Assembly and they will again come up at the final discussion. This is only with regard to broad constitutional principles. They will be taken up I think at the final discussion.


4.32.99
President
Now. Sir Gopalaswami Ayyangar, Clause 13.


4.32.100
N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar
Sir, I beg to move Clause 13.

"13. The legislative power of the Federation shall be vested in the Parliament of the Federation which shall consist of the President and the National Assembly, comprising two Houses, the Council of States and the House of the People."


4.32.101
N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar
With regard to this, there is notice of an amendment that the words "the National Assembly comprising" be deleted. If that is done, the clause will read as follows:

"The legislative power of the Federation shall be vested in the Parliament of the Federation which shall consist of the President and two Houses, the Council of States and the House of the People."


4.32.102
N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar
This is merely to avoid having too many designations for what will be the legislative of the Federation in the future. The Parliament of the Federation is to consist of the President and two Chambers. These words, "the National Assembly", have been put in there for the purpose of referring only to the Houses to the exclusion of the President. It seems, Sir, that it is unnecessary to have this expression "National Assembly" coming in between the Parliament and the two Houses. It is therefore considered desirable that we omit all reference to "National Assembly" and make the clause read as I have indicated. I think the notice of amendment has been given by Mr. K. Santhanam and I Wish to say at the outset that I shall be prepared to accept it.


4.32.103
R. K. Sidhva
Sir, my amendment as stated in the paper reads thus:

"That in Clause 13 after the words 'in the Parliament of the Federation' the words 'to be known as Congress' be inserted."


4.32.104
R. K. Sidhva
My object is, Sir, that the freedom that we have attained is under the aegis of the Indian National Congress and I desire the name 'Congress' to be perpetuated in our future Constitution. I understand. Sir, it is the desire of several honourable members that the various words that have to come in the Constitution should be left over for consideration. Under these circumstances, I do not propose to move, it now but I do desire that the word 'Congress' must find a place in our Constitution so as to perpetuate this memorable name under which we have fought for 65 years in the History of our country.


4.32.105
Mohd. Tahir
Sir, in the amendment which I have suggested much thought has not been given to the language. Since we have to discuss on principles, my amendment would read like this:

"That in Clause 13, for the words 'comprising two Houses, the Council of States and', the word "namely' be substituted."


4.32.106
Mohd. Tahir
My aim in suggesting this amendment is that in the original resolution where two assemblies have been mentioned and it has been said that there ought to be two Houses, I want to keep one House only.


4.32.107
Mohd. Tahir
Sir. we have the picture of one new India before us now, with the crown of freedom in her hands. When we are to forge a new Constitution for her and before I place my humble views regarding that before the House, I want to repeat the couplet:

"Sare Jahan se achcha Hindustan Hamara

Ham bulbulen hain uski woh gulstan Hamara"


4.32.108
Mohd. Tahir
After this, I shall say only this much about the amendment, that when we are making a Constitution for India, it is our duty that we should make such a model constitution that all in the country may feel that this Constitution has been made for them and it is theirs. It must not be that, on looking to that Constitution, the common man may say that though the Englishman has left India, his ghost is yet stalking the country. But this constitution clearly betrays that his ghost is haunting us. I think that if you look at this Constitution and at this clause, which is before us now, you will feel that though no doubt the Englishmen are quitting India, his ghost is walking here. Before framing a constitution for a newly born nation or for a country which has attained freedom. the most essential thing, to mind, is to change its past traditions and old constitutions, which were hitherto in vogue, in such a way as to transform the whole mentality of the people of that country. Sir, you know how during the past so many years of their rule in India, Britishers have changed and enslaved the mentality of the people. 'Therefore, when we frame a new Constitution, it becomes our duty to make it in such a way as to transform our mentality from that of slavishness to freedom. The old mentality reminiscent of British slavery must be uprooted. I beg to state that in all the countries various forces are at play--in some countries Socialism works well, in others Communism works well, yet in some others fascism is to be found and in some Capitalism and Imperialism flourish. Unfortunately, thought Capitalism and Imperialism, the British have brought India to her present distress and miserable plight Sir, I would like to point out that before framing the Constitution of the country, we should scan the history of India during the short period of 1919 to the present day. Sir, from 1919 to 1935 many Constitutions were framed but all of them the Product of British Imperialism. In 1919, local self-government was conceded to India; councils were created, even a council was formed for the centre. It was self-government only in name. But, Sir, if you think over it a little you will find that Imperialism was Capitalism were at its back and they were in full play then. Hence the local bodies could not function freely. This was because imperialism was associated with them. The masses used to send their elected representatives to the local bodies but the presence of nominated members there used to 'counteract the influence of the elected ones. And this system still continues. Similar was the case in the Councils; the influence of the elected representatives was weakened by the nominated members; and any programme for the betterment of the country put forth by the elected representatives used to be opposed by the nominated members. That was the state of affairs under the Act of 1919.


4.32.109
Mohd. Tahir
Thanks to God Almighty, when Imperialism and Capitalism were at work in India, a party under the leadership of Mahatma Gandhi came forward to voice the feelings of the poor Indians, and that voice was raised so vociferously that today we find India on the threshold of freedom. Is it then befitting for us today to frame a constitution for India, which smells strongly of Capitalism and Imperialism, nay it fosters them? After some struggle and haggling the 1935 Act was enacted. When, after the Act of 1935, the British Government found that very great political consciousness had been developed in India, and she was pressing her demands more insistently, it changed the Act of 1935. Legislative Assemblies were established in the provinces, where only the elected representatives of the people were to manage the affairs of the Government. But of what good could those provincial assemblies be, when the Upper Houses and the Council of State were tacked on to them? It was a creation of the Imperialistic mind. Thus the democratic atmosphere of the provincial Assembly was negatived, because the Britisher knew that for keeping his Capitalistic outlook safe in India no better plan could be devised. Hence, I would like to point out that nominations, Upper Houses, and similar other tools were the creation of Imperialism. Therefore, when we are framing the Constitution of free India we should keep these things in mind. The Constitution, which we now frame, should be such that we may be sure that it would be acceptable to the people, and they would willingly work it. I would like task a few simple questions of the Honourable Mover of this clause. Is he of the opinion that without having two Houses, the Progress of India or of any other country would be hampered, or no good laws can be enacted? May I ask him whether an assembly, better and more responsible than the present one, has ever before I assembled In India I would say that never before did an assembly, more responsible than this, sit in India. Do we not see that one House is carrying on all this work, and is framing the Constitution? After some weeks this very Assembly would function, as the Federal Parliament, where laws would be enacted. If the principle that two Houses are essential is accepted, then this Constituent Assembly should be dissolved and reshaped to contain two Houses. If, the Honourable Mover cannot divide the Constituent Assembly into two Houses, and he cannot have two Houses of the ensuing Federal Parliament, then it becomes quite clear that he himself does not believe in I the principle that two Houses of legislature are essential. But he is making this proposal because of a certain force or pressure upon him--the forces of capitalism. I would like to tell him that the Council of State nominations, and Upper House were the creations of Imperialism. Does it mean that poor India is still to labour in the same old way, which though more expensive, added nothing to the efficiency of work? It should not be that even after the Britishers have quitted the country and our Government is established they may have the check, to say that their work is still being continued in India. Their work will continue to be accomplished through the devices of the Upper House, nominations, Council of State, etc. With these words, I sit down. If my words have aggrieved anyone, I ask his pardon.


4.32.110
President
Sir B. L. Mitter.


4.32.111
Mr. S. V. Krishnamurthy Rao
I rise on a point of Order. Under rule 32, Clause (1), an amendment must be relevant to the motion to which it is proposed. In the motion that is proposed now there is no word "Lower House" and the amendment seeks to define what the Lower House means. So this amendment is out of order.


4.32.112
V. T. Krishnamachari
I was just going to say the amendment is not going to be moved.


4.32.113
President
So the point of order does not arise.

(Shri Mohanlal Saxena did not move his amendment.)

4.32.114
K. Santhanam
Sir, I move:

"That in clause 13. the words 'the National Assembly, comprising' be deleted."


4.32.115
K. Santhanam
Already, Sir, N. Gopalaswamy Ayyangar has explained why these words should be deleted. I fully sympathise with the Union Powers Committee in their desire to appropriate all the good words. The expression 'National Assembly' is certainly a very attractive expression, but we must also have the word 'Parliament'. They have devised an ingenious formula for appropriating both these expressions. The word 'National Assembly' is to, mean the two Houses taken together and the word 'Parliament' is to mean the two Houses plus the President. However ingenious it may be in practice it will be most inconvenient and when it comes to translating it into Hindustani, matters will be worse. It will be bad enough to find a suitable translation for 'Parliament' and if we are to find one for 'National Assembly' also, it will be almost a hopeless task. Therefore I move this amendment.


4.32.116
President
There is no other amendment. Now, the clause and the amendments that have been moved are open to discussion.


4.32.117
Shibban Lal Saxena
Mr. President, Sir, in this motion we have been asked to vote for two Houses, the Lower House and the Upper House. I wish to point out that our experience in the last so many years has been that the Upper House acts as a clog in the wheel of progress. I do not think it is very wise to continue the same thing again in our new constitution. I think that everywhere in the world the experience about Upper Houses has been the same. In no country an Upper House has helped progress. It has always acted as a sort of hindrance to quick progress. Therefore, if we are not careful at present, we shall not be able to make as rapid progress as we need. India is probably the biggest nation in the world. We will have to catch up with Russia and America if we want to occupy our proper position in the international field. In the next five or ten years we will have to cover the progress which in the normal course would take fifty years. I do not think two chambers will help us in the realisation of our new programme with the required rapidity. Therefore I think that the Mover will kindly review this matter and see that in our new constitution we do not have two Chambers.


4.32.118
Naziruddin Ahmad
Mr. President, Sir, I beg to support the clause as it stands and therefore oppose the motion to omit the Second Chamber. We are going to obtain supreme sovereign powers. We have to deal with foreign and domestic matters of extreme importance. In these circumstances it will be wise for us to have two Houses. A popular House is known for its vitality and vigour and that House will have the exclusive power in regard to money. But a Second Chamber introduces an element of sobriety and second thought. In these circumstances it would be wise for us, especially in view of many foreign subjects which are looming large in our minds, to have a Second Chamber would be a disadvantage is, I think, not correct. I submit. Sir, that a second Chamber would not only be an advantage but an absolute necessity.


4.32.119
Naziruddin Ahmad
Then again, we have to consider the entry of the States into the Federation, and if we have this in mind, a Second Chamber would be an absolute necessity. Without a Second Chamber it would be difficult to fit in the representatives of the States in the scheme of things.


4.32.120
Naziruddin Ahmad
With these few words Sir, I would oppose the amendment to do away with the Council of States, that is, the Second Chamber.


4.32.121
President
No one else wants to speak probably. Then, the Mover can reply, if he desires to.


4.32.122
N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar
Sir, I do not think any elaborate justification is necessary for this clause which states that there will be two chambers in the Federal Legislature. The need for a Second Chamber has been felt practically all over the world wherever there are federations of any importance. After all, the question for us, to consider is whether it performs any useful function. The most that we expect the Second Chamber to do is perhaps to hold dignified debates on important issues and to delay legislations which might be the outcome of passions of the moment until the passions have subsided and calm consideration could be bestowed on the measures which will be before the Legislature; and we shall take care to provide in the Constitution that whenever on any important matter, particularly matters relating to finance, there is conflict between the House of the People and the Council of States, it is the view of the House of the People that shall prevail. Therefore, what we really achieve by the existence of this Second Chamber is only an instrument by which we delay action which might be hastily conceived, and we also give an opportunity, perhaps, to seasoned people who may not be in the thickest of the political fray, but who might be willing to participate in the debate with an amount of learning and importance which we do not ordinarily associate with a House of the People. That is all that is proposed in regard to this Second Chamber. I think, on the whole, the balance of consideration is in favour of having such a chamber and taking care to see that it does not prove a clog either to legislation or administration.


4.32.123
N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar
Nothing more is really needed from me to commend the clause as it is to the House, with the small amendment which was moved here.


4.32.124
President
I shall first put the amendment of Mr. Mohammad Tahir:

"That in Clause 13, for the words 'comprising two Houses, the Council of States and', the word 'namely' be substituted."

The amendment was negatived.

4.32.125
President
Then I put Mr. Santhanam's amendment:

"That in clause 13, the words 'the National Assembly, comprising' be deleted."

The amendment was adopted.

4.32.126
President
I shall now put the whole clause as amended.

Clause 13, as amended, was adopted.
CLAUSE 14

4.32.127
President
We shall now pass on to Clause No. 14.


4.32.128
N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar
With your permission, Sir, and with the permission of the House, I propose simply to formally move this Clause 14, and to request you to hold over the moving of the amendments and the discussion of this clause to a subsequent day. The clause relates to the composition of the two Houses of the Legislature. A very large number of amendments have been sent in and they raise certain, points of importance both to the Provinces and to the Indian States. A good deal of discussion--lobby discussions has been going on with reference to the merits of these amendments and it seems quite possible that as a result of those discussions, we may be able to put before the House something which will be acceptable to all sides of the House. I only pray, Sir, that you will approve of the Procedure I am suggesting, and if you do so, I shall simply read out the clause, Clause 14.


4.32.129
President
I think the House has no objection to accepting the suggestion, that the discussion on this clause be held over for the present and that the clause be moved formally today.


4.32.130
Unnamed Members
Yes.


4.32.131
N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar
Sir, I beg to move Clause 14.

"14. (1) (a) The Council of States shall consist of--

(i) not more than 10 members nominated by the President in consultation with Universities and scientific bodies:

(ii) representatives of the Units on the scale of I representative for every whole million of the population of the Unit up to 5 millions plus I representative for every additional 2 millions of the population, subject to a total maximum of 20.

Explanation.--A Unit means a Province or Indian State which returns in its own individual right members to the Federal Parliament. In Indian States which together for the purpose of returning representatives to the Council Unit means the group so formed.

(b) The representatives of each Unit in the Council of States shall be elected by the members of the Lower House of the Legislature of such Unit.

(c) The House of the People shall consist of representatives of the people of the territories of the Federation in the proportion of not less than I representative for every million of the population and not more than I representative for every 7,50,000 of the population.

(d) The ratio between the number of members to be elected at any time for each constituency and the population of that constituency, as ascertained at the last preceding census shall, as far as practicable, be the same throughout the territories of the Federation.

(2) The said representatives shall be chosen in accordance with the provisions in that behalf contained in Schedule:

Provided that the elections to the House of the People shall be on the basis of adult suffrage.

(3) Upon the completion of each decennial census, the representation of the several Provinces and Indian States or groups of Indian States in the two Houses shall be readjusted by such authority, in such manner, and from such time as the Federal Parliament may by Act determine.

(4) The Council of States shall be a permanent body not subject to dissolution, but, as near as may be, one-third of the members thereof shall retire in every second year in accordance with the provisions in that behalf contained in Schedule.

(5) The House of the People, unless sooner dissolved, shall continue for four years from the date appointed for its first meeting and no longer; and the expiration of the said period of four years shall operate as a dissolution of the House:

Provided that the said period may, during an emergency, be extended by the President for a period not exceeding one year at a time and not exceeding in any case beyond the period of six months from the expiry of the period of the emergency."


4.32.132
President
We shall take up the discussion of this clause at a later stage. We shall proceed to Clause 15.

CLAUSE 15

4.32.133
N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar
Sir, I beg to move:

"There should be the usual provisions for the summoning prorogation and dissolution of Parliament, for regulating the relations between the two Houses, the mode of voting, privileges of members, disqualification for membership, Parliamentary procedure-; including procedure in financial matters. In particular, money bills must originate in the Lower House. The Upper House should have power to suggest amendments in money Bills; the Lower House would consider them and thereafter, whether they accept the amendments or not, the Bill as amended (where the amendments are accepted) or in its original form (where the amendments are not accepted) shall be presented to the President for assent and, upon his assent shall become law. If there is any difference of opinion as to whether a Bill is a money Bill or not, the decision of the Speaker of the House of the People should be final. Except in the case of money Bills both the Houses should have equal powers of legislation and, deadlocks should be resolved by joint meetings of the two Houses. The President should have the power of returning Bills which have been passed by the National Assembly for re-consideration within a period of six months."


4.32.134
N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar
Sir, these are matters for which provision is made in all constitutions and they will follow the usual type in our own constitution. This clause only gives authority for the draftsmen to put the necessary provisions in.

(Amendments Nos. 300 and 301 in List II and amendment No 17 in Supplementary List No. I were not moved.)

4.32.135
K. Santhanam
Sir, I move:

"That in Clause 15 for the last sentence the following be substituted:

'Bills other than money bills, presented to the President for assent may be returned by him to the Federal Legislature for re-consideration, but no such return shall be made later than six weeks after the passing of the Bills by the Assembly'."


4.32.136
K. Santhanam
This is intended to make two changes. Now according to the clause as it stands, Bills are to be returned within a period of six months, and as the clause stands, the words "re-consideration within a period of six months" are subject to an ambiguity--Whether a Bill should be returned within six months or whether the National Assembly should meet and consider it within six Months. Besides, the period of six months is considered' to be, by many of my friends, too long, a period and therefore this amendment of a period of six weeks has been prescribed for return of Bills by the President.


4.32.137
K. Santhanam
Then all Bids are liable to be returned under the new clause as it stands. This is obviously inconvenient for, money Bills. There should be no power in the President to return money Bills because they are matters of urgency and when the House passes them, it should be taken as final.


4.32.138
K. Santhanam
Even the Upper House is not considered, competent to change money Bills. So when revisionary, powers, are taken away from the Upper House there is no reason why power should be vested in the President. Sir, I move.


4.32.139
President
There is no other amendment. So the original clause and amendment are open to discussion.


4.32.140
M. Ananthasayanam Ayyangar
I support this amendment. I would be glad if in respect of money Bills some provision is made for lessening the period within which it will be open to the President to return them for re-consideration. I have known that in many matters when Bills were passed by the Central Legislative Assembly we had to regret that some provisions crept in which were absolutely contrary- to your intentions, and even in respect of a money matter it so happened that in the Budget we voted down an amount which we did not like to vote; down and it went to the Upper House and subsequently in another form it had to come back on the intervention of the Governor-General. Even in a money Bill mistakes occur and we want to correct them. As it is, there is no provision for the Assembly to review its own money Bill except by an amending Statute. I do not see why such a provision should not be made even with regard to money Bills. It is true that power ought not to be vested in the President to clog the progress of a money Bill in case of emergency. I wish the draftsmen who will put in details at a later stage will consider the desirability of giving a power to return a money Bill not later than ten days for any technical flaw which may have to be corrected; otherwise for any matter of substance it need not be open to the President to return it, when such matters must be left entirely to the decision of the Lower Assembly, and the President ought not to take the place of or be a substitute for the Lower Assembly or the Upper Chamber in such matters.


4.32.141
M. Ananthasayanam Ayyangar
As regards the need to return these Bills, I have said that there are many cases where what one House has done in haste has been corrected by another, and even when both the Houses have bestowed their attention there are many matters which may have to be sent for reconsideration. The present provision in the Government of IndiaAct is for the Governor-General to reserve certain Bills for consideration by His Majesty and the same Bill may be returned with suggestions as to which modifications have to be effected.


4.32.142
M. Ananthasayanam Ayyangar
I would like to make some more suggestions with regard to some other matters which should be included in Clause 15. The amount of care or limitation with which the other clauses have been drafted, this clause has not been drafted. A number of other items are absent. For instance there, is no provision made, with reference to Budget estimates. Under the existing Act the Budget is presented first to the Legislative Assembly and then to the Council of State. It is open to the Assembly and the Council of State to revise or alter or reduce it; but if the Assembly refuses to vote a Demand, it cannot be restored by the Council of State. It is a matter of investing the Council of State with this power or taking away the power which the Legislative Assembly has. It is not merely a matter of form. I am sorry it is not included in the list of items for which provision has to be made along with other matters to be considered later.


4.32.143
M. Ananthasayanam Ayyangar
I would also suggest that provision may be made for the summoning or dismissal of Ministers. There is no provision for it now. We have now made provision, by means of an amendment, summoning a Prime Minister who may later on choose other Ministers who will have to be accepted by the President. But, so far as dismissal is concerned, no provision has been made. If the Ministers lose the confidence of the House, it must be open to the President to call upon them to vacate their offices. Some such provision is necessary.


4.32.144
M. Ananthasayanam Ayyangar
There are one or two matters more for which provision must be made in Clause 15. For instance, take Sections 103, etc., of the Government of India Act, providing for common legislation for two or more units. Now, there are States and Provinces federating with the Union. There may certain subjects common to two States or Units. These subjects may be absolutely provincial subjects; all the same, for the sake of convenience, those two Units may require the Centre to pass legislation. With their consent, on the delegated authority, the Central Legislature may pass legislation. There is no provision here for that.


4.32.145
M. Ananthasayanam Ayyangar
If we accept the three Lists, one of those Lists contains matter which is exclusively within the jurisdiction of the provinces. Special provision has to be made whereby in regard to certain subjects which are in the provincial List exclusively, if two or three Units are interested in a kind of common legislation there must be an authority which can attend to it and that authority is the Central Legislature which can pass legislation common to the concerned Units. Some such provision must be made in the Constitution and it must be included in Clause 15. The draftsmen of the Constitution may kindly take note of this.


4.32.146
Sir, I wish to point out an omission here, due probably to oversight. While considering Clause 15, in the latter part of it the words "National Assembly" were found. According to it, the President should have the power of returning Bills passed by the Assembly. Just now, while considering Clause 13, by an amendment of Mr. Santhanam, the words "National Assembly" have been omitted and 'Federal Parliament' inserted. I think the words 'Both Houses of Parliament' should be there.


4.32.147
N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar
Sir I accept the amendment moved by Mr. Santhanam.


4.32.148
N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar
With reference to the remarks of the last speaker I may point out that in Mr. Santhanam's amendment he has substituted the words 'Federal Legislature' for the words "National Assembly" already. Therefore the objection raised by the last speaker does not hold good.


4.32.149
M. Ananthasayanam Ayyangar
There were a number of points mentioned by Mr. Ananthasayanam Ayyangar, the last point being that there should be provision for Federal Legislation in cases where two Units apply for such legislation on matters which might be common to both of them, and for other Units of the Federation to apply that legislation to themselves if they wish to do so. That is an important point, Sir. I could give him an assurance that, when the text of the Constitution comes to be drafted, provision will be made for that sort of thing, along with other matters which have not been specifically referred to in this draft of the principles of the Union Constitution.


4.32.150
N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar
I may mention, however, that provision for such matters will riot fall under the routine items that are provided for in Clause 15. But I can assure him that the point mentioned will be kept in mind when the text is drafted. I have nothing more to say.


4.32.151
President
I will put the amendment to vote. The question is:

"That in Clause 15 for the last sentence the following be substituted:

'Bills other than money Bills presented to the President for assent may be returned by him to the Federal Legislature for re-consideration, but no such return shall be made later than six weeks after the passing of the bills by the Assembly'."

The motion was adopted.

4.32.152
President
I now put Clause 15, as amended, to vote.

Clause 15, as amended, was adopted.
CLAUSE 16

4.32.153
N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar
The next Clause is 16. It relates to language.


4.32.154
M. Ananthasayanam Ayyangar
May I request the Honourable Mover not to move this Clause now? This may stand over.


4.32.155
N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar
I have no objection to it. But I wish to point out that this particular matter is not likely to come up for discussion during this session. If it is the wish of the House that I should not move this Clause, I shall not move it.


4.32.156
President
A suggestion has been made that this Clause 16 be not moved at this stage. I will put it to the House.


4.32.157
President
The question is:

"That the consideration of Clause 16 be postponed."

The motion was adopted.
Chapter III
CLAUSE 17

4.32.158
N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar
Clause 17 relates to the power of the President to promulgate ordinances during recess of Parliament.

"17. (1) If at any time when the Federal Parliament is not in session the president is satisfied that circumstances exist which render it necessary for him to take immediate action, he may Promulgate such Ordinance as the circumstances appear to him to require.

(2) An ordinance promulgated under this section shall have the same force and effect as an Act of the Federal Parliament assented to by the President, but every such ordinance--

(a) shall be laid before the Federal Parliament and shall cease to operate at the expiration of six weeks from the re-assembly of the Federal approving it are passed by both House, upon the passing of the second of those resolutions; and

(b) may be withdrawn at any time by the President.

(3) If and so far as an ordinance under this section, makes any provision which the Federal Parliament, would not under this constitution be competent to enact it shall be void."


4.32.159
N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar
This clause provides for the issue of ordinances by the President. There can be no objection to the vesting of power of this very limited description for making ordinances in the President. The ordinances car be made only during periods when the legislature is not in session in the case of matters which cannot wait till the next session of the legislature, an ordinance made has got to be placed before the Parliament so soon as possible and shall cease to operate at the expiration of six weeks from the re-assembly of the Federal Parliament. Power is also given to the President to withdrawn ordinances at any time during the interim period if he thinks that it is unnecessary to keep them in force. A power of this description of taking administrative action which has to be taken at once and which cannot wait till the Parliament is in session has been found to be necessary. Sir, I move.


4.32.160
President
Mr. Shibban Lal Saksena


4.32.161
Shibban Lal Saxena
Sir, before I move this amendment, I want to know one thing. I had given notice of an amendment modelled on the Irish Constitution and in that I had given five clauses. One of them was that cow slaughter should be prohibited in Bharatvarsh by law. I cannot find that amendment in the printed list supplied to us.


4.32.162
President
Mr. Shibban Lal Seksena's amendment of which he gave notice relates to that part of the Constitution which you have already passed, viz, fundamental rights. They will come up again in their final form for discussion at the final stage. So that does not arise at this stage.


4.32.163
Shibban Lal Saxena
Thank you, Sir.


4.32.164
Shibban Lal Saxena
Sir, I desire that the whole of this chapter should be deleted. This chapter deals with the ordinance-making powers of the President. I think on account of the last so many years of foreign rule and rule by ordinances, we have become so much accustomed to ordinances that in the Constitution of free India. we have provided for this ordinance-making power without any compunction.


4.32.165
C. Subramaniam
Is the Honourable Member moving this as an amendment?


4.32.166
Shibban Lal Saxena
I am moving the amendment. Let me read out the amendment.


4.32.167
President
This is not an amendment. This is a negative of the original proposition. When all the other amendments have been moved you can speak. This is not an amendment so far as I can see.

(Mr. Nalavade did not move his amendments Nos. 324 and 325.)

4.32.168
H. V. Kamath
I am told, Sir, that separate provision will be made for the emergency powers of the President, and so at this stage I do not propose to move this amendment (No. 326).


4.32.169
H. V. Pataskar
Sir, the amendment that stands in my name is as follows:

"That at the end of sub-clause (1) of Clause 17, the following proviso be added:

'Provided that a session of the Federal Parliament shall be held within six months of the promulgation of such an ordinance.' "


4.32.170
H. V. Pataskar
So far as Clause 17 is concerned, it confers certain emergency powers of issuing ordinances upon the President. It is further provided in sub-clause (2) that an ordinance promulgated under this section shall have the same force and effect as an Act of the Federal Parliament. And sub-clause (2)(a) says that every such ordinance shall be laid before the Federal Parliament and shall cease to operate at the expiration of six weeks from the re-assembly of the Federal Parliament. The Honourable the Mover has explained that this should be done as early as possible. It was with the idea that the Federal Parliament should be called within six months of the promulgation of such an ordinance, that I tabled this amendment. Parliament will be in session some time during the year. Ordinances are obnoxious to democracy and at least to allay public suspicions it is necessary that there should be a provision that within six months of the promulgation of an ordinance a session of the Federal Parliament shall be held, I would therefore like to suggest that when the final draft is made, there should be a definite provision like this in the interests of all concerned, and hoping that this would be done, I do not propose to move this amendment at this stage.


4.32.171
President
Mr. Kamath.


4.32.172
H. V. Kamath
In view of what I stated about amendment No. 326 I am not moving this amendment (No. 328).

(Messrs. Jadubans Sahai and Biswanath Das did not move their amendments Nos. 329 and 330.)

4.32.173
H. V. Kamath
In view of the statement made by Mr. Pataskar, this does not arise (amendment No. 331.)

(Mr. Sidhwa did not move his amendment No. 332.)

4.32.174
President
There is no other amendment to this clause of which I have received notice. Therefore the clause is now open for discussion.


4.32.175
Shibban Lal Saxena
Mr. President, Sir, this clause gives the President over-riding powers over the entire National Assembly. We have been accustomed to ordinance rule long enough and I wish that now when we are framing the Constitution of free India, we do not provide for this power again. Sir, even during the Great War, the President of the United States of America and the Premier of England did not have the power. When we start our free Constitution we should try and follow the same canons of democracy which have been followed in these great countries. This sort of Power, Once given, is bound to the abused. When this power is given, it is often used even for small things. In fact even during this one year since our Ministries have come to power, we got so many ordinances. I therefore think that if this sort of power is given, it will be the very negation of democracy. I think that we must not take this legacy of autocracy from the past slavery of our country into the free India which we are constructing today and we must therefore see that this thing is not given any place in our new Constitution. After all, if there is a grave emergency, our National Parliament will be ever ready to meet the situation. In Britain and in America they have been able to carry on their work without any such powers even during the last great war when their very existence was at stake. An fact, Mr. Churchill used to take the House of Commons into confidence publicly even in the darkest periods during the Great War. This raised the morale of the people tremendously and rallied their wholehearted support in a manner which no other method could have secured. Rule by ordinance has always been hateful to the people. I do not think that our Premiers and our great leaders are so much desirous of having this clause. I strongly feel that this is a step which negatives the entire Constitution. Besides, it is not proper to give such over-riding powers to a man who is not elected by adult suffrage as this will negative the democratic character of the entire Constitution. I, therefore, suggest that we should make no provision for this clause in our new Constitution.


4.32.176
M. Ananthasayanam Ayyangar
Sir, the previous speaker evidently has taken this Section from the Government of India Act and misread it for some other clause coming later. There are two provisions there in the Government of India Act of 1935, which empower the Governor-General to promulgate ordinances. Firstly during the recess or interval between two sessions of the Legislature he does so, on the advice of the Ministers and the Ministers take the responsibility for the same. He can do so also in his individual judgment. That means he can in certain circumstances over-ride the decision of the Ministers but he has however to consult them. The other occasion in which he can promulgate on ordinance in the discharge of his responsibilities specially imposed on him for the maintenance of law and order is in a grave emergency. The life of such an ordinance is only six months, and it can not be renewed except with the previous consent of His Majesty. My Honourable friend evidently is mistaking the later provision for the previous one. The previous one is during the recess, when a session of the Assembly is not there and it is not possible to convene a meeting of the Assembly to have an Act and in the place of an Act an ordinance is promulgated. My Honourable friend thinks that the President does it in his discretion. It is not stated in the draft that the President can promulgate an ordinance in his discretion. Then it means that the President promulgates an ordinance on the advice of his ministers. In further means this: that the ministers are responsible for this ordinance and the President is only something like a rubber-stamp giving effect, under his signature, to what the minister wants. The minister is responsible to the legislature. The question of the President not being elected by adult suffrage does not come in, because the ministers who take the responsibility for promulgating the ordinance, can be turned out of office. These objections would not hold good because, we are not giving any autocratic power to the President and the President of his own motion has absolutely no right to promulgate these ordinances. In the Statement of Objects and Reasons i.e.; in the small note appended to this clause in the Provincial Constitution itself, an instance is given that Lord Reading had promulgated an ordinance relating to Customs. It was absolutely necessary then. Many such occasions will arise and we cannot stultify ourselves by denying this power to the Government. It is said that there can be no objection if in six months' time session of the Assembly could be convened. Soon after an Assembly session, the ministers are not likely to invoke the special power because if they had already a proposal in view they would have got an Act passed in the Session of the Assembly. If the emergency arises after the conclusion of the Assembly, they would invoke this power and six months thereafter, another session of the Assembly will normally come in. There need be no statutory provision that within six months after the ordinance comes into being or is promulgated, there must necessarily be a session of the Assembly. There will be many cases where for very small matters, which do not involve any principle, an ordinance has to be promulgated. Such matters need not necessiate invoking a session of the Assembly. Therefore, I submit there is no substance in the amendments proposed nor in the opposition to the clause as a whole by Mr. Shibban Lal Saksena.


4.32.177
H. V. Kamath
Mr. President, I submit, Sir, that there is a slight ambiguity in this Clause 17, which I would request Sir, Gopalaswami to clear in the course of his reply. In this clause we are treating the President and the Federal Parliament as two distinct entities, whereas in Clause 13 we have defined the Federal Parliament as the President plus the two Houses, that is, the Council of States and the House of the People. Personally I feel now, Sir, that the deletion of the words "National Assembly comprising" in Clause 13 was unfortunate because if we had retained them we could have defined the Houses jointly as a National Assembly and the Parliament would have been the President plus the National Assembly. Otherwise confusion is bound to arise throughout this Constitution as between the Federal Parliament, the President and the two Houses taken together.


4.32.178
Naziruddin Ahmad
Mr. President, Sir, I wish to say a few words regarding the comment made by the Honourable Member who opposed the inclusion of Chapter III. In his speech he has expressed a sentiment which will be the common sentiment in this House. It is that we are going to have a free India; but with the other sentiment in connection with that amendment, I am not in, sympathy. The Honourable Member seems to think that in a Free India there should be no such laws, but we are going to have democratic independence and democracy means rule of law. The Honourable Member suffered from the nightmare of the misuse of the Ordinances, of which we have had enough experience during the last war. I think that nightmare should go. The power will now be exercised by our elected men and our chosen representatives and they would no doubt act on the advice of responsible ministers. It is therefore reasonable to suppose that they would not abuse their powers. In these circumstances, I should suppose that they should have the power. But the question is really the proper application of the power or its misapplication. I think the existence of the power is a necessity so as to enable the Government to run on smoothly. What would happen when the legislatures are not in session and when there is a grave emergency? As to the kinds of emergency, there are an unlimited variety which may arise. A war or a mutiny or anything of that kind may arise. Flood shortage and other things may arise. Then the legislature may not be in session. So, the President should have this power which may be employed usefully for the good of the community. In these circumstances, I should submit that the existence of the power is a great necessity and I have no reason to suppose that they would be misapplied: rather they would be applied for our benefit.


4.32.179
M. Ananthasayanam Ayyangar
I am very grateful to my Honourable friendMr. Ananthasayanam Ayyangar for having disposed of so effectively both the amendments moved and the opposition that was offered to the passing of this clause. I have little to add to what he has, said on these two aspects.


4.32.180
N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar
I would like to refer only to the point that was mentioned byMr. Kamath, the use of the words "Federal Parliament" here. That is a matter which requires examination. An ordinance is issued by the President and if he lays it before the two Houses of the legislature, there are two contingencies of which you have got to take notice. If the ordinance relates to a matter which deserves to be provided for by permanent legislation, it has got to be approved by the Parliament as a whole including the President, because it will be legislation. But if it is a case of an ordinance which is only of temporary duration, or it is a case where the Houses of the legislature pass only a resolution disapproving of it and it ceases to have effect, then, perhaps it is not correct to use the word "Parliament". But all these aspects of the wording of this sub-clause (a) of Clause (2) of this paragraph, will be taken into full account when the text of the draft of the constitution comes to be settled.


4.32.181
President
I would now put Clause 17 to vote.

Clause 17 was adopted
CLAUSE 18

4.32.182
President
We shall now take up the next clause.


4.32.183
N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar
Sir, we pass on to Chapter IV, Federal Judicature. The clause which I have got to move relates to a very important part of the constitution. We have got two or three amendments and I hope you will agree that after I move this particular clause further proceedings in connection with the clause may be held over till tomorrow.


4.32.184
President
I was Just going to suggest that you may formally move the clause, the, amendments may also be formally moved, and we may discuss the clause and amendments tomorrow. If you can move the clause today, the amendments also could be moved.


4.32.185
N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar
As a matter of fact, it may be that an agreed amendment will dispose of all other amendments.


4.32.186
President
You will move the clause first.


4.32.187
N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar
I beg to move Clause 18:

"18. There shall be a Supreme Court with the constitution powers and jurisdiction recommended by the ad hoc Committee on the Union Judiciary except that a judge of the Supreme Court shall be appointed by the President after consulting the Chief Justice and such other Judges of the Supreme Court as also such Judges of the High Courts as may be necessary for the purpose."


4.32.188
N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar
I move.


4.32.189
President
I have got notice of two or three amendments. They could be formally moved today. That may save some time tomorrow.

(Messrs. Jaspat Roy Kapoor, B. Pocker Sahib Bahadur, K. T. M. Ahmed Ibrahim Sahib Bahadur, Rai Bahadur Syamanandan Sahaya and H. V. Pataskar did not move their amendments, Nos. 333 to 336.)

4.32.190
K. Santhanam
I move:

"That for Clause 18, the following be substituted:

'18. There shall be a Supreme Court with the constitution, powers and jurisdiction recommended by the ad hoc Committee on the Union Judiciary except in the following particulars:

(a) The additional jurisdiction to be vested in the Supreme Court according to para 10 shall be by Federal Law.

(b) The appointment of the Chief Justice and the other Judges of the Supreme Court shall be by the President after consulting a joint standing committee of both Houses of the Federal Parliament consisting of six members from the House of the People and five members from the Council of States.

(c) The salary and pensions of the Judges of the Federal Supreme Court should be fixed by Federal Law and they should not be altered in the case of any Judge to his disadvantage'."


4.32.191
K. Santhanam
Sir, I have today given notice of a revised version to be substituted in the place of clause (b) and I shall request your permission to move it tomorrow.


4.32.192
G. Durgabai
Mr. President, Sir, I beg to move the following amendment:

"That after Clause 18, the following new clause be inserted:

'18-A. New High Courts may be established in any newly created province on an address being presented by the Legislature of that province to the Governor and on the same being approved by the President.' "


4.32.193
G. Durgabai
Sir, I will ask your permission for a debate on this, later.


4.32.194
President
It is an independent clause. We shall take it up separately.


4.32.195
President
It is just one o'clock. We shall adjourn now till 10 o'clock tomorrow.


4.32.196
Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar
I had given notice of an amendment this morning. May I read it now, Sir?


4.32.197
President
We have adjourned now. We shall take it up tomorrow.

The House then adjourned till Ten of the Clock, on Tuesday, the 29th July 1947.

The Constituent Assembly of India met in the Constitution Hall, New Delhi, at Ten of the Clock, Mr. President (The Honourable Dr. Rajendra Prasad) in the Chair.
PRESENTATION OF CREDENTIALS AND SIGNING OF THE REGISTER
The following Member presented his Credentials and signed the Register:
Mr. Mukunda Bihari Mullick (West Bengal: General)
DURATION OF AUGUST SESSION

4.34.1
H. V. Kamath
Mr. President, will you be so good as to tell us how long the August session is expected to last, so that we may be able to adjust our programmes accordingly?


4.34.2
President
As Members are aware, we are going to have a function on the 15th August and Members will be expected to be present here on that day to join that function. Then 16th happen to be a Saturday and 17th a Sunday on which days we do not ordinarily sit. The 18th and 19th will perhaps be Id days and we cannot sit on those days either. So, the next day on which we can sit would be the 20th, and then it depends upon Members as to how long they will take to complete the work. The business to be completed will be the consideration of the reports of the Union Powers Committee and the Advisory Committees; and if anything is left over from now--which I hope will not be the case--that will have to be completed then. There may be some other items also but these two will be the main items for consideration and I hope it will not take more than seven or eight days to complete these two items.


4.34.3
Unnamed Member
What about the Minority Committee's Report?


4.34.4
President
That is included in the Advisory Committee's Report.


4.34.5
N. G. Ranga
What about the clauses relating to the provinces and the Indian Union which have not yet been disposed of?


4.34.6
President
We shall try to complete consideration of this report if possible, but if anything is left over we shall have to take it up then.


4.34.7
M. Ananthasayanam Ayyangar
I would like to make a suggestion that as 18th and 19th will be holidays we may sit on the 16th and 17th even though the latter is a Sunday. It is only a sentimental objection and in view of two holidays following we may sit on Sunday.


4.34.8
M. Ananthasayanam Ayyangar
As regards the amendments, I suggest that copies may be sent round soon after we reach home so that we may come prepared to discuss them.


4.34.9
B.G. Kher
The best course would be to sit from the 20th to the end of the month.


4.34.10
President
That is what is intended.


4.34.11
Pandit Shri Krishna Dutt Paliwal
Mr. President, perhaps Independence Day would be celebrated on the 16th and after meeting on the 15th here most of the members would like to go back to their respective places in order to participate in celebrations at their places. Hence it would not be possible to work on the 16th.


4.34.12
President
What do you desire?


4.34.13
Pandit Shri Krishna Dutt Paliwal
Sir, as most of the members would like to go back to their respective places, I wish that no work should be done on the 16th.


4.34.14
President
Those who wish to go back might do so. We will resume our work from the 20th.

REPORT ON THE UNION CONSTITUTION
PART IV -- CHAPTERS I -- CLAUSE 7

4.34.15
President
We shall now take up the discussion of the clauses that have been left over. Clause 7 is one such clause discussion of which has been left over. I understand that there is an agreed substitute to Clause 7 in the draft. Is that ready, Sir Gopalaswami Ayyangar?


4.34.16
N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar
Sir, I have given notice of an amendment to Clause 7(2) (b), but there is still some little trouble about that. I think I shall be in a position to place the amendment before the House tomorrow morning after drafting the amendment in a form which may be acceptable to both parts of the House.


4.34.17
President
Then we shall pass that over and take up Part V.


4.34.18
N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar
There is another clause which we have held over and that is Clause 14. About that also I hope to be in a position to place before the House a kind of agreed proposal tomorrow morning.


4.34.19
President
The House will in that case take up consideration of Part V--Distribution of Legislative Powers between the Federation and the Units. In regard to this, as I understand it, though there is no specific amendment here, there is a suggestion made on behalf of the Ministers of the States that this might be held over until we have discussed the Report of the Union Powers Committee. Is that the idea?


4.34.20
B. L. Mitter
That is so. I have got an amendment to it.


4.34.21
President
Is it necessary to move that amendment now? I think we can hold over the consideration of Part V.


4.34.22
N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar
We have no objection to have it postponed.


4.34.23
President
I take it that it is the wish of the House that the consideration of Part V be postponed until we have discussed the Report of the Union Powers Committee.


4.34.24
President
The House will now take up Part VI for consideration.

PART VI--CLAUSE I

4.34.25
Acharya Jugal Kishore
Sir, I beg to move:

"1. The Federal Parliament in legislating for an exclusively Federal subject may devolve upon the Government of a Unit whether a Province, an Indian State or other area, or upon any officer of that Government, the exercise on behalf of the Federal Government of any functions in relation to that subject."


4.34.26
Jawaharlal Nehru
This is a very simple provision which hardly needs any words from me to commend it.


4.34.27
President
Rai Saheb Raghuraj Singh has an amendment to this Clause. Does he move it? The Member not being present the amendment is not moved.

(Shri V. I. Muniswami Pillai did not move his amendment No. 362.)

4.34.28
Naziruddin Ahmad
I beg to move:

"That in sub-clause (1) of Clause 2, for the words 'which applies to that unit' the words 'in so far as it may be applicable to the Unit' be substituted."


4.34.29
Naziruddin Ahmad
I have another amendment. That is for Clause 2.


4.34.30
President
The Honourable Pandit Nehru has moved only Clause 1. Only amendments to Clause 1 can therefore be moved row.


4.34.31
Naziruddin Ahmad
Mine is only a drafting amendment.


4.34.32
Acharya Jugal Kishore
Rai Saheb Raghuraj Singh has just arrived, but I am prepared to move the amendment. I beg to move that for Clause 1, the following be substituted:

"1. The Federal Government may, with the consent of a Government of a Province or the ruler of a Federal State, entrust either conditionally or unconditionally to that Government or Ruler, or to their respective officers, functions in relation to any matter to which the executive authority of the Federation extends.

An Act of the Federal Legislature which extends to a Federal State may confer powers and impose duties upon the State or officers and authorities thereof to be designated for the purpose by the Ruler."


4.34.33
Tajamul Hussain
On a point of order, Mr. President, when the member who has given notice of an amendment is not in the House, can another member move the amendment?


4.34.34
President
Both the members have signed the amendment. He is, therefore, perfectly in order in moving the amendment.


4.34.35
Acharya Jugal Kishore
Sir, the wording of the amendment which has just been moved by me is based upon the wording of the Government of India Act, 1935, Section 124, sub-sections (1) and (3). It contemplates that whenever any functions in relation to a matter to which the executive authority of the Federation extends are made exercisable by a provincial government or the Ruler of a State or by their officers, it should be done with their consent and not independently, and that the State officers should be designated by the Ruler and not by the Federation. Sir, the necessity for this amendment is that the delegation of functions to a Provincial or State Unit should be made with their consent and particularly in the case of Indian States, the officers to be designated for the exercise of these functions should be chosen by the Ruler. I, therefore, commend this amendment for the consideration and acceptance of the House.


4.34.36
President
Does anyone else wish to speak on the clause or the amendment? Both of them are under discussion now.


4.34.37
Acharya Jugal Kishore
Mr. President, Sir, the delegation of federal authority has already been agreed to in an earlier clause, viz. Clause 9. It has also been agreed that such delegation may be withdrawn in the discretion of the federation. The amendment which has just now been moved merely says that whenever delegation is made by the Federal Government to a State, it should be done with the consent of the State, and that the exercise of the delegated powers should be through an agency which should be approved by the State Government or the Ruler.


4.34.38
Acharya Jugal Kishore
Sir, this amendment practically repeats what is contained in Section 124 of the Government of India Act, 1935. Clause 1 which has been moved was intended to give the substance of Section 124. There are however two points which have been mentioned by the mover and the supporter of this amendment which deserve some examination. The first point, as I understood it, was that the devolution of functions of administration in relation to federal subjects upon provinces or States should be with the consent of the governments of those provinces or States. The second point was that the designation of the officers of an Indian State who are to exercise the authority devolved upon them by the Federal Legislature should be by the Ruler or with his consent. I may at once say that whenever there is a proposal to devolve functions of this sort either on provincial or State Governments, or the officers of those Governments, there is bound to be previous consultation between the Centre and the Units concerned. We have got to recognise the fact that, after all, the functions proposed to be devolved are functions in relation to the administration of federal subjects. The authority for providing for executive administration of federal subjects has to be the Centre finally. We could provide for consultation, but I think, Sir, it would be going against the root principles of the exercise of executive authority in relation to Federal subjects if we stipulate that the consent of the Unit Government or the head of that Unit Government should be a condition precedent to such devolution. The substance of what the amendment wants will certainly be recognised by the future Federal Government. Before such devolution is made either by executive action or under federal laws, the fullest consultation win take place between the Centre and the Unit. I am, therefore, Sir, not in a position to recommend the acceptance of this amendment.


4.34.39
Rai Bahadur Lala Raj Kanwar
In view of the assurance given by Sir Gopalaswami Ayyangar, I withdraw the amendment.


4.34.40
President
I will now put the clause to vote. As regards the amendment, the mover wishes to withdraw it. I take it that he House gives him permission to withdraw it. I will now put the original clause to vote.

Part VI, Clause I was adopted.
CLAUSE 2

4.34.41
N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar
Clause 2 reads as follows:

"(1) It will be the duty of the Government of a Unit to so exercise its executive power and authority in so far as it is necessary and applicable for the purpose as to secure that due effect is given within the Unit to every Act of the Federal Parliament which applies to that Unit; and the authority of the Federal Government will extend to the giving of directions to a Unit Government to that end.

(2) The authority of the Federal Government will also extend to the giving of directions to the Unit Government as to the manner in which the latter's executive power and authority should be exercised in relation to any matter which affects the administration of a Federal subject."


4.34.42
N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar
These two sub-clauses really repeat in substance the provisions of the Government of India Act of 1935. These are intended to prevent any clash of authority between the Centre and the Units. They are also intended to secure that the Unit Governments will so exercise their own executive authority, that is to say, their executive authority in relation to Unit subjects, as not to come into conflict with the exercise of executive authority in relation to federal subjects. I do not think, Sir, that any more explanation is needed. Sir, I move.


4.34.43
Naziruddin Ahmad

"That in sub-clause (1) of Clause 2, for the words 'which applies to that Unit', the words 'in so far as it may be applicable to the Unit', be substituted."


4.34.44
Naziruddin Ahmad
Sir, may I also move amendment No. 365?


4.34.45
President
Yes.


4.34.46
Naziruddin Ahmad
My other amendment is:

"That in sub-clause (2) of Clause 2 for the words the 'Unit Government', the words 'Unit Governments', be substituted."


4.34.47
Naziruddin Ahmad
I submit, Sir, these are only drafting amendments and are put in by way of suggestions for the Drafting Committee.

(Messrs. Thakur Das Bhargava, K. Santhanam and P. S. Deshmukh did not move their amendments Nos. 364, 366 and 367.)

4.34.48
Rai Sahib Raghuraj Singh
I move that the following new Clause be inserted after Clause 2:

"3. Where by virtue of Clause (1) powers and duties have been conferred or imposed upon a Province or Federated State or officers or authorities thereof, there shall be paid by the Federation to the Province or State such sum as may be agreed or, in default of agreement, as may be determined by an arbitrator appointed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in respect of any extra costs of administration incurred by the Province or State in connection with the exercise of those powers and duties."


4.34.49
Rai Sahib Raghuraj Singh
The object of this amendment is obvious, i.e., that whenever any duties are imposed on a State or Province or Federated State, the cost of carrying out of those duties should be paid to the State or Province concerned.


4.34.50
President
There is no other amendment to this Clause. So, the clause and amendments are now open to discussion. Those who wish to speak may do so.


4.34.51
Shri Ram Sahai
Mr. President, I beg to support the amendment submitted by the Rai Sahib. My submission is that, the amendment is very proper and necessary. The Government of India Act, 1935, Section 124, sub-section (1), provides for "power of the Federation to confer powers on the Provinces and States with the consent of the Government of a Province or the Ruler of a Federated State". But these words have been deleted from this clause. In order to strengthen the Centre, it was proper to invest the Federation with such power without their consent. But, in no case is it proper to delete sub-section (4) of Section 124 of the Government of India Act. Rai Sahib has pressed his amendment on the basis of this very subsection. I, therefore, consider it proper for the House to accept the amendment. By accepting it, the Provincial Government or the State would be able to recover the expenses incurred on behalf of the Centre. In order to consolidate the economical position of the Provincial Government or the State, it is essential that such sort of expenses should be paid to them. For this reason, I support this amendment.


4.34.52
Rai Bahadur Lala Raj Kanwar
The amendment which I have the privilege of supporting needs no elaborate argument and it is self-explanatory. All that it aims at is to make a statutory provision for the payment of the cost of administration by the Federation to a Federal Unit, when the administration of a Federal subject is entrusted to that unit. As this provision is very necessary and it also finds a place in the Government of India Act, section 124, sub-section (4), it is suggested that it is a necessary provision and may be incorporated in our Constitution. At present the recommendations of the Constitution Committee do not mention anything about the payment of the cost of administration in such cases. As this seems to be a necessary provision, it is recommended for acceptance by the House.


4.34.53
N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar
Sir, of the two amendments moved by Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad, the first one is to substitute the words "in so far as it may be applicable to the Unit" for the words "which applies to that Unit". It is apparently a suggestion for improving the drafting of this particular sub-clause, and whether it is an improvement or not, it is difficult to say. I think the essential purpose of the sub-clause is served by the present drafting as by the amendment that is proposed. I would leave the clause as it stands. I therefore do not accept that amendment.


4.34.54
N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar
His second amendment that the words "Unit Governments" be substituted for the words "the Unit Government" I accept. Then the only other amendment to this Clause is Item No. 368. This is taken from section 124, sub-section (4) of the Government of India Act. When the outlines of the Constitution were drafted for the purpose of discussion in this House, it was not considered necessary that all the consequential powers or provisions that may be necessary should be included in this draft. The omission of this particular sub-section of 124 was not motived by any desire to do away with that provision when the final draft comes to be made, but, as this particular clause has been moved as an addition to the present clause, I accept it and will go into the text of the future Constitution.


4.34.55
President
I will put the amendments first. The first amendment is by Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad

"That in sub-clause (1) of clause 2, for the words 'which applies to that unit', the words 'in so far as it may be applicable to the unit' be substituted."

The amendment was negatived.

4.34.56
President
The next amendment is:

"That in sub-clause (1) of clause 2 for the words 'the unit Government' the words 'unit Governments' be substituted."

The amendment was adopted.

4.34.57
President
The last amendment is that the following new Clause 3 be inserted after Clause 2:

"3. Where by virtue of Clause (1) powers and duties have been conferred or imposed upon a Province or Federated State or officers or authorities thereof, there shall be paid by the Federation to the Province or State such sum as may be agreed, or, in default of agreement as may be determined by an arbitrator appointed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in respect of any extra costs of administration incurred by the Province or State in connection with the exercise of those powers and duties."

The amendment was adopted.

4.34.58
President
The clause, as amended, is now put to the House.

Clause 2 as amended was adopted.

4.34.59
President
There is notice of another amendment that another clause should be added. That is given notice of by four members.


4.34.60
Sri H. R. Guruv Reddy
I beg to move this amendment:

"That after clause 2, the following new clause be added:

'3. It shall be competent for an acceding State with the previous sanction of the federal Government to undertake by an agreement made in that behalf with any Governor's Province or Chief Commissioner's Province or any other acceding Indian State any legislative, executive or judicial functions vested in that Province, Chief Commissioner's Province or other acceding State, provided that the agreement relates, so far as Provinces or Chief Commissioners' Provinces are concerned, to a subject included in the Provincial or Concurrent Legislative List and so far as the other acceding State is concerned to a subject not included in the Federal List.

On such an agreement being concluded the State may, subject to the terms thereof exercise the legislative, executive or judicial functions specified therein through the appropriate authorities of the State.' "


4.34.61
Sri H. R. Guruv Reddy
Sir this is a counterpart of Clause 8 of the Report of the Provincial Constitution Committee. This august House was pleased to accept the Report of the ad hoc Committee on Clause 8 Part I of the Provincial Constitution which provides that any Provincial Unit could take over and administer any portion of any State Unit under it. Similarly, a clause which enables the State Unit to take over and administer parts of other Provinces is moved now in this Clause.


4.34.62
Sri H. R. Guruv Reddy
Sir, it is but just and fair that once power is taken to take away from a portion of a State or a State Unit for administrative purposes, a State which is competent and capable similarly to administer should be allowed that freedom of taking a portion of another Province for similar administration by itself. There need be no doubt in any quarter that it is not a fair and just clause to be introduced.


4.34.63
Sri H. R. Guruv Reddy
Sir, there are certain limitations here. First of all, it should be with the previous sanction of the Federal Government which is all powerful. There is no fear of any sort that any such agreement would be rushed through by any two interested parties without first of all coming before the Federal Government and taking its consent. Next, there is another limitation imposed, namely, that there should be a competent agreement under which this action could be taken, if at all. Therefore, unless and until these two portions of this amendment come into operation no such administrative control could be taken over by a State as a matter of course.


4.34.64
Sri H. R. Guruv Reddy
Sir, it is but just and right that this House having passed Clause 8, as amended in the Provincial Constitution, should allow that freedom to the States also. It provides nothing more than this.


4.34.65
Sir, I move that the consideration so far as this proposition is concerned should be adjourned. The reason is very simple. In considering the Provincial Constitution, the House decided that there should be a similar power given to a Province with regard to the States and in fairness it would appear that a corresponding power should be given to the States. But, at the same time till the Union Powers are discussed and considered and the House is in a position to judge the nature and scope of the subjects for which the States are coming, it would be premature to consider this proposition. This clause stands by itself. It is not in the nature of an amendment but an independent proposition. Any discussion of its merits at the present stage, I submit, will not be very desirable. I therefore submit, Sir, that consideration of this should be postponed till after the Union Powers Committee's Report is discussed by the House.

(Shri Gopikrishna Vijayavargiya rose to speak.)

4.34.66
President
Do you want to speak on the main amendment or on the suggestion of Mr. Munshi?


4.34.67
Gopikrishna Vijayavargiya
On Mr. Munshi's suggestion.


4.34.68
Gopikrishna Vijayavargiya
Sir, I come from a State. I am dead against the amendment that has been proposed. (Hear, hear.) As long as there is dissimilarity between the political situation in the States and the Provinces, the States should not be given any further rights or any such rights as are proposed. But, as this is a controversial subject, as Mr. Munshi says it ought to be postponed, I think it ought to be postponed.


4.34.69
H.R. Guruv Reddy
I have no objection to its postponement.


4.34.70
President
The suggestion is that the discussion of this clause be postponed till after we have discussed the Union Powers Committee's Report. Is it the desire of the House that this should be postponed?


4.34.71
Unnamed Members
Yes.


4.34.72
President
It is postponed.


4.34.73
President
Mr. Ananthasayanam Ayyangar, you gave notice of a proposition that another clause be added in Supplementary list.


4.34.74
M. Ananthasayanam Ayyangar
I am not moving it. Srimati Durgabai also is not moving it. I do not move my amendment No. 5 in Supplementary List No. IV.

PART VII

4.34.75
President
We shall now take up Part VII.


4.34.76
N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar
Sir, this is a very important part of the Constitution we are considering. The first two clauses raise issues of far reaching importance and if you agree, Sir, and the House agrees, I would ask for permission to postpone the moving of Clauses 1 and 2 to the next session. In doing so, I wish only to say that it will be necessary for us to get more particulars ready under Clause 2 particularly before we shall be in a position to answer all the criticisms that may be levelled against the clauses as they stand. It has been in the minds of the framers of these clauses that we should set up an expert committee on finance which will give a detailed investigation and submit proposals which could be embodied in the text of this Constitution. I hope, Sir, it will be possible for them to request you to appoint a Committee of this sort so that that Committee's report will be available to us before the next session or soon after we commence that session. Sir, if you agree, I request permission not to move Clauses 1 and 2.

CLAUSE 3

4.34.77
President
You may proceed to Clause 3.


4.34.78
Acharya Jugal Kishore
Clause 3, I move:

"The Federal Government will have power to make subventions or grants out of Federal revenues for any purpose, notwithstanding that the purpose is not one with respect to which the Federal Parliament may make laws. "


4.34.79
Acharya Jugal Kishore
This is intended to enable the Federal Government to subsidise activities within the range of provincial functions, or, to put it more accurately, outside the range of Federal functions. A power of this sort is necessary in order to enable the Federal Government to use revenues which are primarily raised for meeting the expenditure on Federal administration for items of expenditure which will not ordinarily fall within that field. This liberty to do so will also be helpful in another way. There are various developmental activities in different directions which the units will have to take up and the units may not have adequate finance for meeting the expenditure on these activities. It will be necessary, I think, for the Federal Government to sanction subventions in aid of such developmental activities though they are purely within the provincial sphere. In the interest of the development of the country as a whole, this power in the Federal Government is a very necessary weapon for them to have.


4.34.80
President
Mr. Omeo Kumar Das has given notice of an amendment.


4.34.81
Shriyut Omeo Kumar Das
Sir, I am not going to move the amendment that stands in my name. I am more interested in Clause 2 the discussion of which clause has been postponed to a later date and we are assured that an Expert Committee will investigate the whole problem. I hope and trust that our province will certainly get a fair deal from that Committee but I would like to make a few general observations on Clause 3 if you will permit me to do so, after all the amendments are moved.


4.34.82
President
Yes, we will take Clause 3 and the amendments thereto first. If you wish to take part in the discussion, you may do so later.

(Messrs. H. V. Pataskar, T. A. Ramalingam Chettiar, H. J. Khandekar and Rev. J. Nichols-Roy did not move amendments Nos. 375, 376, 377 in the main list and No. 23 in Supplementary List I.)

4.34.83
President
So far as I can see there is no other amendment to Clause 3. The clause is open for discussion.


4.34.83
Biswanath Das
Sir, I agree with Sir N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar that this is the most important chapter of the Union Constitution that has been placed before us. Sir, in the fundamental rights we have not yet ensured that there should be social security for all. Social security means social justice for all and there should be certain minimum adequate standard of living for all. There should not only be public health and public safety, there should also be minimum education ensured for all. Unfortunately, Sir, we had an alien government which lived for British domination. Its financial and economic policy was to take all it could take to maintain British Imperialism and British domination not only in India but throughout Asia. It gave nothing to the Provinces. If it gave to the poorer provinces like Orissa or Assam anything, it was just a sustenance allowance and nothing more. The British accession to India meant only expansion of British trade and commerce and there was development and prosperity only in ports like Calcutta, Bombay, Madras and Karachi, and all communications led to these ports and hence these Provinces became so prosperous. Provinces that came later, I mean my own province of Orissa or even Assam, they were victims of circumstances like a poor man's home where children often come and they are not wanted by the parents because they cannot equip them properly for life or give them proper food or proper education.


4.34.84
Biswanath Das
Sir, I am sick of hearing in this House that in certain respects we are following the Government of India Act, 1935. Those of us who opposed the enactment of that Act and those of us who knew stage by stage how the stranglehold of Britain and the autocratic British government was being perpetuated in the Government of India Act, feel ashamed and humiliated to hear that today, when we are coming to Free India or Dominion India within a fortnight or so, we are trying to frame a constitution for India on the lines of the Government of India Act that perpetuated these strangleholds on India and postponed the formation of the Federal Government from 1935 to 1947. Sir, these few sections that we find in the Government of India Act, --Sections 136 to 149--about finances and borrowing, about subventions and grants-in-aid were not inserted with any intention of securing social security and social justice to the people of the Provinces that came into existence accidentally. We have seen how these sections were flouted when the World War II came in 1939. By a particular section- section 126 (a) which was passed in 1939, all the Provinces, all the Provincial resources and all the people of India were made the hand-maidens and slaves of the British Government, so that the soldiers of India could help the British Government to fight this war and achieve victory at the cost of India. We know what happened. Nearly Rs. 5,000 crores worth of material was sent out of India to Britain and her allies at controlled pre-war rates and in the same way India was robbed of her food and the result was that 50 to 75 lakhs of people died in Bengal of famine and starvation. Another result was inflation. That was the social security and social justice that the Government of India Act gave us.


4.34.85
Biswanath Das
To me, Sir, it is painful that in the preamble of the Union Constitution it has not been clearly laid down that the objective is to maintain peace and well-being of the people and bring prosperity to the people of India--it has not yet been defined; I believe and I hope it will be defined. But I think it should be laid down that the first function of the State is to see to the well-being of the people, --not to rule as the British Government have so long ruled and exploited India for England's benefit and for India's misery and death. Therefore, Sir, I am glad to hear from Sir Gopalaswami that a Financial Inquiry Committee will be appointed. But I hope such a Committee would contain not only eminent lawyers but also financiers, economists, etc., who can lay down what is the minimum standard of social security that India's present over-burdened and over saddled financial and economic conditions will warrant for the people of India. In Part V we have provided for a strong Centre, but is it the duty of the Centre only to have administrative functions and legislative functions? I would very much like that the Union Powers Committee contained also men with knowledge of high economics and finance. I know that my friend Pandit Govind Ballabh Pant was in it and he is of course a financial expert, but there might well have been others. It is social justice and social security that we want. The administration is of course going on. I am sorry to express this view, but I have come to the conclusion that the Union Constitution has not lightened the administrative rigour that was in the Government of India Act. Of course, they will bring the final Union Constitution before us and we shall examine it in October; but judging from the tendency of speeches that we have listened to in this House by our leaders and the members of the Union Powers Committee, I find that they want power--administrative power, legislative power and so on. But these are only the tools for the contentment and happiness of the millions by maintaining peace and tranquillity in the country. It is the financial and economic chapter of the Union Constitution that will show what these people really mean, whether they want to ensure social justice or whether they want to evolve another bureaucratic government where power politics will dominate. Those who are in power whether they be my brothers or cousins, are bound to exercise their power in the same way as the British did. The reason is that most of us have grown old in the British tradition. It is very difficult, Sir, to discard that tradition and suddenly visualise democratic principles, so that we may render social justice and secure social security for our teeming millions. I therefore welcome the Union Powers Committee Report, which also will be discussed in the August Session. There I find the Committee members have gone a stage further than the draft of this Union Constitution Committee. There they say: (vide para 6 of 2nd report.)

(Interruption)

4.34.86
President
I do not wish to interrupt the Hon'ble Member, but may I remind him that we are discussing Clause 3 now? It relates to subventions.


4.34.87
Biswanath Das
I know, Sir. It is on that question I am talking. That clause talks of giving charity to the Provinces. I do not want any charity, I am merely reading out what the Union Powers Committee have said on this point, because that explains their attitude.


4.34.88
Acharya Jugal Kishore
They, say:

"It is quite clear, however, that the retention by the Federation of the proceeds of the taxes specified by us would disturb, in some cases violently, the financial stability of Units and we therefore recommend that provision should be made for an assignment or a share of the proceeds of some of these taxes on a basis to be determined by the Federation from time to time."


4.34.89
Acharya Jugal Kishore
Sir. whether it is the Finance Minister, or the President or the Federal Government, or whoever gives subvention or charities or grants-in-aid--I do not want that. I want that it should be statutorily provided for in the Constitution Act. My friend Sir Gopalaswami has told us that there would be an Expert Committee. But I would like that these grants-in-aid should be statutorily provided and they should not be charity grants of the Finance Minister, whoever he may be. He might be the beat expert or the best friend of the poor man, it does not matter. These grants-in-aid or subventions should be reviewed periodically, say, every three years or five years. This is the suggestion that I put forward. I want them to state definitely what they are going to do for the teeming millions. The Provinces will come in as poor zamindaries and big zamindaries. While I support Clause 3 because it gives me a chance to enunciate my views before this House and which I hope the Union Powers Committee will accept, I hope that the sections in the Constitution Act will render social justice and ensure minimum standard of living to every citizen in India.


4.34.90
Shriyut Omeo Kumar Das
Mr. President, Sir, I have already told you while withdrawing my amendment I would like to make a few observations in support of this clause--Clause 3.


4.34.91
Shriyut Omeo Kumar Das
Sir, the question of subsidies has been in all federations a very perplexing one. But still these questions are being solved in a spirit of compromise. In all the federations, the constitution makers approach this problem with a spirit of compromise and try to give a fair deal to all the units. Sir, we are entrusted with the task of framing our constitution and we have to deal with this most perplexing question of subsidies. This question is all the more perplexing- situated as we are with national income extremely low and with so many different problems in different provinces, with so many backward communities and tribes the provinces and many other complicated problems. Still I feel that the Expert Committee which will be set up in future will deal with this question and try to give a fair deal to all the units.


4.34.92
Shriyut Omeo Kumar Das
While framing this draft constitution for the Union we have almost accepted the constitutional set-up envisaged in the Government of India Act, and I have a lurking suspicion in my mind that we may also accept the financial arrangement that was provided for in that Government of India Act. Sir, it is not necessary for me to tell this House that the financial arrangement set up under that Act was conceived with a different outlook. At that time the Provinces were confronted with deficits and the Committee that was set up at that time, I mean the Otto Neimeyer Committee, had to determine how to bring about budgetary equilibrium. Besides, Sir, the Committee approached this question of budgetary equilibrium with the notions which prevailed regarding public finance at that time. These notions have now undergone a radical change in these few years and they have been replaced by a different criterion--the criterion of maintaining full employment, whether maximum advantage for the people can be brought about by a financial system which was designed to meet a static economy is now being called upon to meet a situation which is essentially dynamic. Sir, a government of the people and by the people is being installed and what will be the meaning, and what will be the utility of that government if it cannot bring about the maximum advantage to the people?


4.34.93
Shriyut Omeo Kumar Das
Sir, it will not, perhaps, be out of place if I refer here to the Canadian or Australian constitutions. The framers of those constitutions have evolved a better system of meeting the provincial requirements by giving better subsidies to the provincial units. Sir, in my province of Assam, there are special problems. The country is agricultural without any big industries. It is a land full of backward tribes and communities and a large number of backward people have been artificially transferred to that land as labourers to the tea plantations. Then there are the turbulent rivers which devastate the smiling countryside. There are also virulent diseases which bring about ruin to happy families. They need control. These are big problems and unless we have a better financial system, we cannot hope to meet these crying needs. No doubt, ours is a backward country, but I have to bring to the notice of this House that we are one of the largest contributors to the Central exchequer, by way of the export duty on tea and jute and the excise duty on petrol. By these means we contribute to the Central exchequer no less than seven crores of rupees. But, under the present financial arrangement we are receiving only a trifling subvention of Rs. 25 lakhs. I do hope that the expert committee which investigates this question hereafter will try to give a fair deal to Assam.


4.34.94
Shriyut Omeo Kumar Das
With these words I beg to support Clause 3.


4.34.95
Mr. Mohammad Sheriff
Mr. President, Sir, those who were responsible for bringing out this Report deserve our congratulations for having thought it desirable to make provisions for the uplift of those who are undergoing so many hardships. So far as this particular clause is concerned, it proposes that the Federal Government, should have the power to make subventions or grants out of federal revenues for any purpose notwithstanding that the purpose is not one with respect to which the Federal Parliament may make laws. There is no need for me to tell you, Sir, that we have got several post-war schemes, schemes designed to improve the economic and commercial and educational standard of the people. These schemes are on the anvil, but it is very necessary that money should be got to put them into execution. So far as the Provinces are concerned, they do not have the wherewithal to put these schemes into immediate effect. And so far as poverty is concerned it is rampant not only in the northern provinces, but also in the south. So many people are dying of starvation and hunger and the enlightenment and education advance of the masses should receive immediate attention too.


4.34.96
Mr. Mohammad Sheriff
So far as these nation-building items are concerned, I do not think the provinces have the money and it is the duty of the Centre to see that money is supplied to them so that out of this money, they may spend for the needs and requirements of the poor people and in the way of their enlightenment and education. These are the two items which will bring progress and advancement to the country. These are very necessary and it is very good of the framers of the report that they should have taken this aspect of the question and decided that from out of the Federal revenues provinces also would have necessary funds. With these words, Sir, I have very great pleasure in supporting it.


4.34.97
President
I should have thought that it is a very innocent and simple clause and would not have required much discussion. I would ask the House whether further discussion is necessary since there is no opposition.


4.34.98
No, no.


4.34.99
Acharya Jugal Kishore
The question is:

"The Federal Government will have power to make subventions or grants out of Federal revenues for any purpose, notwithstanding that the purpose is not one with respect to which the Federal Parliament may make laws."

Clause 3 was adopted.
CLAUSE 4

4.34.100
Acharya Jugal Kishore
I beg to move Clause 4:

"The Federal Government will have power to borrow for any of the purposes of the Federation upon the security of Federal revenues subject to such limitations and conditions as may be fixed by federal law."


4.34.101
Acharya Jugal Kishore
This is what every Government has to do if it has to meet expenditure which it cannot meet out of its current revenues, for it has got to meet expenditure whose effects might be of a lasting character-expenditure of a developmental nature. The raising of funds by borrowing is a very necessary item in any kind of governmental finance. This clause is a very necessary item in the Constitution.


4.34.102
President
Is there any amendment of which any member has given notice?


4.34.103
M. S. Aney
I suggest that for the words, "upon the security of Federal revenues" substitute "upon the security of Federal assets and revenues''.


4.34.104
Acharya Jugal Kishore
Mr. Aney suggests “upon the security of federal asset and revenues”.


4.34.105
N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar
When we consider the draft we will take that into account. I do not think it is really necessary.


4.34.106
President
Is there any amendment to this clause?


4.34.107
Biswanath Das
I have one. It is amendment No. 24 in supplementary list No. I.


4.34.108
President
That I take it is in connection with a new clause. It does not refer to this clause.


4.34.109
Acharya Jugal Kishore
The question is:

"The Federal Government will have power to borrow for any of the purposes of the Federation upon the security of Federal revenues subject to such limitations and conditions as may be fixed by federal law."

Clause 4 was adopted.
CLAUSE 5

4.34.110
Acharya Jugal Kishore
Sir; I move:

"The Federal Government will have power to grant a loan to, or guarantee a loan by, any Unit of the Federation on such terms and under such conditions as it may prescribe."


4.34.111
Acharya Jugal Kishore
This also is a simple and very necessary clause. The Federal Government makes itself responsible for the solvency and the adequate meeting of the expenditure of the Units by the governments of those Units. If they stand in need of a loan the Federal Government will either grant the loan or guarantee a loan which is raised by the Unit.


4.34.112
N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar
Sir, I move.

(Amendments 378 and 379 in List No. 2 were not moved.)

4.34.113
Acharya Jugal Kishore
There is no amendment to this. The question is:

"The Federal Government will have power to grant a loan to, or guarantee a loan by, any Unit of the Federation on such terms and under such conditions as it may prescribe."

Clause 5 was adopted.

4.34.114
President
I have notice of an amendment to this part by way of an addition.


4.34.115
Biswanath Das
I am not moving it.


4.34.116
T.T Krishnamachari
I am not moving VII-A, but VII-B and I would therefore like VII-B to be renumbered as VII-A. Sir, I move:

"Part VII-A. There shall be an Inter State Commission constituted in the manner prescribed by federal law, with such powers of adjudication and administration as may be similarly prescribed for the execution and maintenance of the provisions of this Constitution relating to trade and commerce and generally for adjudicating in similar matters as may be referred to it from time to time by the President".


4.34.177
T.T Krishnamachari
The object of my moving this amendment is that in the matter of regulation of trade and commerce, so far as this Constitution is concerned the only reference we have come across so far is Clause 10 in the Fundamental Rights which this House accepted in a previous session. Clause 10 says:

"Subject to regulation by the law of the Union, trade and commercial and intercourse among the units and between the citizens shall be free."


4.34.178
T.T Krishnamachari
I find in the report that has been submitted by the Union Powers Committee that trade and commerce with foreign countries is covered by item 17 in List No. I, the Federal List, and trade and commerce with the provinces is included in item 26 in List 2, the Provincial List. Actually, these two items follow closely the corresponding items in the Government of India Act, 1935, viz., item 19 in List I, Schedule VII and item 23 in List II of the same schedule. A slight change has been made in the wording of these two items but the contents are substantially the same. I however find a lacuna in the new proposals for a Constitution in this respect. I find this Constitution does not contain any clause analogous to Section 297 of the Government of India Act which laid a definite embargo on any device by legislation to put a ban on the freedom of inter-provincial trade. I have no doubt that the Members of this House are fully aware of this particular section in the 1935 Act and of the implications that go with it. I am therefore somewhat surprised that it should find no corresponding mention in this Constitution. Apparently, the framers of this Federal Constitution have been guided by the practice that obtains in the matters of dealing with this subject in other federal constitutions in the world.


4.34.179
T.T Krishnamachari
Sir, so far as the United States is concerned the position is that in article I, section 8 of the Constitution, there is a reference in the powers of the Congress to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several States which has now become practically the sheet-anchor of a vast amount of judicial decisions and has resulted in the creation of a number of administrative bodies to regulate various types of commercial activities within the territory of the United States. I do not think that a Federation, like the one we envisage for ourselves, could leave such important matters as vague as they are in the American Constitution, for the reason that while the American Constitution is of the presidential type where the initiative rests with a single individual-- the president, ours is to be of the parliamentary type where the initiative is not held by any one person. We have in this matter rather to look to the examples of other Federal Constitutions like those of Canada and Australia.


4.34.180
T.T Krishnamachari
So far as Canada is concerned, regulation of trade and commerce finds explicit reference in the distribution of powers in Section 91, Item 2 of that country's Constitution. Therefore, it does not offer any parallel to the position in which we are placed today. The Australian Constitution, however, is more or less on the lines we have envisaged for our Constitution in regard to trade and commerce. There is a reference in section 51 of the Australian Constitution to internal trade and commerce. But, apparently having learnt from the experience of the United States they have been wise enough to add a few more sections to their Constitution in the matter of the regulation of trade and commerce. These are sections 101, 102, 103 and 104 and I am now referring to section 101. My amendment is more or less a verbatim copy of this section 101 which provides for the appointment of an inter-State commission for the purposes of adjudication and administration of the provision of the Constitution in regard to trade and commerce.


4.34.181
T.T Krishnamachari
Sir, it might be said that the wording of this particular amendment of mine is not appropriate. Actually, I have gone a little further than the wording of this section in the Australian Constitution as I have added the words: "and generally for adjudicating in similar matters as may be referred to it from time to time by the President". My reason for doing so is that in section 135 of the Government of India Act, provision has been made for the Governor-General bringing into being a Provincial Council where matters like this may be threshed out and frictions, strains and stresses in the Constitution that might exist, eased by discussion amongst the representatives of the units. We find no provision for any such agency corresponding to this has been made in the Constitution we are now discussing. Therefore, I felt that the scope of my amendment should be wider than that of section 101 of the Australian Act and it should be open to the President to refer other matters also to this Inter-State Commission.


4.34.182
T.T Krishnamachari
Sir, it might be said that a very bold reference like this does not help one very much. What the position of the Inter-State Commission should be I am leaving to the federal law to lay down. I have not copied the parallel section of the Australian Act No. 103 and have not provided that the Members should be so many in number, that they should have such and such qualifications and so on. These are matters which have to be considered at length later on when the Constitution is in operation and a federal law has to be enacted for the purpose. What I desire is that some room should be left for enlarging the powers of this Inter State Commission. Whether it is only matters regarding trade and commerce and others incidental should be referred to the Commission or whether it should be the means by which some kind of co-ordination in the economic activities of the Units could be achieved and such friction as might arise smoothened are matters which may be left to the draftsman of that constitutional act and to the federal law that may be brought into being later on. I hope, Sir, it will be possible for the mover to accept my amendment. The Honourable Sir N. Gopalaswami Ayyahgar You are the mover. I meant the mover of the report of the Union Constitution committees proposals. I am quite willing to agree to any changes being made by the draftsmen in my amendment in regard to the wording of it before it comes to us finally in the form of a draft Bill commend my amendment to the House for its acceptance. Sir, I move.


4.34.183
K. Santhanam
Sir, I beg to support the amendment moved by my friend Mr. T. T. Krishnamachari. In all federal constitutions, there is always a conflict between the need for unity and the need for local autonomy. In certain respects, this reconciliation has to be achieved through federal legislation and administration. But this process is not available in the case of many matters and so, certain non-federal institutions have to be set up. The actual scope of Mr. T. T. Krishnamachari's amendment is rather narrow. I hope when the time comes we shall be able to expand it. We have to evolve not only this Commission, but many Commissions for voluntary co-operation between the Units. Let us for instance, take the sales tax. It is a provincial tax. I should expect in the coming years this tax becoming one of the most important sources of revenue for the Units. But unless the Units voluntarily co-operate with one another and evolve a uniform method of taxation, there may be great shifting of trade from one Unit to another to the detriment of the normal development of the Units. In certain contingencies, the Units may even be driven to the necessity of handing over the collection and distribution of this tax to the federation. It is better for that in the exercise of their functions, the Units voluntarily co-operate, create a machinery for such co-operation and evolve certain standards and methods keeping to themselves full liberty and discretion to make local variations. It is more as a sample of voluntary inter-provincial co-operation that I support this amendment. As this will be in the Statute Book as part of the Constitution it will set up a precedent which will give a sort of pattern for Units to join in many other spheres. Especially in matters like irrigation, agriculture, etc. such commissions will be of great use. So, I suggest that this matter should be gone into by a Special Committee and its scope investigated before it is put in the draft Constitution.


4.34.184
K. Santhanam
How these Commissions should be constituted, whether they should be elected by the legislatures or nominated by the Units, all these matters require careful consideration and I hope proper steps will be taken to have the scheme circulated among the provincial governments and only after their consent is taken to put it in the final draft of the constitution.


4.34.185
Biswanath Das
Mr. President, Sir I welcome this proposition as it is of a very important nature but I do feel that the wording is rather narrow. Such an Inter-State Commission also requires to investigate the economic conditions of the country, and apart from trade and commerce, I would suggest that the word 'economics' should also be put into it. The question of money will play, a prominent part in the future constitution, and as was stated only a few minutes ago by Mr. B. Das in connection with another clause, for the nation-building programmes a good deal of money will be required as subventions from the federal government to the provinces and unless we have got sufficient money for the purpose of giving subventions, it is not possible for the nation-building programmes to be accomplished. It has been, Sir, our cherished desire, that when India becomes free, the nation-building programmes will be given a new fillip, and unless we have also an Economic Commission of the nature proposed for trade and commerce, I assure you, Sir, we shall never be able to go ahead with our nation-building programmes. This is of considerable importance both to the provinces and the federation. When the question of finances to be given to the various provinces is raised, the federal government will say that they themselves are hard pressed for money. Therefore, it is necessary that in the constitution itself provision should be made whereby an Economic Commission will be set up so that they may devise ways and means of advancing the nation-building programmes, for instance, public health, social security, social co-operation. All these things require immediate attention. If we do not give them immediate attention, I can assure you, Sir, that the people will not be content with any type of constitution that we may make. In our Objectives Resolution itself we have made it perfectly clear that we stand for the socialist system. Sir, this is a welcome suggestion but I do request the Honourable mover to add the word 'economics' also in the wording of the clause. We want to do something really new, something really big for the benefit of the people, and for that it is very necessary that we should have an Economic Commission. While therefore supporting this amendment, I request that the word 'economic' may be added in it.


4.34.186
President
Does anyone else wish to speak?


4.34.187
N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar
Sir, I do not propose to say much on this resolution. The principle of it is sound. It says that provision should be made in the constitution for setting up an Inter-State Commission for the purposes which the mover of this amendment has already explained in detail to the House. I would only say that, in accepting this amendment, I do not stand committed to the actual terms of it, but would like to reserve to liberty to alter the language perhaps even the substance of what is contained in this amendment before we translate it into a section or sections in the Union Constitution. Sir, I accept it.


4.34.188
President
I would now put the amendment of Mr. T. T. Krishnamachari to vote.

The motion was adopted.

4.34.189
N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar
Part VIII refers to the Directly Administered Areas. The clauses that I want to move run as follows:--

"1. The Chief Commissioners' Provinces should continue to be administered by the Centre as under the Government of India Act 1935, as interim measure, the question of any change in the system being considered subsequently, and all centrally administered areas including the Andamans and the Nicobar Islands should be specifically mentioned in the Constitution.

2. Appropriate provision should be made in the Constitution for the administration of tribal areas."


4.34.190
N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar
The latter clause really is dependent upon the report we shall receive from the Advisory Committee. Whatever is recommended by that Committee and accepted by the House will go into the new constitution.


4.34.191
N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar
As regards the directly administered areas the Committee recommends that the existing state of things might continue, the question of making any changes in the constitution and administration of these Chief Commissioners' provinces being left to be attended to in the Federal Parliament after it comes into being.


4.34.192
President
There are certain amendments to this clause.

(Mr. H. J. Khandekar did not move his amendment No., 380)

4.34.193
Gokulbbai Daulatram Bhatt
Mr. President, another improved form of the amendment, conveying nearly the same sense which my amendment has, is about to be moved and so I am not going to move mine.


4.34.194
Mr. Deshbandhu Gupta
Mr. President the amendment which I am going to move runs as follows:--

"That consideration of clause I be postponed and that a special Sub-Committee consisting of seven members to be nominated by the President should be recommended before the next session of the Constituent Assembly to suggest suitable constitutional changes to be brought about in the administrative systems of the Chief Commissioners' provinces so as to accord with the changed conditions in the country and to give them their due place in the democratic Constitution of Free India."


4.34.195
Mr. Deshbandhu Gupta
Regarding this, I have only to submit that according to the recommendations of the Union Constitution Committee, the Constituent Assembly, at present, intends doing nothing for Chief Commissioners' provinces. I consulted the members of the Union Constitution Committee, Provincial Constitution Committee and some other members, and I have reached this conclusion. They do not intend that in the Chief Commissioners' Provinces which include the three major "provinces" of Delhi, Ajmer-Merwara and Coorg, the present form of administration should be continued any longer. But it is only for the sake of convenience that they have recommended it. Naturally, when the population of these districts comes to about 30 lacs, they desire that on the occasion of the formation of the Constitution for the whole of the country, there should be a mention of these districts also in that constitution, and that there should be a definite recommendation for their administration in future. With this view, I am placing this amendment before you.


4.34.196
Mr. Deshbandhu Gupta
I am of opinion that since we appointed the Union Constitution Committee to formulate a constitution for the centre and the provinces likewise it was necessary to appoint a Committee for Chief Commissioners' Provinces, though they are few in number and have a small population which however is not negligible. I am glad that in a way it is an agreed amendment and I think that when the Committee is appointed, it would consider all aspects of this matter. Most of you are residents of Delhi in this way that you spend a major portion of the year here. Most of you are often our guests, and therefore, I think that when the difficulties of Delhi people come before you, this Constitution Committee will duly consider them.


4.34.197
Mr. Deshbandhu Gupta
I do not wish to say anything more at present. Considering the difficulties that the people in the Chief Commissioners' provinces have to face, they should not be deprived of any kind of self-government now. Besides this, the part they have played in the struggle for freedom should come before the Committee and I hope it would recommend such a constitution as would be acceptable to the whole House.


4.34.198
Mr. Deshbandhu Gupta
I do not want to take up the time of the House for long. I hope that this amendment will be accepted. If this amendment is approved, the other amendments of which notices have been given by us need not be moved.


4.34.199
President
There are other amendments to the clause, but if the amendment suggested by Mr. Deshbandhu Gupta is accepted, it will not be necessary to consider the other amendments.


4.34.200
N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar
I accept his amendment except that I would substitute the word 'Committee' for 'Sub-Committee'.


4.34.201
President
It is accepted by Sir, N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar.


4.34.202
B. K. Sidhwa
Sir, I rise to support this motion, not because, Sir, in supporting it, I want to make a speech but I want to impress upon the members who will form the Committee for this purpose to realise the importance of this question, and, therefore, I do feel some remarks are appropriate at this stage, when seconding this motion. There are so many subjects concerning Delhi City, which have been ignored all along. It is said that Delhi is the seat of Imperial Government. The government here looks to all-India affairs and in this way, they have neglected Delhi City and the Province. By way of illustration, there is a transport company here in Delhi called G.N.I.T. and people are cursing this transport Co., because it could not cope with the traffic and at the same time the authorities are charging fabulously heavy rates. Now, if Delhi had its own provincial government, and if this matter came within their jurisdiction, it would certainly look into the matter at once. Transport licence is given by local Governments and if a responsible separate Government existed they would either nationalise the service as the Punjab Government did or they would have the service improved. It may look a small matter, but nevertheless it affects the average man. The man in the street accuses the Government for doing nothing in the matter. Then there are questions like irrigation, P.W.D., prohibition, etc. If there is a separate provincial organization it will certainly look into the matter, no matter what the population is. Because Delhi is a capital town, this has been ignored in the past. I do feel strongly that because Delhi has been the capital of India, this city and the adjoining villages have been ignored in the past.


4.34.203
B. K. Sidhwa
Sir, I therefore welcome this motion and I do impress upon the Committee to bear all this in mind. I want a government responsible to this Legislature, so that it can become a forum for ventilating the grievances of the public of the city of Delhi. From this point of view, Sir, I heartily support this motion. It is already overdue. I must state, Sir, when I found in the Constitution that Delhi will probably remain as it is and later on in the future Constitution a Commission may be set up, I moved also an amendment that in the new Constitution to come, Delhi should have its own Legislature and the public must be enabled to ventilate the grievances of the people of the City or the Province. Therefore, Sir, I whole heartedly support this Motion.


4.34.204
C. M. Poonacha
Mr. President, Sir, I thank Sir Gopalaswami Ayyangar for having accepted this amendment of ours and in doing so, I would like to make some observations by way of suggestions. On a previous occasion, Sir, on the floor of this House, I had suggested that a Committee of this type should be appointed to examine the question of the Chief Commissioner's Provinces. The problem of the Chief Commissioners' Provinces is not so simple as it appears to be. The problem of each of these areas varies from the other. This fact is borne out in the reports of the Constitutional Enquiries that preceded the passing of the 1919 and 1935 Acts. The question of the Chief Commissioners' Provinces was not properly dealt with in 1919 and 1935 Acts and the question is still hanging fire. Therefore, Sir, I feel that a full examination of the conditions obtaining in each of these provinces as under the 1935 Acts should be undertaken and suitable recommendations made. It may be necessary for that purpose to make local enquiries or at least elicit view points through a set of questionnaire.


4.34.205
C. M. Poonacha
So far as Coorg is concerned, I had stated on a previous occasion that I have given a definite assurance in the Legislative Council there at the time of my election to this Assembly to the effect that the opinion of the people of Coorg will be ascertained before bringing any drastic changes in the system of administration of Coorg. Coorg has its own problems and requires a through investigation. It may not be out of place here, Sir, if I suggest that the Committee would do well to visit Coorg in order to make a first hand study of the Coorg Legislative Council there. This Council has been functioning for the last 24 years and it would be of great use to the Committee to examine how it has been working for the last quarter of a century.


4.34.206
C. M. Poonacha
In conclusion, I may be permitted to say, Sir, that as the matter is of very vital importance to the people of these areas, the members representing the Chief Commissioners' Provinces in this Assembly should be associated in the deliberations of the Committee. As the matter is rather of a complicated nature, I would also suggest that our able constitutional lawyers who have worked so much for the preparation of this Report on the Union Constitution should be included in the Committee. This question deserves very careful examination and able guidance.


4.34.207
Mukut Bihari Lal Bhargava
Mr. President, Sir, I wholeheartedly support the amendment moved by Mr. Gupta. It is strange, Sir, that the Union Constitution Committee which was specially delegated with the authority to deal with the question of the Chief Commissioners' Provinces has not made any suggestion. It has simply deferred the whole question and has stated that the question of change in the system shall be taken up at a later stage. It is really a matter of great pleasure, Sir, that the sponsor of this clause has agreed to accept the amendment and that Committee will be appointed by the President to go into the question of the Chief Commissioners’ Provinces.


4.34.208
Mukut Bihari Lal Bhargava
Sir, the Chief Commissioners' Provinces are a variety of territories situated in different parts of the country and they have got a historical importance of their own. So far as my province, Ajmer-Merwara, is concerned, it is situated in the heart of Rajputanaand and is a place of historical importance. In fact, its strategic position has been the cause of all this autocratic administration that has prevailed in my province throughout the British rule. All efforts at effecting a change and amelioration in the administrative system have failed. The Minto-Morley Reforms of 1909, the Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms of 1919 and the Constitution Act of 1935 have left altogether unaffected and untouched the autocratic administrative system that prevails in this province and all other Chief Commissioners' Provinces. In fact, Sir, the recommendation of the Union Constitution Committee to the effect that this question may be taken up at a later stage is altogether out of tune with the democratic constitution of the Republic of India. Therefore, Sir, it is most opportune that simultaneously with the great constitutional changes in other provinces and in the Union, the constitution of the Chief Commissioners' Provinces, which is of a thoroughly autocratic nature, should be overhauled and brought into line with the rest of India. I hope, Sir, that the Special Committee which we are going to appoint will give due consideration to problems of each Chief Commissioners' Province and suggest a constitution which may be of a thoroughly democratic nature.


4.34.209
Mukut Bihari Lal Bhargava
So far as Ajmer is concerned, I say that it is a Province which deserves to be raised to the status of a full autonomous Governor's Province and the mere argument of its smallness or its slender financial resources should not stand in the way of conceding to the people their right of self-determination and their right to be masters in their own house. I therefore, suggest that the Sub-Committee that is to be appointed by you should consider the problem in all its aspects and should give due hearing to the representatives of the Chief Commissioners' Provinces. In fact, Sir, I wholeheartedly support Mr. Poonacha's suggestion that representatives of the Chief Commissioners' Provinces should be given adequate representation on this Sub-Committee. At any rate, the Sub-Committee should not arrive at any conclusion concerning these provinces unless and until they have given full hearing to the representatives of these provinces. I hope, Sir, that by the end of September, this Sub-Committee would be able to recommend to the House a constitution which will be thoroughly democratic and which will give to the people of these provinces a glimpse as to the liberty coming and as to the establishment of a republic in India. This question should not be shelved by the Committee in the way it has been shelved so far.


4.34.210
Mukut Bihari Lal Bhargava
With these remarks, I support the amendment.


4.34.211
Biswanath Das
Sir, I wholeheartedly support the resolution moved by my friend, Lala Deshbandhu Gupta. There must be a Committee to raise the administrative standard of these Chief Commissioners' Provinces and the people there should enjoy equal privileges like us.


4.34.212
Biswanath Das
I can visualise there will be difficulties. These Chief Commissioners' Provinces came into existence to maintain the British power and British autocracy in India. The last speaker was speaking on behalf of Ajmer-Merwara. Ajmer-Merwara was the Political Department's paradise so long. Although the Political Department is now abolished, that place still remains the Political Department's paradise and public representatives have little say in the matter.


4.34.213
Biswanath Das
Delhi, Sir, showed that British autocracy can do anything it likes in the very face of the Government of India, through the Chief Commissioner in Delhi. All along there was an English Chief Commissioner and he could do anything he liked in the face of the Central Assembly that is situated in one part of this building and in the face of the single representative of Delhi in the Central Assembly. The Delhi municipal administration is very antiquated and antedated. It is a body of jo-hukums and it elects the Advisory Council which is very strange indeed!


4.34.214
Biswanath Das
Then, Sir, I go to Panth Piploda in Rajputana, with a population of 15,000 people. Could the people have any representation? I suggest to the Committee that will enquire into this, that this should be identified with Ajmer-Merwara and form part of that Chief Commissioner's Province, be it a Governor's province or a Deputy Governor's province.


4.34.215
Biswanath Das
As far as the Andaman and Nicobar Islands are concerned, that blackhole plague-spot in India of which one heard so much, is inhabited by a few Indian ex-prisoners. The Nicobar Islands are inhabited by some 20,000 aboriginals. They live under very primitive customs and conditions.


4.34.216
Biswanath Das
So far, the Andaman and Nicobar Islands have been administered by a Chief Commissioner always recruited from the Assam Civil Service. I wish to suggest that the people there are not so enlightened except a few Englishmen and Anglo-Indians that have found settlement there for trade purposes. I suggest that the Andaman and Nicobar Islands should have representation in the Provincial Legislature of Assam Assembly and the people of Nicobar Islands should be treated as tribal people and must receive special protection like other tribal people. I do not think the Advisory Committee on Tribes have visited Nicobar Islands and enquired into the capacity and limitations of the people there.


4.34.217
Biswanath Das
As far as Coorg is concerned, it was created as a Chief Commissioner's Province and the Chief Commissioner there is all in all. The Chief Commissioner has all the freedom--I speak subject to correction by Mr. Poonacha--and is an autocrat. The Coorg planters, who are mostly British, think that it is a British Kingdom.


4.34.218
Biswanath Das
All these raise a fundamental issue, and as we are making a Constitution for the whole of India, these people should receive equal rights as we have; but how it can be adjusted is for the Committee to decide; but the Committee must visit Nicobar Islands and understand the problem of the people. In the same way, I support Mr. Poonacha's suggestion that the Committee should also identify the representatives of the locality. The Committee should visit Coorg. Perhaps, except my friend Sir Gopalaswami Ayyangar who might have visited Coorg on a holiday, very few of us have seen or have known the autocracy of Coorg; but those of us who know what the Chief Commissioners have been in the past can visualise the repression and oppression the people of Coorg must have gone through.


4.34.219
Mr. President, I wish to speak a few words regarding this resolution, from a particular point of view. I have great sympathy for the people of Ajmer-Merwara and other Chief Commissioners' Provinces. I have greater sympathy with Delhi in particular because there is considerable affinity between Delhi and my Constituency. As a matter of fact, before 1912 when Delhi became the capital of India, it was a part of the Ambala Division of the Punjab. Even now Ballabgarh, Sonepat and Palwal, the three Tahsils of Delhi, are included in the Rohtak Districts and portions of the Eastern Punjab are included in Delhi. There is that socio-economic homogeneity between Delhi and villages of the Eastern Punjab which is considered essential for the amalgamation of one region with another. Taking into consideration all these points this part of Delhi which is included in the Chief Commissioner's Province is in reality a major part of Ambala Division and has since long been trying for amalgamation in the Governor's province.


4.34.220
A resolution is shortly to come up before the House, in which the question of redistribution of provinces on cultural and linguistic basis will be discussed and before this many other important questions have also been discussed. Now this is a question which may be considered to be very vital. Large numbers of conferences are being held in the Punjab and U.P., demanding amalgamation of diffused homogeneous tracts of Ajmer-Merwara and Delhi into one province, because they speak the same language and have the same way of life. If it is intended to keep the organically united parts of the East Punjab separated for ever, then I would oppose the resolution. It is my desire that after the all-important question of the Independence of India is settled, we might be able to create some new provinces. Till then, no final decision should be taken on this question.


4.34.221
So far as the question of the constitution of Chief Commissioners' Provinces is concerned, I am not opposed to it. I have only to submit that the Chief Commissioners' Provinces should also get their rights. When the rest of India is getting a democratic constitution, similar rights should also be granted to them by the Legislature. I am not opposed to it. I have always been putting questions in the Central Legislature regarding these parts of Delhi. They are our own part and parcel. I have every sympathy with them and do want that they should be excluded from the list of provinces. I wish that Dr. Pattabhi's scheme of redistribution of provinces on cultural and linguistic basis should remain intact. This question should on no account be finally decided now. This question should be decided on its own merits. I have no objection if this question is referred to a Committee. It is not my intention that the question should be decided irrevocably. With these words, I support the resolution.


4.34.222
Jaipal Singh
Mr. President, I welcome the suggestion that a Sub-Committee be appointed to look into the future position of the Chief Commissioners' Provinces. My own interest lies in the fact that some of these Provinces are overwhelmingly inhabited by tribals, the Andaman and the Nicobar Islands in particular. Some reference has been made about the two Sub-Committees which have been appointed by the Constituent Assembly to settle the question of Adibasi tracts, six fully excluded and 18 partially excluded areas, and, I think, it is necessary the position should be made quite clear here that these two Sub-Committees were bound by the very expression that was used, that is to say that they were to examine no more than those Adibasi tracts, the excluded areas and the partially excluded areas. That is how the Committee began their work but, now, a more generous interpretation has been put to those wordings. They may now make recommendations also for tribals who are outside those so-called tribal areas. That being the case, Sir, the two Tribal Sub-Committees are, I think, equally interested in the work that may be done by the Sub-Committee suggested by the mover of this amendment. My own suggestion is that some members from the present Tribal Sub-Committees may be incorporated in the Sub-Committee that is to go into and examine the position of the Chief Commissioner's Provinces because there are some provinces where the whole problem will be one which will have to deal with the tribals. I support the amendment.


4.34.223
President
I will now put the amendment to vote. It has been accepted by the mover.

The amendment was adopted.
PART VIII--CLAUSE 2

4.34.224
President
We may now take up Clause 2.


4.34.225
N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar
I have already moved it, Sir.


4.34.226
K. Santhanam
On a point of order, Sir. The Tribal Committee has not yet submitted its report.


4.34.227
President
But that is the proposition before us. Does any one wish to speak on this clause?


4.34.228
Jaipal Singh
I have only a few words to say and I feel that they must be said in order to obviate a situation which might become very serious and dangerous in this country before long. Before I say that, I would like to repeat what I said a few minutes ago- that the tribal areas should include also the problem of tribals who are outside the defined tribal areas.


4.34.229
Jaipal Singh
Sir, His Excellency Sir Akbar Hydari, the Governor of Assam, visited the Naga Hills between June 26th and July 2nd. Some very unhappy developments have since then been brewing in the Naga Hills. Members may have read some news appearing in the press and several Members of the Interim Government, and I understand, you also, Sir, have received telegrams from some of the Nagas about what they intend to do. I myself have been receiving on an average, a telegram per day, the latest telegram becoming more confounded than the previous one. Each one seems to go one step further into the wilderness. The position, if I may have your permission to explain it, Sir, is this. The Nagas have been misguided by certain persons into thinking that, with the withdrawal of British authority, the country would go back to them. They think they are going to be in the same position as the State, where the so-called paramountcy would lapse back to the States, and, therefore, they could do exactly what they liked. The fact that the Naga Hills have always been part of India, have never been anything like a State, has not been pointed out to them. On the contrary, it seems the Nagas have been misguided more and more as days have been going along into the belief that the Naga Hills belong to them and that they were not part of India ever and further, that, as soon as the Dominion of India came into existence, the Naga Hills would be the exclusive property of the Nagas. Sir, some of the leaders of the Naga Hills came to Delhi recently and saw some of the prominent Members of the Interim Government. Those of us who came into contact with them tried to tell them the blunt fact. (Interruption) I only desire that what I say should travel to the distant Naga Hills and reverberate there--that they have been misguided by interested persons into believing that they could do what the States could do by His Majesty's Government’s June 3 Plan. I only wanted to say this, because I think that it is necessary something definite should be said on the floor of this Assembly. One of the telegrams sent to the Members of the Interim Government puts it in the mouth of the Constituent Assembly that "the offer for joining the Union has been rejected by the Nagas". The fact is there has been no question of an offer. Besides, an offer is unnecessary and uncalled for because the Naga Hills have always been part of India. Therefore, there is no question of secession. They are not an Indian State.


4.34.230
Jaipal Singh
I hope the troubles that have been brewing there will be obviated by this definite statement on the floor of this Assembly. The unequivocal fact is that Naga Hills are part of India and they were never otherwise.


4.34.231
Shri V. I Muniswami Pillai
Sir, I had given notice of an amendment for the protection of aborigines. But in the note, it has been provided that any scheme that may come before the C.A. must be on the report of the Advisory Committee. So far, the Advisory Committee has not submitted its report regarding the tribal areas or the aboriginal tribes people living in the areas distributed in various provinces. Until that report comes, I do not wish to move this amendment.


4.34.232
President
That really means that the report of the Sub-Committee will have to be taken into consideration before any scheme could be provided. I do not think there will be any difference of opinion on such a clause. Therefore, I put it to vote.

Clause 2 was adopted.

4.34.233
President
I may say here that if there are any amendments they will be considered when the report comes up before the House.


4.34.234
K. Santhanam
Sir, I have an amendment which runs as follows:

"That after Part VIII the following new Part be inserted:--

PART VIII-A-EMERGENCY POWERS

1. If, at any time, the Governor of a Province is satisfied that a situation has arisen in which the Government of the Province cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of this constitution and has so reported to the President of the Federation or if the President of the Federation is satisfied that the normal government of the Province has broken down, he may take any action which he considers necessary including (1) suspension of the provincial constitution (2) promulgation of ordinance to be applicable to the Province; and (3) issuing of orders and instructions to the Governor and other officials of the Province.

When any such action is taken by the President he shall report to the Federal Legislature and unless his action is ratified by both Houses of Legislature within a period of six months from the date of his taking action the normal constitution of the province shall be restored. The situation shall be reviewed by the Federal Legislature and continuation, if necessary, of the emergency action approved every six months.

The President shall restore the normal constitution as soon as he is satisfied that the emergency has ceased to exist."


4.34.235
K. Santhanam
This is complementary to the provisions which have already been added to the provincial constitution. According to Mr. Gupte's amendment which has been carried, the Governor has power for two weeks to take emergency action. If an emergency arises, he will have to take the sanction of the President. If that emergency arises and this action for two weeks is not sufficient then only the President and the Federal Government have to take action. I have described two contingencies in which the President will have to take action. One is when the Governor reports that he is unable to manage the situation with his special powers given to him. Secondly, if the government of the Province has so utterly broken down that it can do nothing, and when there is no authority capable of dealing with the situation, then the President on his own initiative can take action. When he does so, he will have to report to the Federal Legislature and do so once in six months, and the normal constitution will be restored as soon as the emergency disappears.


4.34.236
K. Santhanam
I think the whole thing is quite logical and is absolutely necessary. For instance, if the police machinery in a province breaks down and the Governor can do nothing in the matter, he will have to invoke the powers of the President and this provision gives these powers to the President. Therefore, I hope the new provision which I have suggested will be accepted unanimously by the whole House.


4.34.237
H. V. Kamath
Sir, considering that the motion of Mr. Santhanam has no relation or relevancy to the provisions of Part VIII, I fail to understand how it can be numbered Part VIII-A.


4.34.238
President
He has moved for the insertion of another part called Part VIII-A. Emergency Powers.


4.34.239
B. M. Gupta
Sir, I beg to move:

"That after Part VIII, the following new Part be inserted:--

PART VIII-A-EMERGENCY POWERS

"1. (1) On report being made by the Governor of a Province under Section ........ Part........ of this Constitution, the President of the Federation shall, have the power to issue, in consultation with his council of ministers, a proclamation assuming to himself all or any of the powers vested in or exercisable by any Provincial body or authority except the High Court, including the power to confirm, modify or revoke the Proclamation issued by the Governor.

(2) The Proclamation, under this section, shall cease to operate at the expiration of 2 months unless its continuance for any further period is approved from time to time by a resolution passed by the Federal Legislature."


4.34.240
B. M. Gupta
Mr. Santhanam has already shown how such a clause as this is necessary. We have already accepted the position, by passing Clause 15 of the Provincial Constitution that there shall be some emergency powers vested in the President. But in the Report there is no such provision made; hence my amendment and the amendment of Mr. Santhanam. They are both designed to remove this lacuna. My amendment provides that as soon as the President gets the report from the Governor he may issue a proclamation, in consultation with his Council of Ministers. As the Governor is authorised to take immediate action, there is no urgency for the President to act without the advice of his cabinet. That he does this in consultation with his Council of Ministers, is a point I want to emphasise as a point of difference between my amendment and that of Mr. Santhanam.


4.34.241
K. Santhanam
Sir under the Federal Constitution, the President always acts on the advice of his Ministers.


4.34.242
B. M. Gupta
That is all right. I only emphasise it. It was agreed in the course of the debate on Governor's powers, that overriding power should be given to the President. There was heated controversy about power being given to the Governor; but so far as the President was concerned, there was unanimity of opinion. That power is now given to the President, of course circumscribed by the condition that he has to consult his Ministers.


4.34.243
B. M. Gupta
Another difference between Mr. Santhanam's amendment and mine is that he has provided for a period of six months while I have put it down as only two months. This is a power we give for dealing with an extra ordinary situation and I think only the minimum power should be given and a period of two months is quite sufficient to convene the Legislature. Only that much power should be given as is absolutely necessary. The Federal Legislature is the supreme authority on this matter and therefore an endorsement from that legislature should be obtained. I have provided that unless the Legislature endorses the action of the President within two months, the proclamation of the President shall cease to operate. As the Legislature is supreme I have put no time limit on its power. If necessary, the Legislature can from time to time give its assent to the proclamation. If it is a grave emergency, it will not last long; but if it should continue in a sub-acute form then the legislature can certainly from time to time extend the proclamation.


4.34.244
B. M. Gupta
Therefore, I submit, Sir, that my amendment is a better provision. In fact, my amendment is based on the position arising from the acceptance by the House of the provision vesting the authority in the Government to issue a proclamation. Mr. Santhanam's amendment does not fit in with that position. It does not refer to the Governor's proclamation at all. It is based on the assumption that merely the power to report had remained with the Governor. I, therefore, submit that my amendment makes a better provision and should consequently be accepted by the House.


4.34.245
R. K. Sidhva
If Sir Gopalaswami could state which of the amendments he is prepared to accept, that would perhaps facilitate the discussion.


4.34.246
President
Sir N. Gopalaswami, would you like to say anything now?


4.34.247
M. Ananthasayanam Ayyangar
Mr. President, Sir......


4.34.248
President
Mr. Ayyangar.


4.34.249
M. Ananthasayanam Ayyangar
Which Ayyangar Sir?


4.34.250
President
Sir N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar.


4.34.251
N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar
Sir, I cannot categorically answer what Mr. Sidhwa has asked, but I will certainly indicate my views. Both the amendments that have been moved are intended to make provision for what the House has already accepted in the case of the Provincial Constitution. The House will remember that when we were discussing the Provincial Constitution, it put into that Constitution a clause which is substantially the same as section 93 of the Government of India Act, 1935 with slight variations in details. The Governor was given power to assume to himself all or any of the functions of Government or any of the powers vested in or exercisable by any Provincial body and so on. Then there was a sub-clause which said:

"The proclamation of the Governor shall be forthwith communicated by the Governor to the President of the Union who may thereupon take such action as he considers appropriate under his emergency powers."


4.34.252
N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar
It becomes necessary, therefore, that we should somewhere in the Constitution make provision indicating what the powers of the President may be in a certain emergency which arises in a province; and, from that point of view, I think both the amendments attempt to supply the omission which would otherwise exist in the outlines of the Constitution. The point for us to consider is what sort of provision should be made. The Governor himself has been given the powers to suspend practically all or any portion of the Provincial Constitution and take to himself powers possessed by the various authorities indicated in the Provincial Constitution. Having done that, he has got to make a report to the President and, if nothing happens, the proclamation will cease to operate on the expiry of two weeks. The emergency might be of a character which extends beyond two weeks or it may be such that the President of the Federation might consider did not warrant all the extraordinary measures which the Governor chose to take for tackling that particular situation. Therefore, it is necessary that we should invest the President of the Federation with some powers to act on a report which he receives from the Governor of province.


4.34.253
N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar
Mr. Santhanam in his amendment has proposed a number of detailed measures which the President could take after receiving the report of the Governor. Now it is difficult for me to accept all the details of the measures that he has suggested in his amendment. For instance, he suggests that these powers should include suspension of the provincial constitution by the President, promulgation of ordinances applicable to the province and thirdly, issuing of orders and, instructions to the Governor and other officials of the province. A Governor takes some action. It may be right or it may be wrong. If it is right, it might deserve to be extended beyond the two weeks for which that action could normally be in force. If it is wrong, the President has powers under the clause already carried in connection with the Provincial Constitution to revoke the proclamation of the Governor. And then the President will have to take action on his own which he considers appropriate for tackling the particular emergency. Whether the powers that we should vest in the President should be so all-comprehensive as Mr. Santhanam has suggested is a matter which, I think requires very serious consideration. It makes a breach into Provincial autonomy which many of us may not be willing to agree to but it is necessary that the President should have such power as may be essential for the purpose of tackling particular situation. If Mr. Santhanam will permit those who will frame the text of the Constitution to examine this provision both in substance and in language more carefully and propose something for the consideration of the Constituent Assembly which would co-ordinate the action of the Governor in the Province and the action that the President may have to take on the report of the Governor, I am prepared to accept the principle of vesting in the President certain emergency powers in this connection.


4.34.254
N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar
I would say the same thing in regard to the amendment of Mr. Gupte. The net result of what I have indicated is that while I am not prepared to hand over the entire administration of a province into the hands of the President even in an emergency of that sort, I am prepared to concede the position that he should have certain emergency powers in order to decide what appropriate action should be taken for dealing with a particular emergency and no more. I accept that principle. So, if the movers of these two amendments will accept my assurance that we will try to translate into the draft some provisions which will implement this principle, there will be time for Mr. Santhanam and Mr. Gupte to scrutinise the draft when it comes up before the House again and propose any amendments of detail which they would like to press. That being so, I would ask that on this assurance they should withdraw the particular amendments of which they have given notice.


4.34.255
K. Santhanam
In view of the assurance given I beg to withdraw my amendment.


4.34.256
B. M. Gupta
Sir, I withdraw my amendment.

The amendments were, by leave of the Assembly, withdrawn.
PART IX

4.34.257
N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar
Sir, I move Part IX, which reads as follows:

"The provisions for the protection of minorities as approved by the Constituent Assembly on the report of the Advisory Committee should be incorporated in the Constitution."


4.34.258
N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar
This is a very innocent clause.


4.34.259
President
The question is:

"That Part IX be accepted by the House."

The motion was adopted.
The Assembly then adjourned till Ten of the Clock on Thursday, the 31st July, 1947.


The Constituent Assembly of India met in the Constitution Hall, New Delhi. at Ten of the Clock, Mr. President (The Honourable Dr. Rajendra Prasad) in the Chair.

4.35.1
President
Think there is no member who has to take his seat today. We shall proceed with the Agenda.


4.35.2
President
The first item on the Agenda is the motion of Shri Deshbandhu Gupta for amending Rule 5 concerning representation of Delhi and Ajmer-Merwara in the Constituent Assembly.


4.35.3
Mr. H. V. Kamath
Sir, with reference to the transfer of power ceremony on the 15th August, may I submit that your dignity and prestige as the President of the Sovereign Constituent Assembly demand that, so far as the ceremonial programme in this House at least is concerned, that should be settled and finalised by you and you alone without any official interference or dictation whatsoever. I am sure the House will be deeply indebted to you for an assurance on this point.


4.35.4
Mr. H. V. Kamath
While chalking out the programme, Sir, I would implore you to include in it our traditional National Song, Vande Mataram, as well as that other beautiful song popularised by our great warrior-statesman Netaji Subash Chandra Bose. namely, the song beginning with the words:

Subh sukh chain ki barsha barse Bharat bhag hai jaga

4.35.5
Mr. H. V. Kamath
Secondly, permit me to remind you, Sir of the request I made to you on Monday regarding the presentation of the National flag to every Member of the Constituent Assembly. We are rather anxious to have the Flag before the 15th August. I venture to hope that the Steering Committee will not stand in the way and will raise no objection to this proposal.


4.35.6
Mr. President
I may inform the House and the Hon'ble Member Mr. Kamath that, as regards the programme, I propose to make a statement at the close of the sitting today. There is no question of any dictation by any outside authority. We shall fix our own programme. (Applause) As regards the arrangements for the 15th August, I have some ideas in my mind which I have considered with Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru and some other friends and I will place them before the House.

AMENDMENTS OF THE RULES

4.35.7
Mr. Deshbandhu Gupta
Mr. President, the motion which stands in my name is this:

"(1) That in sub-rule (2) of rule 5 (as amended) of the Constituent Assembly Rules, the words "the Advisory Councils of Delhi and Ajmer-Merwara" occurring after the words "as the case may be" be deleted.

(2) That for sub-rule (12) of Rule 5 (as amended), the following be substituted:-

If any vacancy occurs by reason of death, resignation, or otherwise in the office of a member representing Delhi or Ajmer-Merwara in the Constituent Assembly, the President shall notify the vacancy and shall call upon the Chief Commissioner of Delhi or Ajmer-Merwara as the case may be, to take steps to hold, a bye-election to fill the vacancy,

The bye-elections shall be held, as nearly as may be, in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the Legislative Assembly Electoral Rules, as in force on August 1, 1947, for the election of a member to represent Delhi or, as the case may be, the Ajmer-Merwara constituency of the Indian Legislative Assembly'."


4.35.8
Mr. Deshbandhu Gupta
As regards this, I have only to say that according to the earlier amendment of Mr. Santnanam a casual vacancy in the case of Delhi and Ajmer-Merwara was to be filled up the Advisory Council which consists of not more than seven members.


4.35.9
Mr. Deshbandhu Gupta
It was natural that objections were raised from Delhi and Ajmer-Merwara as the Advisory Council was not an elected body like the Provincial Legislative Council. It is only a small body formed by indirect election. Its powers are limited and it seems inappropriate that the Advisory Council consisting or a few members should be called upon form an electoral college for filling a casual Vacancy. If you look at it carefully you will find that the task of electing devolves only on three non-official members out of a total of seven. As far as Delhi is concerned, the Advisory Council has been elected by the elected members of Delhi and New Delhi Municipalities. The latter is the bigger body. It, has some nominated members also, and therefore all its members do not take part in elections. There is another objection. It is this: If the Advisory Committee is entrusted with the task of election it would mean that 3 lacs voters of New Delhi would be disfranchised. This is not expected now, as Delhi has no legislative Council, It was thought that the Advisory Council would do this job. But people have reason to complain view, it is proposed to amend this rule. In the case of Delhi, a casual vacancy can be filled in the manner by which election was originally held in Delhi, The position of Delhi members is a bit different from that of others. These have been elected by Provincial Assemblies, but those for Ajmer-Merwara have been elected directly. Therefore, it would be right in' principle that the bye-election should be held in the same, manner as the original election. This is my motion, I think it has been accepted by the Steering Committee I hope the House will have no objection to it.


4.35.10
President
Does any member wish to say anything about this amendment.

(No member rose to speak.)

4.35.11
President
I take it that no member wishes to say anything on this. I will put the amendment to vote.

The motion was adopted.
REPORT ON THE UNION CONSTITUTION

4.35.12
President
Then we come to the discussion of the remaining clauses of the report of the Union Constitution Committee. Shall we now take up Part X, Sir Gopalaswami Ayyangar.


4.35.13
The Honourable Sir N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar
If I may suggest it for your consideration, Sir, we may perhaps take up the clauses left over for consideration.


4.35.14
President
You suggest that we now take up Clause 7 and I have no objection.


4.35.15
The Honourable Sir N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar
I have already moved Clause 7. You may now call upon the members who have, given notice of amendments to this clause to move their amendments.

CLAUSE 7

4.35.16
President
The first is Clause 7. We had a number of amendments regarding Clause 7. Shall we take up these amendments or is there any amendment which has been arrived at by way of an agreement. Is there any agreement like that?


4.35.17
The Honourable Sir N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar
Sir, what I would like to say is that after having a discussion with those particularly interested in this. amendment, we came to an agreed conclusion, and I gave notice of an amendment in terms of that conclusion. But I understand that there is some difference of opinion even as regards the form of the amendment of which I have given notice. If Honourable Members representing the States will move the amendments of which they had given notice and will indicate their views and if I see that the views indicated in the House are not exactly the views which I thought they held some days ago, then I would suggest some course of action which might perhaps bring the two points of view together. I would therefore suggest that you call upon the representatives of the States to move their amendments and to indicate their views.


4.35.18
President
The best thing is to take up all the amendments of which I have got notice. The first amendment to Clause 7 is by Mr. Naziruddin Ahmed.


4.35.19
Mr. Naziruddin Ahmed
Mr. President, I beg to move amendment No. 192, with a little verbal alteration of a minor nature. I beg to move that for para (b) of sub-clause (2) of clause 7 the following be substituted:

"(b) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 or of any other law for the time being in force, relating to the remission of the punishment imposed on any person by any court exercising criminal jurisdiction, the President shall have the supreme right and power to remit wholly or in part The sentence passed by such court on any such person."


4.35.20
Mr. Naziruddin Ahmed
I beg to submit that this only a drafting amendment and I submit it for the consideration of the Drafting Committee.


4.35.21
President
Sir B. L. Mitter.


4.35.22
Sir B. L Mitter
Sir, the amendment which I move is.


4.35.23
Sir B. L Mitter
That in sub-clause (2) (b) of Clause 7 after the word "jurisdiction" the words "in a Province" be inserted.


4.35.24
Sir B. L Mitter
The object of the amendment that the power of pardon and reprieve which now vests in a Ruler of a State may be preserved. If this amendment is accepted, then this power of the President will be exercised in matters arising in Provinces and not in a State. I gee the point that in regard to crimes which are created by the Union Legislature, the President should be the supreme authority. I could concede that Point, but at the same time the States do not want the existing powers of the Rulers to be curtailed. A solution may be concurrent jurisdiction in the Rulers as well as the President. If Sir Gopalaswami will draft an amendment reserving the power of the Ruler and giving the same power to the President, I am quite willing to accept it.


4.35.25
President
Then I have got three amendments in the names of Mr. Channiah, Mr. Guruv Reddy and Mr. Himmatsingh Maheshwari which are all to the same effect. So they need not move them.


4.35.26
President
Then amendment No. 197 by Mr. Chengalaraya Reddy.


4.35.27
Mr. K. Chengalaraya Reddy
I am not moving it.

(Mr. Gupte did not move his amendment No. 198).

4.35.28
Mr. Debi Prosad Khaitan
I am not moving amendment No. 199.

(Shri M. Ananthasayanam Ayyangar did not move his amendment No. 4 of Supplementary List I.)

4.35.29
The Honourable Sir N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar
Sir, I beg to move for Clause 7 (2) (b), the following be substituted:

''(b) The power to grant pardons, reprieves, respites, remissions, suspensions or commutations of punishment imposed by any Court exercising criminal jurisdiction shall be vested in the President in the case of convictions

(i) for offences against Federal laws relating to matters in respect of which the Federal Parliament has, and the Unit Legislature concerned has not, the power to make laws; and

(ii) for an offences tried by Courts-Martial.

Such power may also be conferred on other authorities by Federal Law:

Provided that nothing in this sub-clause affects any power of any officer in the Armed Forces of the Federation to suspend, remit or commute a sentence passed by a Court-Martial."


4.35.30
The Honourable Sir N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar
Sir, this amendment was given notice of after there had been discussion between me and the representatives of a number of States who have sponsored the amendment which Sir B. L. Mitter has just moved. The intention of that amendment was to restrict the power of pardon granted under this clause only to punishments imposed in Provinces. In other words, they wanted to retain, in the Rulers of Indian States, the unlimited power of pardon which they now possess in respect of all convictions.


4.35.31
The Honourable Sir N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar
Now, Sir, that raised an Issue of some Importance. We are now setting up a Federation and we are dividing sovereign powers between the Federation and the Units; In respect of certain subjects the Federation has the power to make laws and in other subjects the Units have the power to make laws to the exclusion of the Federation. In the case of the Provinces there is a third list of subjects in respect of which both the Federation and the Provinces have the power to make laws.


4.35.32
The Honourable Sir N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar
Now, in considering this question of where the power of pardon should be located, there are two Principles which we have to keep in view. The set is that we must have due regard to the authority which makes the laws against which the offences are committed. The second consideration that we have to take into account is the kind of courts which pronounce these sentences or convictions. It so happens that, so far as British India is concerned, we have a unified system of judicial administration and the courts in the provinces from the lowest to the highest have got jurisdiction to try offences not merely against Provincial Laws, but against Federal Laws also. In Indian States the same thing is in force. The courts of Indian States have power to try all kinds of offences, even offences which might become offences against the Federal Laws after the Federation comes into being. And the power of pardon also is more or less similar as between the Province and the Indian State with perhaps one exception. It is the Provincial Government, according to the Criminal Procedure Code as last amended, that has the power to pardon, commute or remit sentences in the case practically of all offences with the one proviso that if a sentence happens to be a death sentence the Central Government has a concurrent power. In the case of Indian States there is not that exception now in existence. Now we had to consider the question, whether in these circumstances we should vest the power of pardon in the Provinces or in the Centre or in both. I think, Sir, the House will agree that, when we are setting up a Head of the Federation and calling him the President, one of the powers that should almost automatically be vested in him is the power of pardon. Now, is the power of pardon going to be unlimited in its character, or are we going to give him only limited powers of pardon? He is not like a hereditary monarch in a position to derive his powers of pardon from any theory on a royal prerogative and so on. If he exercises the power of pardon, we must vest the authority for it to the Constitution or to some Federal Law. That is why, in the Constitution, we have got to decide this question.


4.35.33
The Honourable Sir N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar
I may say at once that practically in all federations this power of pardon has been divided between the head of the federation and the head of the unity and the principle on which this division is made is that the head of the federation has the power to pardon offences against the federal laws and the head of the unit has power to pardon offences against the unit laws: Now, the question for us to consider is whether we would follow the practice of all federations.


4.35.34
The Honourable Sir N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar
As the draft now stands, both in the Union Constitution and the Provincial Constitution, the power of pardon is vested in the President of the Federation. But provision is made for that power being conferred on other authorities 'by Federal Law. There is no provision in the draft model provincial constitution which you have already adopted which confers any power of pardon on the Governor of Provinces. So, it comes to this, that the intention of the present clause is that the President is the primary pardon granting authority, and that Federal Law might confer such authority on other people.


4.35.35
President
There is one difficulty which I feel. Will you please explain that? Does your amendment exclude pardon by the President in the case of offences under the Penal Code, say murder?


4.35.36
The Honourable Sir N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar
The clause as stands does.


4.35.37
President
The clause as amended by you, does it give the President power of pardon of the offence of murder?


4.35.38
The Honourable Sir N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar
No. It does not, As I explained, the clause as it stands, confers the entire power of pardon. On the President though a Federal Law might confer it on other authorities. Now the amendment that 1, have given notice of gives the President the power to grant pardon only in the case of offences against Federal Laws, and that He cannot, for instance, grant pardon in the case of sentences under the ordinary criminal law. In the Provinces, ordinary criminal law occurs as item 2, I think, of the concurrent list and in a case like that in the concurrent list, the theory of' the 1935 Act is that the executive power does not necessarily extend to concurrent subjects, in respect of which the federation also has power of making laws.


4.35.39
President
What are the cases that you contemplate in which the President would have the power to grant pardon? Practically the whole of the penal law is a provincial subject. What will be the offences in which the President will have the power to grant pardon.


4.35.40
The Honourable Sir N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar
I might mention, Sir, offences, say, against the Income-tax Act; maybe against the Sea Customs Act and Acts of a similar description which are exclusively Federal.


4.35.41
The Honourable Sir N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar
Now, the principle behind my amendment is that the President will have the power to grant pardon, etc,, only in the case of offences against the Federal Laws. The power to pardon offences against the ordinary criminal law and against laws made by the Provinces or the States will vest in the heads of the Provinces or the States.


4.35.42
Sir Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar
I presume that a corresponding change will be made in the provincial constitution conferring power apart from any delegation by the federal government to the provincial government both in respect of concurrent subjects and subjects, specially falling in the provincial list.


4.35.43
The Honourable Sir N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar
Yes, Sir. The intention is that if you carry this amendment in the Union constitution, a corresponding provision will have to be made in the model provincial constitution and steps will be taken to that end.


4.35.44
The Honourable Sir N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar
I shall, now, deal, Sir, with the point raised by Sir B. L. Mitter's amendment. His amendment says that this power of pardon in this particular Clause should be limited to Provinces. Of course the Indian States are not concerned with how we divide the power of pardon between the Centre and the Provinces. That particular amendment is motived by the facto which are now in existence in the Indian States, namely, that it is the Ruler who has the power of pardon in respect of every offence for which conviction is obtained in his courts. Now, the objection to excluding the President from power to grant pardon in such cases cannot hold, Sir, on any ground of principle., because of the other consideration that I asked the House to take in to account in considering questions of pardon, namely, that the authority which makes the law and the executive which is responsible to it, whose function it is to execute the law, cannot be deprived of the power to decide the policy with regard to the grant of pardons, remissions, reductions, and so on. Therefore the power in respect of federal offences has necessarily to vest in the President of the Federation. The amendment that has been tabled by me took note of one element what I apprehended was, a certain amount of sensitiveness a delicacy on the part of the Rulers who may not be willing to part with any portion of the power which, they now exercise as regards pardon of sentences, and so on, and the further sensitiveness that, if you vest a concurrent power in any portion of that field in an outside authority, it would mean a certain amount of clash and conflict between the way in which the. Ruler of a State might choose to exercise this power and the manner in which the President of the Federation might choose to exercise it.


4.35.45
The Honourable Sir N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar
So, I was impressed by the fact that, if possible opportunities for this conflict should be avoided and that is why I have in this amendment divided the offences into two different categories, in respect of one of which the President of the Federation alone has the power to grant pardon and that is with regard to offences against federal laws, and another category in which the Ruler of a State or the Governor of a Province were to exercise this power. Now, I wish the House to understand that, if this means a curtailment of the present powers of pardon possessed "by the Ruler of a State", it also means a curtailment of the ' powers of pardon' which the Provincial Government now possesses under the Criminal Procedure Code. This amendment therefore seeks to place both the Provinces and the States on the same footing as regards this power. The vesting of the power in the President is necessitated by the fact that we are creating a federation and we cannot omit to vest in the President of the Federation the power to pardon offences.


4.35.46
The Honourable Sir N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar
Now, Sir it may be asked why is it that you want this power to be vested in the President in the case of all offences against- the federal laws, while, under the present state of things, the Governor-General can exercise this power, and that only concurrently, with the provincial government and only in respect of death sentences. Well, the answer to that is simply this. We are making a new constitution and we are not necessarily bound by what obtains today. We have got certain principles to guide us in the making of the new constitution.


4.35.47
The Honourable Sir N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar
If under that constitution we are assigning certain powers exclusively to the Centre which formerly belonged to the States, then it is only reasonable that all ancillary powers in regard to the administrations of such subjects must also be assigned to the Centre and if incidentally it happens to interfere with the present practice in the Provinces also, we must be quite prepared to face that curtailment. That is really at the back of the amendment of which I have given notice.


4.35.48
The Honourable Sir N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar
Now there are two or three matters at the end of this amendment to which I might make reference in passing. This gives the President the power to grant pardons, etc., in respect of all offences tried by Courts Martial. Courts-Martial are constituted under the Indian Army Act and the Indian Army has to be under the control of the Centre. It is only right that the personnel of the Indian army who, get convicted by these Courts-Martial should look to the President of the Federation for pardons, commutations and similar concessions.


4.35.49
The Honourable Sir N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar
The second matter to which I should like to make reference is the proviso at the end of the draft. This is taken from Section 295 of the Government of India Act, 1935. It says that "nothing in this sub-clause affects any power of any officer of the' Armed Forces of- the Federation that expression has been substituted for His Majesty's Forces' in the Government of India Act to suspend, remit or commute a sentence passed by a Court-Martial. Under the Rules framed under the Indian Army Act certain officers of the Indian army have powers to grant remissions of punishment and those powers are saved by this proviso.


4.35.50
The Honourable Sir N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar
I think, Sir, that on the whole this Particular amendment is quite in accordance with the Principles which underlie the framing of any Federal Constitution and the curtailment of the powers of the Rulers of States and of the Governors of the Provinces which is implied in this amendment is only a thing which should be expected naturally from any Federal Constitution. Sir, I move this amendment.


4.35.51
Shri M. Ananthasayanam Ayyangar
Sir I beg to move:

"That in sub-clause (2) (b) of the draft as amended, at the end, the following may be added."


4.35.52
Shri M. Ananthasayanam Ayyangar
I am referring to the draft amendment circulated to members and this is an amendment to Sir N.Gopalaswami Ayyangar's amendment. This amendment relates to the addition to the rights of the President, to extend his right to pardon in cases of sentences of death passed in any province. I shall read the text of my amendment: -

"Where any person has been sentenced to death in a province, the President shall have all such powers of suspension, remission or commutation of sentences as are vested in the Governor of the Province."


4.35.53
Shri M. Ananthasayanam Ayyangar
I am confining this, Sir, to the power to grant pardon in cases of death sentences passed in a Province. I would be glad to extend this power even to cases of death sentences passed in a State. Death sentences are being abolished in various countries in the world. In Norway, Capital punishment has been done away with. Even in such a country as Russia where we heard a long time ago of blood baths, they have also abolished capital punishment. AU progressive countries in the world have altogether abolished capital punishment. Under the existing Government of India Act the Governor-General is entitled to pardon concurrently with a Governor in all cases of death sentences. In other cases it is the exclusive right of the Governor in all Provinces to condone or reprieve or grant pardons in any manner under the ordinary Criminal Law. The Governor-General can interfere only in cases of death sentences. It was before the 1935 Act was passed that the Governor-General couldinterfere in all cases of punishment in a like manner as the Governor was entitled to exercise his right of pardon. But after the 1935 Act, to make Provincial Autonomy perfect the right of the Governor-General to have concurrent jurisdiction in respect of pardon was taken away except in the matter of death sentences. That alone was preserved. Now under the draft amendment that has been placed before this House by Sir N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar, no right to pardon has been conferred upon the President except in matters exclusively within the competence of the Federation, i.e., wherever the Federal Legislature may pass a law. In those subjects alone the President has been given power to pardon. This is, no doubt, an improvement over the 1935 Act. But in the matter of granting pardon in the case of death sentences, wherever convictions might have been given, that right of pardon has been taken away. Life sentence is a very serious one and therefore there must be another agency also to consider if there are any cases in which pardon should be exercised. There may be some doubt if the President were an appellate authority in certain matters. There is no question of appellate jurisdiction of the President. He has concurrent jurisdiction. If is open to the Governor himself to grant a pardon. If he does not the President will exercise Ins right to grant a pardon. where the pardon is granted by the Governor, the President has no right to revoke that pardon and then convict him. I am trying to disabuse or remove certain doubts that might remain in any quarters. in criminal cases, if a man is granted pardon by the Governor, he goes scot-free. If it is not granted by the Governor, then he has a chance to go to the President who can interfere and exercise the right of pardon in cases of death sentences. I hope the House will kindly accept this amendment which tries to incorporate in this amendment of Sir Gopalaswami a power which is now being exercised by the Governor-General.


4.35.54
Shri M. Ananthasayanam Ayyangar
Sir, as regards the other powers that have been conferred upon the President to have exclusive right to grant a pardon in the matter of offences against Federal Laws, I would only appeal to the States not to try to take away that right of the President in so far as they are offences against Federal Laws. The States have Submitted, they have come with open eyes and they have acceded to the Union with respect to Defence, Foreign Affairs and Communications. There may be other taxation measures also to keep these Departments going. If there are offences again these Departments and against these laws, it is but natural that the President should have the power, wherever they may be exercised. The Rulers of the States ought not to feel that their right to grant pardon is taken away. The Ruler has by his accession himself conceded the right to interfere in three federal matters as regards his State. Therefore there is no meaning in the objection. If it should prevail it will be giving by one hand and taken away the same by the other. If Defence is entrusted to the Federation any interference with that subject or contravention should be punishable, on a complaint instituted by the President. There is no question of prestige in this matter, when particularly, the people from the States are in favour of this amendment. I appeal to the Ministers who represent the States here that they ought not to try to avoid the States conferring the power so far as Federal subjects are concerned in the matter of pardon, to the President of the Federation exclusively, for this reason that Defence and those subjects have been entrusted by the Rulers of the States to the Federation. Otherwise merely passing laws would not be useful unless there are sanctions and the sanctions could not be enforced if the President of the Federation or the Federal Executives, is trying to enforce a particular law which pertains to a right ceded by the Ruler himself any interference by the Ruler would be interference with the powers that he has conceded to the President. I am requesting the Ministers to kindly consider this matter and fall in line and not move any amendment to the draft that has been proposed by Sir N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar. With all respect I would urge upon them not to take this as a matter of prestige. They have taken a particular step; this is an ancillary power that must be conferred on the President. Otherwise, there will be a conflict between the two and the conferment of that right to the Centre will become useless.


4.35.55
President
The original clause and the amendments are now open to discussion. I do not think there are any other amendments of which I have notice.


4.35.56
Mr. Mahomed Sheriff
Mr. President, Sir, I have heard with rapt attention the admirable speech made by Sir N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar and also Mr. Anathasayanam Ayyangar regarding this very intricate point. That it is a, point which is full of complication admits of no dispute. I wish that in view of its complicated nature we had been given more time to study the pros and cons of this question, but as it has come before us and as you want us to give our opinion upon it, I think it is necessary for us to state, in our capacity as the representatives of the States what our opinion is in this matter.


4.35.57
Mr. Mahomed Sheriff
Sir, I do concede that so far as the President is concerned, in view of the fact that he is at the helm of the administration, he should have the power of pardon and he should have the power of commuting sentences in respect of cases arising out of criminal jurisdiction Situations may arise in which he should have to exercise clemency. But the submission to you, Sir, is that so far as this power is concerned, it must be confined to provinces only. If it is made to affect the sovereignty of the Rulers, I submit there would be a clash. The Congress Party times without number have stated that so far as the sovereignty of the people is concerned it is not going to be affected. His Excellency the Viceroy in the statement that he made on 25th instant said that so far as the Rulers are concerned, they need not apprehend any danger. It war, argued that so far as this right is concerned, it will confine itself to Federal subjects. Yesterday we discussed Part VI and there, Clause I runs:

"The Federal Parliament in legislating for an exclusively Federal subject may devolve upon the Government of a Unit, whether a Province, an Indian State or other area or upon any officer of that Government the exercise on behalf of the Federal Government of any functions in relation to that subject."


4.35.58
Mr. Mahomed Sheriff
So when we say that so far as these Federal subjects are concerned, they could be administered by a Ruler, I don't see why we should take away from him the right of pardon, the right of commutation of sentences, etc., in criminal jurisdiction. So far as Mysore is concerned, His Highness the Maharaja has rarely exercised this prerogative. Everything is left to the High Court. He does not interfere at all. So, even supposing this power is going to be vested in him, there is no possibility of it being misused. In view of this, I cannot make up my mind to agree with the amendment proposed by Sir N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar.


4.35.59
Shri Gopikrishna Vijayavargiya
Mr. President, Sir, I have come to express my point of view here. I also come from a State and I think that in a Federation the sovereignty is divided and some of the sovereignty is given to the Federation also. Therefore, it is in the fitness of things that the right of pardon that is provided for the-President, of the Federation must remain and it is also not proper that Rulers should keep that sovereignty in their hands. When they are conceding their sovereignty in favour of the Federation in other matters, they should also concede this right. I therefore suggest that the amendment of Mr. Ananthasayanam Ayyangar and Sir N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar must be accepted.


4.35.60
Mr. K. Chengalaraya Reddy
Mr. President, Sir after bearing the lucid and convincing speech of Sir N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar, I thought there would be no debate on the draft presented by him to the House, but I find that a certain difference of opinion has been expressed by one of my Hon'ble friends from Mysore. It will be seen that the draft, as it was put in the memorandum originally, was a very comprehensive one. It extended the right of pardon, etc., to all offences and it appeared to vest comprehensive powers in the President of the Federation, but I was one of those who thought that even the draft clause as it stood read along with Clauses 8 and 9 did not really give that comprehensive power but that that power had been governed by certain conditions. But an amendment was tabled by certain representatives from the States that this power of right of pardon, etc., to be vested in the President should be confined to offences committed in the provinces. Well, Sir, as a counterblast to that, if I may use that word, I had tabled an amendment that this power should be vested in the President in relation to offences against Federal Laws.


4.35.61
Mr. K. Chengalaraya Reddy
Sir, I view the draft put forward by Sir Gopalaswami Ayyangar as a compromise draft which should satisfy all sections of the House. Well, Sir we should not be carried away by loyalties which have been existing In this country till now. New loyalties are coming into being. When we are Contemplating the loyalties to the States from which we come, let us not be oblivious to the fact that we have to be loyal to the Federation which we are creating now in this country (hear, hear). Our loyalties will have to undergo a change; there must be a harmonizing of our loyalties. Let us remember that the strength of the Units consists :in the strength of the Federation and the strength of the Federation also consists in the strength of the Units. The two are reciprocal. Let us not run away with compartmental ideas and think of the strength of the Unit only or the strength of the Federation only. I would like to urge that we must think. Of the strength of the unit and the strength of the Federation as in integrated strength. To the extent to which the States concede to the Federation, to that extent they will have to give the right of pardon, etc., to the President, in respect of offences against the Federal Laws. I would even go to the extent of saying that the President of the Federation must be the Supreme authority in respect of offences against Federation Laws. So I urge that the amendment of Sir Gopalaswami Ayyangar, being a compromise draft, should be acceptable to all sections of the House. If I may say so, let us not be more loyal to the king than the king himself. Even the Rulers of the Indian States who are going, to come into the Federation will do so with their eyes open and prepared to accept the Federation with SRI its implications, and not with all kinds of reservations. On one or two matters like this, Sir, we must be quite plain-spoken. Let us not try to evade these issues. With respect to the Federal subjects-I have in mind now only Defence, Foreign Affairs and Communication sand with respect to offences against the Federal Laws, the supreme authority should be the President. This is the position which has got to be accepted if we view the whole problem from a liberal, statesman-like and patriotic point of view, and I do hope that no objection will be taken to the amendment moved by Sir Gopalaswami Ayyangar and which he has supported in such a lucid and cogent manner. I support his amendment without any reservation in the interest of the State, in the interest of the Federation and in the interest of India as a whole.


4.35.62
Mr. M. S. Aney
Sir, are the clause as well as the amendments under discussion?


4.35.63
President
Yes, the clause and the amendments.


4.35.64
Sir B. L. Mitter
Sir, I do not want to press my amendment and so ask leave of the House to withdraw it.


4.35.65
President
Does the House give Sir B. L. Mitter leave to withdraw his amendment?


4.35.66
Mr. Himmat Singh K. Maheshwari
But Sir, there are others who have similar amendments, but have not moved them because Sir Mitter had moved his. Can I speak a few words, Sir?


4.35.67
President
Certainly.


4.35.68
Mr. Himmat Singh K. Maheshwari
Sir, I heard the admirable speech of my Guru Sir Gopalaswami Ayyangar with great attention and respect but with due deference to him, I must say that I do not stand convinced. The main argument I think, which he made was that because the Governors of the Provinces will not have the power to grant pardon, the existing power of pardon enjoyed by the Rulers of the States should also be curtailed or withdrawn.


4.35.69
The Honourable Sir N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar
Sir, I am not sure that I put it in that form.


4.35.70
Mr. Himmat Singh K. Maheshwari
I stand corrected. He seems to think that this was more or less a a question of sensitiveness. On that point I am inclined to agree with him. After all, within the borders of the State the dignity of the Ruler has to be maintained and if you take away from him the power of dispensing justice which he had hitherto been enjoying that dignity is adversely affected, even within the orders of the State. In his Prom Statement of the 5th July, the Honourable Sardar Patel gave the assurance to the Princes that our common objective should be to understand each other's point of view and to come to decisions acceptable to all and in the best interests of the country. In the light of this assurance, Sir, I venture to suggest that the framers of the draft should reconsider the entire position once more and see if a happy via media cannot be arrived at. The difficulty arises mainly in respect of one matter. The courts which will try the cases under the Federal Law will be the State Courts. The State Court convicts a person of an offence under the Federal Law and the conviction is upheld by the High Court of the State and then at the end of all this, an outside authority grants pardon. In such a case, there is going to be a certain amount of complexity and- a certain amount of uneasiness and-possibly clash. In order to avoid this, Sir, it seems to me desirable that the constitutional experts should put their heads together once more. I, for one, do not desire a settlement or decision on this matter which would leave any sense of unpleasantness or which would cause any misunderstandings specially because some of the speakers before me hinted or suggested from their speeches that there was certain amount of excitement in the matter. So far as offences under the ordinary law are concerned, the question of powers does not arise at all. The original draft took away even that power. Now the draft has been amended and it has been made clear that offences under the ordinary laws shall remain exclusive concern of the Rulers and the pardons under the ordinary laws of the land will remain the exclusive concern of the Rulers. But even this does not improve the position substantially. In the amended draft there is a clause which runs thus:

"Such power may also be conferred on other authorities by federal law."


4.35.71
Mr. Himmat Singh K. Maheshwari
It appears to be the intention that these powers may be conferred concurrently on the Governor of a Province also. So far as the Rulers of States are concerned, there can be no question of conferring any power an them because they already exercise such power. In the light of this clause, therefore, it becomes all the more necessary to re-examine the entire position. I shall feel most grateful if the House will agree to a postponement of this clause to enable every one to reconsider his attitude.


4.35.72
Mr. K. M. Munshi
Sir, this is a matter of great constitutional importance and I submit it cannot be discussed from the point of view only of the rights of the Rulers of States or the Governors of Provinces, or, for the matter of that either the Criminal Procedure Code or the provisions of the present Government of India Act. As a matter of fact, Sir as is well known, in a federation a citizen is related directly with the Centre as regards his rights and obligations. The allegiance of every citizen, whether he is in an Indian State or in a Province. will be direct so far as the Union Is concerned.' Federal Laws will operate upon every citizen directly, and an offence inrelation to such a law is not merely an offence against the State or the Province; it is an offence against the Federal Government. And therefore a reprieve or pardon must, as a matter of constitutional principle, vest in the head of the Federation, that is, the President. And to that extent, I submit, the position is incontrovertible.


4.35.73
Mr. K. M. Munshi
All the acceding States, when they come into the Federation, form part of the Union, accepting the operation of Federal Laws in their States They accept to that extent that the Federal Government is supreme in the sphere of Federal Law and the President, as representing the Federal Government, can alone be the last, and also the first authority who can grant reprieve or pardon. That is why in the American constitution as is well known, the President has been authorised to grant reprieve or pardon for offences against the United States.


4.35.74
Mr. K. M. Munshi
A similar provision, I submit, is not only necessary from the point of view of constitutional principle but also of expediency. Sir, the position is this. My Honourable friend Sir Gopalaswami Ayyangar, has referred to the Income-tax laws. But there may be other federal laws-laws relating to extradition, to naturalisation, to defence and external affairs, to treason against the Federal Government-which are matters of the most vital importance to the existence of the Centre; and therefore the power of pardon cannot be given. I submit, to anybody except the head of the Federal Government. If the right is given to either the Ruler of a State or a Provincial Governor, the consequences will be, in a contingency, disastrous. Take for instance this. In principle the Governor or the Ruler-because they will be in the same position-will be entrusted with a part of the prerogative, which must vest in he head of he Union as a whole and any part of it. This, I submit, is inconsistent with principle. But apart from that there will be an inequality of treatment. Supposing in province 'A' the responsible ministry takes a particular view and advises the Governor to release a particular person; there is no appeal from it but then in another province a different view is taken. Therefore, for the same offence you will find one provincial Governor giving pardon and in the other the Governor not giving a pardon. And let us not assume that the Rulers of States are going to be for ever and ever absolute little sovereigns that they think they are now. Many States have introduced an element of responsibility; I have no doubt in my mind that the general progress of the country will soon compel every State to have- some element of responsibility in its Government. Arid when that comes, it it not the Ruler who will exercise the right of reprieve and pardon but the Ministry of the State who will advise the Ruler, which will give a pardon. In a conceivable instance, therefore, it may be that it will not suit a Province or a State to allow a particular kind of criminal to remain in jail. Take a case of war; it has happened in Ireland and England but I do not want to go into cases. It has happened very often in War that different views have been taken in regard to certain offences against the State. What would happen if, against the desire and against the policy of the Centre, the heads of the units or the unit ministries take upon themselves to grant, reprieve or pardon? If the policies of the State and the Centre are of different character and the former want to grant a reprieve for a set of offences-and reprieve, as you know, means postponement of a sentence and if this power is not with the President but vested in the Governor or a Ruler, serious complications will arise. Therefore, I submit that a crime against the Federal Government is, really speaking,, based upon the loyalty of each citizen to the Federal Government as a citizen of the Union as a whole. Therefore, pursuing that principle, the power of reprieve and pardon must vest in the President of the Federal Government and it cannot be parted with.


4.35.75
Mr. K. M. Munshi
With regard to other matters, Mr. Ananthasayanam Ayyangar's amendment is there. If members desire that the provinces should have concurrent power with the President in regard to death sentences there is no difficulty. With regard to the States, I, for one, am not very keen that with regard to State laws the President should be vested with any concurrent power. But we must not forget a very important fact. There are States small and big. All the acceding States are not of the size of the large States whom you see represented on the front bench here. There' are States which under the existing machinery of things are not entitled to pass a death sentence without the consent of some representative of the Paramount Power. Many small States, I know as a fact, even when they pass a death sentence, are subject to influence being brought to bear upon them by the representative of the Paramount Power. Therefore it is to be considered by the country as a whole, whether very small States who do not enjoy such power, have to be given an unlimited power of passing death sentences and granting reprieve and pardon at their sweet will and without any control. These are complications on which there may be reference to a committee to be discussed fully. But on the first and fundamental question I submit, it is interfering with the direct allegiance of a citizen to the Federal Government to take away the power from the President to grant reprieve and pardon in all cases relating to federal laws. That, Sir, is all I have to submit.


4.35.76
Sir Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar
Sir, I should like to say a few words in support of the proposition so ably moved by Sir Gopalaswami Ayyangar and also in support of the amendment of Mr.Ananthasayanam Ayyangar. In the first place I am happy to note that the popular representatives of some of the States have come forward and have given their support to this proposition, namely, that it is a natural consequence of the federal system that the President of the Federation must have the inherent right of pardon.


4.35.77
An Honourable Member
Sir, may I know the insinuation behind the phrase "popular representatives"? Are the others unpopular?


4.35.78
Sir Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar
I do not mean to say that the others are unpopular representatives but I do not recognise that officials are popular representatives because I believe that in the representation there are divisions in the case of certain States, between certain representatives of rulers and representatives of the people. Both of course represent the State but from a practical and commonsense point of view there is a different between the two sets of representatives. You may take it with that qualification or amendment if you like; but there is no denying the fact that there is a' very great distinction between these popular representatives in the sense in which I use that expression and all representatives selected by the Government or the ruler.


4.35.79
Mr. H. Guruv Reddi
We are all elected people and not nominated people.


4.35.80
Dr. B. Pattabhi Sitaramayya
I rise to a point of order. These are collateral issues. I wish that side-issues are not raised and discussed and that you, Sir, may stop such a thing.


4.35.81
Sir Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar
The States are entering as members of a Federal Union.


4.35.82
Sir B. L. Mitter
On a point of order, Sir. I have asked for leave to withdraw my amendment. Therefore the argument whether the States should have this power or not need be pursued.


4.35.83
Sir Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar
Some speeches have been made, by the representatives of the Kathiawar States for instance, that the President should not have this power.


4.35.84
President
The difficulty is that although Sir. B. L. Mitter has asked for permission of the House to withdraw his amendment, one Member has objected to this leave being granted. The matter has rested there.


4.35.85
Sir Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar
If the amendment had been permitted to be withdrawn, most of the speeches made, including that of Mr. Munshi, would have been out of order. If there really is common agreement on the part of all, there need not have been a debate at all.


4.35.86
Sir Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar
The first principle of a Federal system is that the Federal law is binding upon every citizen and there is a direct relation between the citizen and the Federal Government. And when there is a breach of that Federal law, the representative of the Federation, namely the President of the Federation, must have the inherent right to pardon any offences against the Federal law. That is the principle of Sir N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar's amendment. There is no point in raising any issue as to sovereignty, because whatever the States might otherwise be, when once they accede to the Federation, there is a pro tanto cession of sovereignty in regard to the subjects ceded to the Union. The States may console themselves that in regard to all other matters they have plenary powers of sovereignty, but, to the extent they cede to the Union they cease to be sovereign in respect of that matter. It is not infra dig for any State rule or State people to think that there is a restraint on sovereignty in that regard, because that is the very essence of a federal compact. The great states of the American Union are still sovereign in many respects; but they are not sovereign in the federal sphere. That is the accepted principle in all Federal constitutions. The amendment here refers only to offences against the Federal laws. If any one has any object to it, it must be the Provinces because uptil now, even in regard to Federal subjects, the Provincial Governments had the power of pardon. Only in order to bring the States into line with the Provinces on a Federal basis, the provincial representatives are willing to let the power of pardon in regard to Federal subjects being exclusively vested in the President of the Union. If there is a concession it is a cession on behalf of the Provinces. They are giving up a right which they have been hitherto exercising under the recent Government of India Act. At the same time let it be clearly understood that when the Provincial Constitution is framed, there should be the power of pardon vested in the Provincial Governors in so far as the concurrent subjects and the subjects in the Provincial list are concerned There must be inserted a corresponding provision in respect of vesting the power of pardon in the Heads of the Provincial Governments so far as these subjects are concerned. Sir N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar has given an assurance, in the sense in which any spokesman in respect of any proposal can give, that this matter will be taken up at a later stage and an amendment moved in regard to that matter. This is so far as the provincial sphere is concerned.


4.35.87
Sir Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar
Then the only remaining point is about death sentences. It was felt that, though logically you need not make any exception in regard to death sentences, having regard to the fact that a citizen of a province has enjoyed this privilege up to the present day, there is no reason why he should be deprived of that privilege of invoking the aid both of the Centre and Province. That is the spirit of Mr.Ananthasayanam Ayyangar's amendment which I support.


4.35.88
Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad
Mr. President, Sir, I wish to deal with only one aspect of the subject which has created some amount of subdued heat. It is that we are considering the case of those States who are acceding to the Federation in regard to the three subjects of Defence, External Relations and Communications. It is the principle of all Federal constitutions that where there is any subject vested in a Federation the offences relating to that subject should also be within its jurisdiction. There are certain taxes which are necessary to be made over to the Federation in order to enable it to work those subjects vested in the Federation. As a matter of fact offences relating to those taxes should also naturally be dealt with by the Federation.


4.35.89
Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad
Now, Sir, I submit that when a State accedes to the Federation that State absolutely surrenders all its sovereignty and powers to the Federation and therefore, by necessary implication, it surrenders also its jurisdiction over offences relating to certain subjects and the offence against the taxation in relation to those subjects. If this be the case it is a voluntary act of cession. There should be no misunderstanding that this cession of power includes also the cession of sovereign rights as to pardoning and commuting of offences. In these circumstances I beg to submit that the whole controversy and the sentimental outbursts have arisen only out of a misunderstanding. I submit that if the problem is looked at from the point of view of cession of certain necessary powers, then of course. it follows as a corollary that the power of pardon and other things must reside in the President of the Union. This is all I have to say on this subject.


4.35.90
Mr. Satyanarayan Sinha
Sir, the question may now be put.


4.35.91
President
The question is:

"That the question be now put."

The motion was adopted.

4.35.92
The Honourable Sir N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar
Sir, I have very little to say by way of replying to the debate. The points that were raised by some members in criticism of the amendment that I had moved have been very satisfactorily answered by other members. So there is really very little, left for me to say.


4.35.93
The Honourable Sir N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar
As regards Mr. Ananthasyanam Ayyangar's amendment, there are only two points which need be mentioned. One of them is that, if his amendment is confined to the provinces alone as he has suggested, would introduce a distinction between the provinces and the States. That is number one. The second point that I might mention is that we shall be taking away from the provinces some more of the powers which my amendment would have conferred exclusively upon them but that is as mall matter. If the House agrees that in the case of death sentences there should be concurrent authority for the President of the Federation in respect of provinces alone, I for one will not object to it. We shall leave the States alone, to take their own course in this matter.


4.35.94
President
I will now put the amendments to the vote. The first amendment is that moved by Mr. Ananthasayanam Ayyangar that at the end of amendment moved by Sir Gopalaswami Ayyangar the following be added:

"Where any person has been sentenced to death in a province, the President shall have all such powers of suspension, remission or commutation of sentences as are vested in the Governor of the province."

The amendment was adopted.

4.35.95
President
Then, I will put to vote the amendment of Sir Gopalaswami Ayyangar, as amended by Mr. Ananthasayanam Ayyangar.

The amendment was adopted.

4.35.96
President
I will put the original clause as amended, now, to vote

Clause 7, as amended, was adopted.
Clause 14

4.35.97
President
We all now take up Clause 14.


4.35.98
The Honourable Sir N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar
Sir, I have already read this clause out to the House, and I do not think it is necessary for me to read it out again. A very large number of amendments had been tabled in respect of this particular clause, and naturally an attempt has been made to see if the various points of view represented in these amendments could be brought together and a sort of agreed arrangement placed before the whole House. for unanimous acceptance. I have taken the liberty, Sir, of sending notice of an amendment this morning which I think represents an agreed solution of the difficulties, and if it is the wish of the House that I move that particular amendment and, if it is passed, the other amendments need not be moved, I am prepared to move it.


4.35.99
President
Please move it. Or do you think that we should take up the other amendments?


4.35.100
The Honourable Sir N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar
If this is carried, I think there will not be any necessity for the other amendments to be moved.


4.35.101
The Honourable Sir N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar
Sir, the amendment which I beg to move is this:

"'1. That for items (a), (b) and (c) of sub-clause (1) of Clause 14, the following be substituted:

'(a) The strength of the Council of States shall be so fixed as not to exceed me half of the strength of the House of the People. Not more than 25 members of the Council shall be returned by functional constituencies or panels constituted on the lines of the provisions in section 18(7) of the Irish Constitution of 1937. The balance of the members of the Council shall be returned by constituencies representing Units on a scale to be worked out in detail:

Provided that the total representation of Indian States does not exceed 40 % of this balance.

Explanation.-A Unit means a Province or Indian State which returns in its own individual right members to the Federal Parliament. In the case of Indian States which are grouped together for the purpose of returning representatives to the Council of States a Unit means the group so formed.

(b) The representatives of each Unit in the Council of States shall be elected by the elected members of the legislature of such Unit and in cases where a legislature consists of two Houses by the elected members of the Lower House of that legislature.

(c) The strength of the House of the People shall be so fixed as not to exceed 500. The Units of the Federation, whether Provinces, Indian States or groups of Indian States, shall be divided into constituencies and the number of representatives allotted to each constituency shall be so determined as to ensure that there shall be not less than one representative for every 750,000 of the population and not more than one representative for every 500,000:

Provided that the ratio of the total number of Indian States' respectively to their total population shall not be in excess of the ratio of the total number of representatives for the Provinces to their total population.'

'2. That in sub-clause (1) of Clause 14, following new item (e) be inserted:-

'(e) The fixing of the actual strength of the Council of Sates and of the House of the People the distribution of the strength so fixed amongst the Units of the Federation, the determination of the number, nature and constitution of functional panels or constituencies for the Council of States, the manner in which the smaller State should be grouped into Units for purposes of election to the two House, the principles on which territorial constituencies to the two Houses should be delimited and other ancillary matters shall be referred back to and investigated by the Union constitution Committee. After such investigation, the Union Constitution Committee shall submit to the President of the Constituent Assembly its recommendations as to the provisions relating to these matters which should be inserted in the draft text of the Union Constitution."'


4.35.102
The Honourable Sir N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar
Sir, I wish only to draw attention to the more important aspects of this draft amendment. Sir, the first point to which I should like to make a reference is that in this amendment we are definitely fixing the strength of the Council of States and in doing so we say that that strength should not exceed one half of the strength of the House of the People. I think Sir, the House will agree that that is a fair, proportion to fix. Now out of this strength that we so fix we propose to allocate 25 members to functional constituencies. In the draft, as originally placed before the House, it will be remembered that ten of the seats were to be filled by nomination by the President in consultation with universities and scientific bodies.


4.35.103
The Honourable Sir N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar
It has been felt by a very large number of people that that is not a sufficient provision for the purpose of getting on to the Council of States people who may not belong to universities or scientific bodies, but who on account of their connection with very important sides of the Nation's activity, deserve to be on a body of that description. In this connection a reference has been made to Section 18 (7) in the Irish Constitution. As you know, the bulk of the Senate in the Irish Constitution is filled by functional constituencies of this description. These constituencies relate to the representation of culture, education, of trade and commerce, of agriculture, of labour, of social services and various other national activities of that description. Now the one important difference between the provision in the Irish Constitution and the provision that is proposed to be made here is that that principle will be applied only to a very small number of members of the Council of States. If we fix the maximum strength of the House of the People at five hundred, the maximum strength of the Council of States can only be two hundred and fifty. If out of that we take twenty-five for being filled by constituencies of this description, it only means about ten per cent of the total strength, so that we retain the essential character of the Council of States, as originally planned. An overwhelming majority of members of the Council will be returned by units more or less on a territorial basis, but a very small number not exceeding ten per cent will be returned by constituencies of this special description. There is also another limitation that we have placed on the representation of Indian States in the Council of States. This amendment says that the total representation given to Indian States should not exceed forty per cent of the strength of the Council of States minus the number allotted to special constituencies.


4.35.104
The Honourable Sir N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar
Then, Sir, I would refer to item (b) in this new sub-clause. It practically reproduces item (b) in the original clause with this one important difference, namely, that the election should be by the elected members of the legislatures and that, if a unit legislature happens to have two Houses, the electorate will be the elected members of the Lower House of that legislature. Perhaps I might explain that I have retained the description 'Lower House' here in keeping with the description that has been used in other parts of this particular draft. The idea is not to retain this description of the Chamber that we all of us have in mind, but to find another description which would not be open to the same criticism.


4.35.105
The Honourable Sir N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar
Then, Sir, with regard to the House of the People the maximum strength is fixed at five hundred and the limits of one million and 7,50,000 which you find in the existing draft have been reduced to 7,50,000 and 5,00,000. Incidentally this accepts a number of amendments notice of which has been given which are more or less in the same terms.


4.35.106
The Honourable Sir N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar
Then, Sir, you come to the proviso to item (c). Perhaps some people might consider this is not very necessary, but, in order to allay fears, perhaps suspicions, it has been decided that it is desirable to put in a Proviso of this description. The House of the People is essentially a Chamber whose composition is based entirely on the population and it is only reasonable that the ratio which the number of Members representing the Indian States bears to the total population of Indian States should not exceed the ratio which the number of seats for the Provinces bears to the total population in the Provinces. So I do not think it needs any justification. Any special treatment which we desire to give to units of the Federation, whether Provinces or Indian States that treatment will be provided for in the composition of the Council of States.


4.35.107
The Honourable Sir N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar
Then, Sir, having stated these general principles as regards the composition of the two Houses, it is necessary that they should be elaborated and should be put in a form which could go into the draft Constitution for the future. A good deal of spade work will have to be done in this connection, fixing the actual strength of the two Houses, the way in which that strength should be distributed amongst the units, the kind and composition of the special constituencies and the principles on which territorial constituencies in Indian States should be delimited all these are very important things on which the Constitution will have to lay down certain fundamental principles and for that the purpose I have introduced an additional item (e) which assigns to the Union Constitution Committee the task of investigating these problems in some detail and then proposing clauses or sections which could be embodied in the new draft Constitution.


4.35.108
The Honourable Sir N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar
That will certainly come up before the House for discussion. The Report of the Union Constitution Committee will be made to the President and then the Report becomes really the property of the House. If it is so decided that this report should be discussed in the House before the actual recommendations of the Committee are put into the draft text, that discussion can be held at the future session. But if the House should agree that the recommendations of the Union Constitution Committee as regards these matters can straightway go into the draft text of the Union constitution, the House will still gave an of examining the merits of these provisions when it comes to text of the constitution.


4.35.109
The Honourable Sir N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar
Sir, I move this amendment.


4.35.110
President
I have got a number of amendments to this clause. I shall take these amendments now one after another.

(Messrs. Jagat Narain Lal, H. V. Pataskar, B. M. Gupte, R. M. Nalavade, Seth Govind Das and G. L. Mehta, did not move their amendments, Nos. 232 to 237.)

4.35.111
Dr. Mohan Sinha Mehta
I withdraw my amendment (No. 238).


4.35.112
Col. B. H. Zaidi
I withdraw the amendment (No. 238).


4.35.113
Maharaj Nagendra Singh
Mr. President, Sir, the amendment of Sir Gopalaswami Ayyangar meets the view point of small States admirably and he ought to be congratulated on this amendment because it creates effective democracy. After all, Sir, the greatness and balance of a constitution lies in its portraying with the minutest attention to detail the various entities and interests that lie in the country at large. The amendment will certainly achieve this object and I wholeheartedly support it. I, therefore, withdraw my amendment, Sir, but I request that as far as the consideration of the allocation of seats inter se between the States is concerned there should be some representatives of the small States in the Union Constitution Committee, The grouping of small States and the formation of constituencies will affect these States vitally and it is therefore important from the point of view of these States that there should be a representative of the small States in the Union Constitution Committee to express their views.


4.35.114
Maharaj Nagendra Singh
I withdraw my amendment (No. 239).

(Messrs. Rai Saheb Ragho Raj Singh and H. J. Khandekar did not move their amendments, Nos. 239 and 240.)

4.35.115
Shri Himmatsingh K. Maheswari
I withdraw amendment No. 241. (Amendments Nos. 242 to 260 were not moved.)


4.35.116
Shri Vishwambhar Dayal Tripathi
Sir, I do not propose to move my amendment as it is covered by the resolution of Sir Gopalaswami Ayyangar.

(Amendment No. 262 was not moved.)
(Sir V. T. Krishnamachari did not move his amendment No. 263.)

4.35.117
President
I take it that none of the other Ministers are moving.


4.35.118
Sir V. T. Krishnamachari
Yes.

(Amendments Nos. 264 to 271 were not moved.)

4.35.119
Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad
Mr. President, Sir, I beg to move:

"That sub-clause (2) of Clause 14 be deleted."


4.35.120
Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad
The simple purpose of this amendment is that the sub-clause refer to a schedule which is not yet in existence. If we agree to sub-clause (2) it would be signing a blank cheque or a transfer deed without a schedule. I submit that this is a difficult thing to do.


4.35.121
Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad
Then, I find after the amendment of my Honourable friend Sir Gopalaswami Ayyangar this amendment is in an anomalous position. After we gave notice of a large number of amendments the original clause has been re-drafted and put forth here on the floor of the House. We have had no opportunity of considering the draft. I have no particular objection to the revised draft which has been submitted for consideration. But still I should think that perhaps it would have been better to give us some time to consider this important subject. A draft of such intricate nature like this, containing important constitutional principles cannot be easily handled at a moment's notice. I therefore respectfully submit that, as in any other important case, some time should be given for consideration of the subject and then it would be easy for us to submit amendments. It may be that we would fully agree with the principles, but still, for the sake of safety, it would be better to give us some time. I hope the Honourable member will kindly consider the difficulty in which some of us have been placed and postpone the subject for further consideration. This is a very important subject and its importance justifies the suggestion.

(Amendments Nos. 273 to 278 were not moved.)

4.35.122
Prof. Shibbanlal Saksena
Mr. President, Sir, my amendment to sub-clause (4) of Clause 14 runs as follows:

"That in sub-clause (4) of Clause 14, for the word 'one third', the, word 'one half' be substituted."


4.35.123
Prof. Shibbanlal Saksena
In accordance with the present provision in sub-clause (4) of Clause 14, one-third of the members will retire every second year. Now according to the time-table which we have laid down, the life of the house of the, People shall be of four years' duration, and a new House of the People as well as new provincial legislatures shall, be elected every fourth year in the normal course of things. What I want is that in the Council of States as well instead of one-third of the members being elected every second year, one-half of the members should be elected every second year. In this manner we shall be having a new Council of States every fourth year. It may be argued that the Lower House may be dissolved before their full terms expire, and the four year cycle may not recur. But dissolution, I am sure, will not be a normal feature in the, life of the legislatures; and even. if one or two legislatures in the provinces are dissolved before their full terms, the four year cycle will not be materially disturbed at least during the present century.


4.35.124
An Honourable Member
On a point of information, is he going to, move the amendment?


4.35.125
Prof. Shibanlal Saksena
Yes, Sir, I move it.


4.35.126
Prof. Shibanlal Saksena
According to the amendment of Sir N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar the States will have a fairly large representation in this House and, as is well known the Lower Houses of the States have a majority of nominated members, so a majority of the members will be Rulers' representatives. Therefore what I want is that this House which will have a fairly large number of reactionary members, should not be a House which should be continued for very long intervals. I want at least half of this should change every second year and then it might not be so reactionary. I have already voiced my opposition to second Chambers before but if we are to have them, at least we should have a change of half of the members every second year so that in the 4th year the whole Council of States win be changed.

(Amendments Nos. 280 to 299 were not moved.)
(Amendments Nos. 13 to 16 in Supplementary List No. I, Amendments Nos. 10 & 11 in Supplementary List No. II, and Amendments Nos. 4 to 6 in Supplementary List No. III were not moved.)

4.35.127
Begum Aizaz Rasul
Sir, the amendment standing in my name is-

"That in sub-clause (1) (d) of Clause 14, the following be added at the end:--

'by a system of proportional representation by signal transferable vote.'"


4.35.128
Begum Aizaz Rasul
Sir, I do not propose moving this amendment at the present moment in view of the amendment moved by Sir N. Gopalaswamy Ayyangar. I hope that this very important aspect of , the question as to the method of election to the Council of States will be considered by the Union Constitution Committee in order to safeguard the interest of minorities. I do not wish to move this amendment at this time, Sir, because of the great possibility of getting a negative vote on it in case the House rejects it but I reserve to myself the right of moving this amendment later on, if need arise.


4.35.129
President
There is another amendment in your name.


4.35.130
Begum Aizaz Rasul
There is another amendment standing in my name:

"That in sub-clause (4) of Clause 14. for the word 'second' the word- 'third' be substituted."


4.35.131
Begum Aizaz Rasul
Sir, the clause will then read:

"The Council of States shall be a permanent body not subject to dissolution, but as near as may be, one-third of the members thereof shall retire in every third year in accordance with the provisions in that behalf contained in Schedule--"


4.35.132
Begum Aizaz Rasul
Sir, my object in moving this amendment is that I feel that the period of two years is a very short period for a Legislator. As soon as he becomes conversant with the business, gets to know legislative work, and settles down to it he will have to retire. To my mind this is not very fair and he ought to have a slightly longer period in which to show his worth and do justice to the House to which he is elected.


4.35.133
Begum Aizaz Rasul
Sir, if my amendment is accepted it will mean that the House being a, permanent body, one-third of the members retiring every three years, it will be a rotation of nine years. As most Honourable Members are aware, this is the system at present prevailing under the Government of India Act of 1935. Therefore, people in India are not unfamiliar with this system. I feel that this system, as it has been working for the last ten years, in this country, has proved absolutely satisfactory. Sir, in the constitutions of most of the western countries there are two Houses of the Legislature; Members of the Upper House are mostly either life members or the life of that House also synchronises with the life of the Lower House. It is only in the United States Senate that one-third of the members retire every second year. I however feel that it is not necessary that we in India should try to copy the system that prevails in the United States because, for one thing, the members of the U.S. Senate are chosen by popular vote whereas for the Council of States that is envisaged by the Union Constitution these members will not be elected by direct election but will be elected by the members of the Lower House. Sir, another strong point that I wish to make in support of my contention is that I do not think that the members of the Lower House should elect members to the Council of States twice in their term of membership and I think this right should only be exercised once. If this provision stands as at present, and if the members of the Upper House have to retire every second year, that means that the members of the Lower House will have the right to elect twice in their lime time members to the Upper House. With these few words, I commend my amendment to the consideration of the House. I feel it is a very fair amendment and hope it will be accepted.


4.35.134
President
The clause and the amendments are now open for discussion.


4.35.135
Mr. Jainarain Vyas
Mr. President, Sir, I rise to support the fresh proposals recently put forward by Sir N. Gopalaswamy Ayyangar, but while doing so, I would like to offer a few remarks on the subject matter. When we support these proposals, it should not mean that we feel that the proposals will favourably affect the people of the Indian States. We support these proposals purely on political grounds. When these proposals are accepted, fourteen lore States will come in the Lower House. These 14 States will include four States of Kathiawar, seven of the Eastern States, one from Rajputana, one from Assam and one from Shimla Hill States. I am very glad to observe that four maritime States, Junagadh, Nawnagar, Bhavnagar and Cutch will find their place in the Lower House on account of these proposals and the border State of Manipur will also come in. So, from that point of view, it is a very good thing to increase the membership of the Lower House as has been done. Sir Gopalaswamy Ayyangar while putting forward Clause I (b) said that only elected members of the Legislature in the Lower House will be able to vote for the election of the Lower House. I mean the elected members of the Legislative Assemblies of the States. There is some confusion in the words "elected members" because when we think of the elected members of the Lower House of our Union, we think that these are elected on the basis of adult franchise, but in Indian States things are not so. I know of a State in Punjab where the son of a Ruler is an elected member of the Assembly and his wife also finds a place among the elected members, and Sir, they are unfortunately both Ministers or rather, they are "popular ministers" of the Assembly. So this is how elected members and elected "popular ministers" come in through the Lower House of the Assembly in States. There is a State which has got an elected member on the basis of four members in the constituency. So he is also an elected member. I know of another State which has got ten jagirdars out of about fifty elected members in the Lower Houses or in the Legislative Assembly.


4.35.136
Mr. Jainarain Vyas
That way, the elected members of the Assembly do not mean really elected representatives because they are not elected on popular franchise or on adult franchise. Sir, I want to bring these instances to your notice and through you, to the notice of the House, so that when a draft is being prepared those who are at the helm of affairs in drafting the Constitution will see that truly elected members come in, not members elected on bogus franchise in bogus legislatures as they exist in some of the States.


4.35.137
Mr. Jainarain Vyas
One thing more I would like to bring to your notice and that is, then popular representatives of the States have got no place in the Union Constitution Committee of this House, and when the rules or clause are framed their opinion does not come up before the Constitution Sub Committee. I hope Sir, when there is a vacancy in the Union Constitution Committee, then claim of the popular elements will be considered and, if necessary, the strength of the Committee will be increased in order to find a place for the popular members from the States.


4.35.138
Mr. Jainarain Vyas
With these remarks, Sir, I commend Sir Gopalaswamy Ayyangar's proposal to the House. I hope, Sir, my request will be considered when the real drafting is taken in hand.


4.35.139
Pandit Hiralal Shastri
Mr. President, I had no intention to participate in the debate today. But when Sir Gopalaswamy Ayyangar stated that the amendment he was moving badthe unanimous support of the House, I felt that I must say something about it.


4.35.140
Pandit Hiralal Shastri
With all Respect, I ask Sir Gopalaswamy as to how his amendment has the unanimous support of the House. So far as I know, all the representatives of the States people present in the House are of the opinion that the original proposal in the report of the Union Constitution Committee should stand. Again, I wish to know why the strength of the Upper and the Lower Houses Should be increased. We have often passed a resolution in the all India States Peoples' Conference, that larger, States Should join the Indian Union separately while the smaller ones should joint the Indian Union., in a. group. The standard and the qualifications we have fixed for the States joining the union 'are sufficiently high. According to our standard, a State with a population of 5 million and having a revenue of 30 millions can Join the Union individually. We were satisfied to note that for election to both the Houses, the minimum population limit was fixed at a million. Many attempts were made and many amendments were brought in to reduce this limit to a quarter million but in vain. I clearly. see that behind the proposed amendment, of, reducing the limits of one million and 750,000 to 750,000 and 500,000 respectively, underlies the policy that some State, with a population of more than half a million may get representation not only in the Upper House, but also in the Lower House I do not like this. Therefore, I have not agreed to, the proposal. There is no unanimous support of the House. Sir Gopalaswamy Ayyanger possibly was the author of the original proposal- in the report and if it is true that he himself is moving amendment to the original proposal, I do not think it proper to oppose him. However, I cannot but express my feelings in this connection. When our country is going to be politically a Union, in spite of the division, when differences between provinces and States are being removed, I do not think it proper that small States, should come into the Union as separate entities. I disapprove of the idea of small States coming into the Union as separate entities, for I know that if separate units of these small States are formed, that would only be for the purposes of elections. I know that this will go contrary to the proposal of grouping and States will get all opportunities for coming in as individual units. If we intend that the small States should come into the union in groups, they should be allowed the minimum opportunity to exercise their franchise as individual units for election to this House. According to our original proposal only fifteen states were to participate in the Assembly elections as individual units. But because their representatives have been recognised and because- of this and other amendments by the States, fifteen other States will now come in as individual units and this is the number of small States joining as individual units will be increased. Besides this, a provision has also been added. The amendment of Sir N. Gopalaswami considers many vital matters of detail regarding the formation of units and delimitation of constituencies etc. This matter will go up before the Union Constitution Committee where the final decision will be taken on it, I am very sorry to have to say in this connection that so far no representative of the States people has been taken in the said Committee. However, this is not the point. We are discussing here a very important and vital matter and our decision. will be placed before the Union Constitution Committee. Maharaj Nagendar Singhji has demanded here that the small States must be represented in this Committee. I do not know as to how many representatives will be taken but I must voice our demand that representatives of the States people must also be taken on this Committee. Many matters of great importance will be discussed in the Committee and decision thereon taken; and hence a representative of the States people must be there to voice their opinion. I give this particular warning to the House that the smaller States should not be individually allowed to come in as representatives of each separate unit. The more they are grouped the better it is. I have reasons to say this. However, I do not think it proper to go into controversies over this. One is greatly pained and astonished to hear of the atrocities and repression going on in those small States. The States people are very miserable on account of the atrocities of the authorities. Many of the States that have joined this Assembly whether individually or in groups feel as if they have obliged our leaders and the National Congress by doing so. I do not like to say anything against it but in the manner the smaller and the bigger States have joined the Assembly, they feel as if they have been given a written authority to have absolute power over their people. Thus they have not only begun to exercise their absolute authority over the people but have also begun to oppress them. If we enquire into the important news-of the States, appearing every day with pictures on the front Pages of the newspapers, we would find that great atrocities are committed on the people by the States authorities. This is not the proper time to say all that but I had to give vent to my heartfelt pain at some time. Syt. Vyas has just stated that the State authorities are generally interfering with elections. Therefore, I would like to draw the particular attention of Sir Gopalaswami to this and request him to see that when the constituencies and the units are formed the smaller States do not come in as individual units in large numbers and that the view point of the representatives of the States peoples is also somehow secured.


4.35.141
Pandit Hiralal Shastri
I do not oppose the motion but wish to state that at least the voice of the States subject must not be ignored. I would also appeal to the Honourable the President to see that the representatives of the States subjects should be included in the Committee.


4.35.142
Mr. Satyanarayan Sinha
The question be now put.


4.35.143
President
The question is:

"That the question be now put."

The motion was adopted.

4.35.144
President
I shall now put the amendments. I shall first put the amendments of Sir N.Gopalaswami Ayyangar. The question is:

'1. That for items (a), (b) and (c) of sub-clause (1) of Clause 14, the following be substituted:

"(a) The strength of the Council of States shall be so fixed as not to exceed one half of the strength of the House of the People. Not more than 25 members of the Council shall be returned by functional constituencies or panels constituted on the lines of the provisions in Section 18(7) of the Irish Constitution of 1937. The balance of the members of the Council shall be returned by constituencies representing Units on a scale to be worked out in detail:

Provided that the total representation of Indian States does not exceed 40% of this balance.

Explanation.-A Unit means a Province or Indian State which returns in its own individual right members to the Federal Parliament. In the case of Indian States which are grouped together for the purpose of return ting representatives to the Council of States a Unit means the group so formed.

(b) The representatives of each Unit in the Council of States shall be elected by the elected members of the legislature of such Unit and in cases where a legislature consists of two Houses by the elected members of the Lower House of that legislature.

(c) The strength of the House of the People shall be so fixed as not to exceed 500. The Units of the Federation, whether Provinces, Indian States or groups of Indian States shall be divided into constituencies and the number of representatives allotted to each constituency shall be so determined as to ensure that there shall be not less than one representative for every 750,000 of the population and not more than one representative for every 500,000:

Provided that the ratio of the total number of Indian States representative to their total population shall not be in excess of the ratio of the total number of representatives for the Provinces to their total population."

2. That in sub-clause (1) of Clause 14, the following new item (e) be inserted:

"(e) The fixing of the actual strength of the Council of States and of the House of the People, the distribution of the strength so fixed amongst the Units of the Federation, the determination of the number, nature and constitution of functional panels or constituencies for the' Council of States, the manner in which the smaller States should be grouped into Units for purposes of election to the two Houses, the principles on which territorial constituencies to the two Houses should be delimited and other ancillary matters shall be referred back to and investigated by the Union Constitution Committee. After such investigation, the Union Constitution Committee shall submit to the President of the Constituent Assembly its recommendations as to the provisions relating to these matters which should be inserted in the draft text of the Union Constitution."'

The amendments were adopted.

4.35.145
President
There are some more amendments which were moved. I shall put Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad's amendment. The question is:

"That sub-clause (2) of Clause 14 be deleted."

The amendment was negatived.

4.35.146
President
There is another amendment by Mr. Shibban Lal Saksena, which I shall put. The questions is:

'That in sub-clause (4) of Clause 14, for the word 'one-third' the word 'one half, be substituted."

The motion was negatived.

4.35.147
President
I shall now put the amendment moved by Begum Aizaz Rasul. The question is:

"That in sub-clause (4) of Clause 14, for the word "second" the word "third" be substituted."

The motion was negatived.

4.35.148
President
I shall now put the original clause as amended by Sir N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar's amendment which has been adopted. The question is:

"That Clause 14, as amended, be adopted."

The motion was adopted.

4.35.149
Mr. M. S. Aney
There is a note under this clause and in that note the different Provinces and States are named. I find among the names the name of the Central Provinces mentioned as 'C. P.' The name of the Province under the Act under which it was formed as "C. P. and Berar' That name is also reproduced in some other clauses which we have' already passed. So I think this might be a clerical mistake. But I do want to bring this fact to your notice and to the notice of the House. When the final draft is made, if the Note happens to be there, the proper name of the Province should be given as "the Central Provinces and Berar."


4.35.150
President
I think that is a slip because in the Schedule it is correctly stated.

Part X

4.35.151
President
We shall now take up part X.


4.35.152
The Honourable Sir N. Gopalaswami Ayangar
Sir, I may here request your permission for asking that the moving of this Part be postponed because some of the amendments have raised a very important issue as to what provision should be made for giving Provincial Legislatures some constituent power for amending the Constitution of the Province. That requires some consideration. Therefore, if you permit, we will take up this matter at the next session.


4.35.153
President
The consideration of Part X will be held over.

Part XI

4.35.154
President
We shall take up Part XI.


4.35.153
The Honourable Sir N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar
The first clause in Part XI ruins as follows:

"The Government of the Federation shall be the successor to the Government of India established under the Government of India Act, 1935, as regards all property, assets, rights and liabilities."


4.35.154
The Honourable Sir N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar
I request your permission to move this clause with a verbal addition which would bring the terms of this clause up-to-date with reference to recent happenings. Since this clause was drafted, Parliament has passed an Indian Independence Act. Under the powers given by that Act, very comprehensive adaptations of the Government of India Act are being ordered by the Governor-General. So at the time we shall be bringing this new Constitution into force it will be the Government of India Act, 1935, as adapted. Therefore, if you will permit me to do so, I would move:

"That after the words 'the Government of India Act, 1935' in Clause I the words 'as adapted under the provisions of the Indian Independence Act' be added."


4.35.155
President
Clause 1 has been moved with some alteration. We have got several amendments of which I have received notice.


4.35.156
Shri K. Santhanam
Sir, I want to know if that expression has been substituted.


4.35.157
The Honourable Sir N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar
The Clause will read after my amendment as follows:

"1. The Government of the Federation shall be the successor to the Government of India established under the Government of India Act, 1935, as adapted under the provisions of the Indian Independence Act, as regards all property, assets, rights and liabilities."


4.35.158
Shri K. Santhanam
I do not move my amendment No. 401.


4.35.159
President
The clause that has been moved as amended is this:

"1. The Government of the Federation shall he the successor to the Government of India established under the Government of India Act, 1935, as adapted under the provisions of the Indian Independence Act, as regards all property, assets, rights and liabilities."


4.35.160
Shri K Santhanam
The difficulty is that the Indian Independence Act must take precedence over the Government of India Act of 1935. Therefore, it will not be correct to put the latter first. The order will have to be reversed.


4.35.161
President
The 1935 Act is adapted.


4.35.162
Shri K. Santhanam
The Act in operation is the Indian Independence Act the adaptation is under the Indian Independence Act.


4.35.163
The Honourable Sir N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar
May I explain the point? After all, Sir, the Indian Independence Act is largely in enabling Act, the Constitution under which we shall work from the 15th August 1947 onwards will still be the Government of India Act, 1935, as adapted by the Orders which the Governor-General. has been empowered to issue under the Indian Independence Act.


4.35.164
Shri K. Santhanam
I do not think it will be legally correct. We will be working under the Indian Independence Act or under the Government of India Act, 1935, in certain respects.


4.35.165
Sir Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar
I think Mr. Santhanam is right The real Constitution will be the Dominion Constitution. We are adapting certain provisions of the 1935 Act to suit the Dominion Act. The future Government will be the successor of the Dominion Government.


4.35.166
The Honourable Sir N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar
Sir, I bow to the legal opinion though I do not feel convinced, I doubt its correctness.


4.35.167
Shri K. Santhanam
Suitable arrangements may be made.


4.35.168
President
Though there is no difference in meaning, there is a dispute. You had better leave it to Sir N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar to put it in proper form.


4.35.169
President
As Messrs. Nijalingappa, Krishnamoorthy Rae and Ananthasayanam Ayyangar are not moving their amendments, I will put Clause 1 of part XI to the vote.


4.35.170
President
The question is:

"That Clause 1, as amended, of Part XI be adopted."

The motion was adopted.
CLAUSE 2

4.35.171
The Honourable Sir N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar
Sir, I move:

"2. (1) Subject to this Constitution, the laws in force in the territories of the Federation immediately before the commencement of the Constitution shall continue in force therein until altered, or, repealed, or amended by a competent legislature or other competent authority.

(2) The President may, by, Order provide, that as from a specified date any law in force in the Provinces shall, until repealed or amended by competent authority, have effect subject to such adaptations and modifications as appear to him to be necessary or expedient for bringing the provisions of that law into accord with the provisions of this Constitution."


4.35.172
The Honourable Sir N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar
These are necessary to keep the existing Acts in force.

(Shri Jainarain Vyas did not move his amendment No. 404)

4.35.173
Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad
Mr. President, I beg to move:

"That in sub-clause (2) of Clause 2, for the words 'by competent authority' the words 'by a competent authority' be substituted."


4.35.174
Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad
Sir, this is only a drafting amendment.


4.35.175
Mr. S. V. Krishnamurthy Rao
Mr. President, this is only an enabling provision similar to the one provided for the Provinces This has references to such of the States as accede to the Union. My amendment runs thus:

"That in sub-clause (2) of Clause 2, after the word 'Provinces' the following be inserted:

'and such of the States as are parts of the Indian Dominion as per provision Section 2, Clause 4 of the Indian Independence Act of 1947'."


4.35.176
Mr. S. V. Krishnamurthy Rao
I hope the Mover of the Clause will accept this amendment.


4.35.177
President
As there are no other amendments to this Clause and as no Member wishes to speak, Sir N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar may reply to the debate.


4.35.178
The Honourable Sir N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar
Mr. President, Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad's suggestion is a drafting amendment. But I am not sure that it is a drafting improvement. I would rather retain "competent authority" in the place of "a competent authority".


4.35.179
The Honourable Sir N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar
As regards the amendment of Mr. Rao, I think that if the representatives of Indian States are prepared to agree, I am prepared to accept it. But I am afraid the question will require to be very carefully examined before we can agree to it. I would rather that the clause is left alone and the matter examined later.


4.35.180
President
I will now put the amendments to the vote. The amendment of Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad

"That in sub-Clause (2) of Clause 2, for the words 'by competent authority' the words 'by a competent authority' be substituted."

(The amendment was negatived.)

4.35.181
Mr. S. V. Krishnamurthy Rao
Sir, I withdraw my amendment.


4.35.182
President
Mr. Krishnamurthy Rao withdraws his amendment. I take it that the House gives him leave to withdraw it.

(The amendment was, by leave of the Assembly, withdrawn.)

4.35.183
President
Then I will put the clause to vote.

The motion was adopted.
CLAUSE 3

4.35.184
The Honourable Sir N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar
Sir, Clause 3 runs as follows:

"Until the Supreme Court is duly constituted under this Constitution, the Federal Court be deemed to be the Supreme Court and shall exercise all the functions of the Supreme Court:

Provided that all cases pending before the Federal Court and the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council at the date of commencement of this Constitution may be disposed of as if this Constitution had not come into operation."


4.35.185
The Honourable Sir N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar
That is to say, cases pending before the Judicial Committee at the inception of this Constitution will continue to be disposed of by that Committee. Sir, I see that there are certain amendments to effect improvements in this clause. I shall be prepared to accept the amendment of which Sir Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar has given notice.

(Messrs. K. Santhanam, Biswanath Das and Thakur Das Bhargava did not move their amendments Nos. 407, 408 and 409.)

4.35.186
Sir Jaspat Roy Kapoor
I am not moving No. 410 in view of Sir Alladi's amendment.

(Mr. R. K. Sidhwa did not move his amendment No. 411.)

4.35.187
Sir Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar
My amendment runs in these terms:

"That for the Proviso to Clause 3, the following be substituted:

'On and after the coming into force of this Constitution, the jurisdiction of the Judicial Committee of His Majesty's Privy Council to entertain and dispose of appeals and petitions from any Court in the Union of India, including the jurisdiction in respect of criminal matters in the exercise of His Majesty's prerogative shall cease and all appeals and other proceedings pending before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council shall stand transferred to, and be disposed of by the Supreme Court. Further provision may be made by the Parliament of the Federation to implement and give effect to this provision'."


4.35.188
Sir Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar
Sir, in commending this amendment for the acceptance of the House I should like to make a few observations. Even in the British Commonwealth, judicial autonomy is recognised as necessarily incidental to the new status which the Dominions have attained. In Australia, there is no right of appeal at all except with the leave of the High Court of that country. In Canada, under recent legislation, the right of appeal from the Supreme Court of Canada both in civil and criminal cases has been abolished. In South Africa, under the South African Constitution, there is no right of appeal to the Judicial Committee. If that is the position even in regard to the Dominions within the British Commonwealth, it is inconceivable that there should, be any retention of jurisdiction in the judicial Committee after India has become a Republic and the Constitution we are enacting comes into force. There has necessarily to be an automatic cessation of jurisdiction in regard to pending appeals. It is inconceivable that what is in effect a foreign Court should be in a position to reverse or modify the decisions of Indian tribunals. The Supreme Court to be established is, the only final Court of Appeal for all India, and it is but proper that all pending cases should be transferred to the Supreme Court. The point has been raised in certain quarters whether we could direct the transfer of records from the Judicial Committee. All that we enact is- that cases do stand transferred, that hereafter the Supreme Court will have the Jurisdiction to deal with all these cases. I do not believe that the Judicial Committee will fail to act in aid of our legislation. As a matter of fact there are very few original records in the custody of the Judicial Committee. If there is any difficulty in regard to procedure and other matters federal legislation, will be enacted. That is the object of the latter part of this amendment. I therefore ask the House to accept the amendment.


4.35.189
Sri M. Ananthasayanam Ayyangar
I am not moving my amendment No. 11 in supplementary List IV.


4.35.190
President
I think there is only one amendment now.


4.35.191
The Honourable Sir N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar
I accept the amendment of Sir Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar.


4.35.192
President
The amendment is accepted by the Mover of the clause. I will now put it to vote.

The amendment was adopted.

4.35.193
President
I will now put the clause, as amended by Sir Alladi, to vote.

Clause 3, as amended, was adopted.

4.35.194
President
We have only two minutes now, and........


4.35.195
The Honourable Sir N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar
There are only two or three clauses left.


4.35.196
President
If the wish of the House is that we should complete these clauses. I have no objection. but there is a meeting of the Advisory Committee at 2-30 p.m., and members might like....


4.35.197
Sri M. Ananthasayanam Ayyangar
Thinking that the Assembly would sit today only up to 1 o'clock, we have already booked our berths for today.


4.35.198
President
Does the House want that the consideration of the remaining clauses should be taken up in the next session?


4.35.199
Many Honourable Members
Yes.


4.35.200
President
Then the consideration of the remaining clause is held over.

ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE PRESIDENT

4.35.201
President
Before we disperse, I have some announcement to make. There was notice of a resolution by Rajkumari Amrit Kaur about Khadi being used for the National Flag. The notice of the resolution came, at a time when we could not call a meeting of the Steering Committee, and so we could not place it before the House. But I may inform the House that so far as this Constituent Assembly is concerned, there will be no Flag used which is made of anything else but Khadi. It is also the policy of the Government which has been communicated to the Provincial Governments also that all National Flags should be made only of Khadi that is to say, of hand-spun and hand-woven cloth, whether it is of cotton, of wool, or silk or of any other material.


4.35.202
President
Yesterday, the House passed a resolution asking me to appoint a Committee to prepare a draft constitution for the Chief Commissioners' provinces, and I have pleasure in announcing that I have appointed the following Committee for that purpose:

Sir N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar.

Dr. Pattabhi Sitaramayya.

Mr. K. Santhanam.

Mr. Deshbandhu Gupta.

Mr. Mukut Bihari Lal Bhargava.

Mr. C. H. Poonadha.

Mr. Hussain Imam.


4.35.203
President
There is one other important matter to which reference was made in the earlier part of the debate with regard to which I have to make certain announcements, i.e., the Function on the 15th. The programme which we have thought of is this:


4.35.204
President
That on the night of the 14th and 15th just at midnight, we have a session of this House, and at that time just as the clock strikes twelve, we either start our Proceedings or end our Proceedings by which we take power under the New Act which has been passed and either by a Resolution or otherwise, we authorise the Leader of the House to proceed to Lord Mountbatten and to request him to accept the Governor Generalship and thus regularise his appointment as Governor-General as being made at our request and the Leader of the House will also communicate to him at that hour the names of the Members of the Cabinet, which he will constitute. That will be the Proceeding at night. The next morning we have a session of this House at 10 o'clock here and that will be attended by the Governor-General and here we shall have some sort of a formal ceremony-the actual handing over of power to us.


4.35.205
Mr. M. S. Aney
On the 15th?


4.35.206
President
That would be the midnight of the 14th and the early morning of 15th.


4.35.207
Shri Balkrishan Sharma
That will be our D Day.


4.35.208
President
As regards the details of the programme for the night session or for the morning session, we have not yet worked out all the details, but I propose to work out the details in consultation with Members like Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru and some others who will be available here.


4.35.209
B. Das
What about the Finance Committee in regard to financial distribution?


4.35.210
President
Let me first complete this thing.


4.35.211
President
As regards the admission of visitors, as Members are aware, we have very limited accommodation in this House. There has been a demand made on behalf of Members, that we should allow them to bring their own guests, of course, under the ordinary conditions of cards being issued by us. It will be necessary also to invite to that function representatives of foreign countries who are here, the Consular representatives and others and some of the higher Civil and Military authorities of the Government of India will have also to be invited. The Press will naturally like to be present in full strength on that occasion. It will therefore be very difficult to accommodate all who desire to come and attend the function, but I hope the House will leave it to us to work out some programme by which we shall accommodate, as fairly and equitably as possible, as many as we can.


4.35.212
An Honourable Member
Can two cards be issued for every Member?


4.35.213
President
If we allowed two visitors to each Member, and we do not allow anyone else even then we shall have no accommodation.


4.35.214
Shri Gopikrishna Vijayavargiya
At least one card for every Member.


4.35.215
President
On the 14th night visitor passes will be allowed on the usual conditions in the usual way.


4.35.216
Shri Mahavir Tyagi
Can you not kindly spare this House the part of the programme according to which we are required to invite Lord Mountbatten to be our Governor-General in future; because this House has never discussed that question; nor has the House passed so far, any Resolution, nor agreed to the idea, of Lord Mountbatten being the Governor-General of India? The rest of the programme may proceed as it is.


4.35.217
President
If the Honourable Member is so anxious, I shall put this matter to the House for discussion. (Many Honourable Members: No. no). That was at least my impression, but if the Honourable Member wants it, I shall put it to the House.


4.35.218
Mr. Shankar Dattatraya Deo
What is the proposition, we have not understood. Let us understand what is his proposal.


4.35.219
President
I had chalked out a Programme which I indicated in the earlier part of my statement. One Member says that we should not raise the question of Lord Mountbatten being the Governor-General because the House has not considered it. I said that if he is anxious, I shall put it to the House.


4.35.220
Many Honourable Members
No, no. It must be left to the President.


4.35.221
Pandit Govind Malaviya
Sir, without going into the merit of the question at all may I say that it seems to me that what the Honourable Member meant was that since that matter had been decided without the House having in any way been brought into it, we should not have the ceremony of the Leader of the House going to the viceroy straight from this House and asking him or, behalf of this House to accept the Governor Generalship. I understand that he meant only that much and not that we should riot have Lord Mountbatten as Governor-General.


4.35.222
Shri Mahavir Tyagi
What I meant was not to record any objection on behalf of the House to the acceptance of Lord Mountbatten as the Governor-General of India. That thing has already been done and if there were any Members in this Honourable House who object to that they could have sent a Resolution to that effect. I do not want to take tip that question in this House. What I was suggesting was that you had better drop the idea of going through that item of the programme in which. you say, on behalf of this House, Lord Mountbatten was to be invited to accept the Governor-Generalship. I think he has already done it and this formality may better be given up because the House has never discussed this issue, and if without the House having considered this issue be is invited this will be too formal and in my opinion Slightly unfair. What I was suggesting was that with-out disturbing the scheme or without objecting to his being the Governor-General of India. the House may not be committed. He is the Governor-General. He has also accepted the offer and he remains so without any commitment on behalf of this House.


4.35.223
Pandit Govind Malaviya
Sir, I propose that there should be no further discussion on this subject and we should leave it to the President to fix up what he thinks best.


4.35.224
Mr. Tajamul Hussain
May I have your permission Sir, to move a formal Resolution to this effect:

That this house accepts the programme as chalked out by the Honourable the President in connection with the Independence Day Celebration in its entirety?


4.35.225
President
I do not think it is necessary to put any Resolution to vote like this. I think I shall fix the programme as I said, the details of which I shall work out.


4.35.226
Mr. H. V. Kamath
Will you be so good as to direct the Members of the Assembly shall not be deprived of the right of introducing at least one visitor each on this historic occasion?


4.35.227
President
It depends upon the accommodation. As I said, we shall do our best to accommodate as many as we can, but if we cannot, we shall devise some means by which all members will be accommodated in an equitable manner.


4.35.228
An Honourable Member
May I know, Sir, at what time we should come here?


4.35.229
President
You have to come here on the night of the 14th. I shall announce the exact time later on. It will be at midnight.


4.35.230
Mr. H. V. Kamath
About the presentation of the National Flag to every Member, we would be grateful if it could be given before the 15th August.


4.35.231
President
Purchase a flag each.


4.35.232
Mr. H. V. Kamath
Presentation by you, Sir!


4.35.233
President
That is a matter which we have to consider. We cannot undertake to provide each member with a flag. It does not seem to be practicable at the present Moment.


4.35.234
Shri Ajit Prasad Jain
You said you will draw up a' scheme according to which visitors shall be equitably admitted to the House. I would like to know the time when we shall be able to know that scheme.


4.35.235
President
We shall work it out in a day or two and we shall announce it in the Press.


4.35.236
Shri Mahavir Tyagi
In this regard, may I make one suggestion, Sir, Since you say that several personalities have to be invited, and we are also anxious to have our friends to witness this auspicious ceremony would suggest that instead of holding it here, we may again go to the old Fort or' somewhere else where we can have a big ceremony and a large number of people may be accommodated. Many people in India, who are not in Delhi, many come from outside to witness this occasion. My suggestion therefore is that we may make it a big show and have it somewhere, at some such place where we may have enough accommodation.


4.35.237
Many Honourable Members
No. No.


4.35.238
President
As we have been holding our session in this Hall, I think we must have, this function also in this Hall (Hear, Hear).


4.35.239
An Honourable Member
I propose that for accommodating more visitors these adjoining rooms may also be used.


4.35.240
President
We shall utilise every little bit of space.


4.35.241
President
There was one thing more which I desired to tell you. We have announced the next session on the night of the 14th and-on the morning of the 15th. Notices will be sent out from the office in due course. It is just possible that members may not get notice in time. So they may take this as notice and they may also take whatever is published in the press as notice to them in this regard, and they need not wait for formal notices being delivered to them.


4.35.242
President
We adjourn now till the 14th.

The Assembly then adjourned till Thursday, the 14th August 1947.