Title: Article 149
Volume: Volume VII (4th November 1948 to 8th January
1949)
Date: 06/01/1949
Participants: Vice-President (Dr. H. C. Mukherjee), Prof.
K. T. Shah, Mr. Nazirudin Ahmad, Shri T. T. Krishnamachari, Srijut Rohini Kumar
Chaudhury, Srijut Gopinath Bardoloi, Dr. B. R. Ambedkar, Mr. Nazirudin Ahmad, Shri
T. T. Krishnamachari, Begum Aizaz Rasul, Pandit Thakur Dass Bhargava, Shri
Shibban Lall Saksena, Pandit Thakur Dass Bhargava, Mr. R. K. Sidhwa, Sardar Hukum Singh, Dr. Monomohan Das, Srijut
Rohini Kumar Chaudhury, Shri Raj Bahadur, Pandit Lakshmi Kanta Maitra
Constituent Assembly OF INDIA Debates (Proceedings) -
Volume VII
Thursday, the 6th January 1949
-------------
The Constituent Assembly of India met in the Constitution Hall, New Delhi, at
Ten of the Clock, Mr. Vice-President (Dr. H. C. Mookherjee) in the Chair.
-------------
DRAFT CONSTITUTION -(Contd.)
New Article 147-A
Mr. Vice-President (Dr. H. C. Mookherjee): We shall take up discussion
of article 148. But I am informed that article 147-A comes under the same
chapter and so with the permission of the House we can take up article 147-A.
The motion before the House is:
“That article 147-A form part of the Constitution.”
This is in the name of Prof. K. T. Shah.
Prof K. T. Shah (Bihar: General): Mr. Vice-President, Sir. . . . . . . . .
Mr. Vice-President: I understand that a similar amendment in the case of
the Centre was rejected by the House.
Prof. K. T. Shah: Yes, Sir. But I may point out respectfully that in that
case the proposal was to separate all powers; but here it is only the
legislature that is sought to be separated.
Mr. Vice-President: All right; you may move your amendment.
Prof. K. T. Shah: Sir, I move:
“That before article 148, the following new article 147-A be added :--
“The
Legislature of every State shall be wholly separate from and independent of the
Executive or the Judiciary in the State’.”
Sir, while it is no doubt part of my thought on this subject that the powers of
the organized government, in a State calling itself federal and democratic,
should be separate, one from the other, I have deliberately worded my amendment
in such a way that even though the other structure may remain what it is, the
local legislature may be separate from the executive and the judiciary. The
separation of the two is intended to secure the independence of the legislature
and also freedom from any influence of the legislature over the judiciary. I
would rather emphasise on this occasion and in this connection the separation
of the judiciary, the independence of the judiciary, than of the legislature,
as such. When we consider the judiciary, I would place similar amendments with
definite reference to the judiciary. In this case, I would like to point out
that whereas the law-making body makes laws after due consultation and contacts
with the juristic advisers that they may have, or the technical draftsmen who
may assist them, nevertheless, they should not have any contact with the
judiciary as such, lest the knowledge of what took place in the legislature,
the knowledge of the debates, discussions, promises or assurances given, or
even obter-dicta that may be thrown out on the floor of the Legislature
by either side, may influence judgment. It is an accepted principle--and I
think quite a right one--that the judiciary in their interpretation of a
written Constitution should not be influenced by anything that took place in
the debates on a given piece of legislation. In a federal constitution, it is
inevitable that questions may crop up time and again, not only of the
interpretation of ordinary legislation, but also of the very constitutional
aspect of a given legislation, or acts of the Executive under the Constitution.
It is but right and proper that the legislature should be completely free from
the influence or any chance of being influenced by the two other organs of the
State. Further, the Judges themselves having pre-conceptions--so to say, of the
nature or intention of the law--are likely to give an interpretation not
necessarily in consonance with the true doctrine of interpretation, but rather,
because of their pre-knowledge, so to say, of the intention, even if the
meaning is not properly given in the wording as finally decided upon.
For these reasons, Sir, and for securing the purity, both of the Legislature
and of the Judiciary, I commend this motion to the House, that the two should
be completely separate.
Mr. Vice-President: Dr. Ambedkar will reply to the amendment.
The Honourable Dr. B.R. Ambedkar (Bombay: General): Sir, I oppose the
amendment, and all that I need say is this, that the basic principles of the
amendment is so fundamentally opposed to the basic principles on which the Draft
Commission is based, that I think it is almost impossible, now to accept any
such proposal.
Mr. Vice-President: I am now going to put the amendment to vote.
The question is:
“That before article 148, the following new article 147-A be added :--
‘The
Legislature of every State shall be wholly separate from and independent of the
Executive or the Judiciary in the State’.”
The amendment was negatived.
Article 148
Mr. Vice-President : Now we come to article 148.
The motion before the House is:
“That article 148 form part of the Constitution.”
Amendments Nos. 2222, 2223, 2224, and 2225, and amendment No. 2227 are of
similar import No. 2225 standing in the name of Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena may
be moved.
(Amendments Nos. 2222 and 2225 were not moved.)
Amendment No. 2223 and No. 2224 may be moved; both are in the name of Shri
Brajeshwar Prasad.
Shri Brajeshwar Prasad (Bihar: General): I am not moving them.
Mr. Vice-President: Then No. 2227, standing in the name of Shri Nand Lal
may be moved.
Master Nand Lal (East Punjab: General): I am not moving it.
Mr. Vice-President: Then, in List II of Sixth Week, there is an amendment
to amendment No. 2222. As it is not moved, Prof. Shah may move amendment No.
2226.
Prof. K. T. Shah : Mr. Vice-President, Sir, I beg to move--
“That for the existing clause (1) of article 148, the following be substituted
:--
‘(1)
For every State there shall be a Legislature which shall consist of such number
of Houses, not exceeding two, as Parliament shall determine by law in each
case; provided that it shall be open to the Legislature of any State to request
the Parliament of the Union to change a bicameral into unicameral Legislature,
and such request being duly made and received, Parliament shall pass the
necessary legislation’.”
Sir, the original clause as it stands reads:
“For every State there shall be a Legislature which shall consist of Governor;
and
(a)
in the States of ........., two Houses,
(b)
in other States, one House.”
I wish to put the States on a par and suggest that the legislature of every
State should be eventually determined by an Act of Parliament, and subsequently
altered, if so desired, at the request of the State concerned.
Sir, I do not believe in a bicameral Legislature at least for the States. I
think a Second Chamber is not only not representative of the people as such;
but even if and where it is representative of the people, even if and where it
has been made in such a way as to represent some aspect of the country other
than the pure popular vote, even then it is there more as a dilatory engine
rather than a help in reflecting popular opinion on crucial questions of
legislation.
Apart from the classic example of the House of Lords, which is a hereditary
reactionary and non-elected body, even where the Second Chambers are elected,
they deflect the legislative machinery, for one thing; they involve
considerable outlay from the public exchequer on account of the salaries and
allowances of Members and incidental charges. They only aid party bosses to
distribute more patronage, and only help in obstructing or delaying the
necessary legislation which the people have given their votes for.
Those who like to defend the Second Chamber are, more often than not, champions
of vested interests, which find a place in these bodies and as such find an
occasion rather to defend their own special, sectarian or class interests than
to help the popular cause.
On the question of Second Chambers, therefore, Sir, I think it is a clear
division of political opinion, whether or not it is the will of the people
alone which should prevail or some separate interest or special interests be
also allowed a say. [It must also be admitted that in the course of centuries
in the course of history, wherever there have been two chambers, means have
been devised to make the popular will eventually prevail. The only result of
the Second Chamber, therefore, is that wherever democracy is in working order
as an effective machinery of Government, the only use of the Second Chamber is
to delay, or to obstruct legislation rather than to make it utterly impossible
for the popular will eventually to prevail.]
In England, in America and elsewhere, the Second Chamber is ultimately made
infective. If that is the experience of the world, I do not see why that
experience should be neglected and in the States we should repeat a machinery
of legislation which is bound to be only expensive and dilatory rather than
useful.
The case of the Centre is different. It is so because the interests to be
represented are more particularly those of the Units than of the country which
is represented in the Lower House. Though a Second Chamber may therefore quite
properly be provided for the Central Legislature, the arguments that may be
advanced in defence of such arrangements at the Centre would not apply in my
opinion to the Units. Accordingly I suggest that the place of the Second
Chamber may be left entirely to the Units themselves. In the first instance
Parliament may determine according to the size, the population, the area and
perhaps also the presence of special interests, if any, and lay down a
legislative composition as in its judgment the Central Parliament thinks
proper. But eventually the Unit itself and the Legislature of the Unit must
have the right to say what is most suited for its requirements; and if such a
request is made it should be entitled to demand a revision of the original Act
as a matter of course and provide for whatever single chamber form of
legislation it desires, is necessary and proper for its case.
I have therefore suggested in my amendment that thought in the first instance
Parliament may lay down for each particular State a form of legislature that it
thinks is suitable for given areas, in the ultimate analysis the people in the
Units must be able to say whether they want a Second Chamber in their case.
This is not therefore summarily a rejection of the Second Chamber here and now.
This is not to say that by Constitution we shall make it impossible for local
opinion to prevail in the matter. All that I am asking is that in the event of
the people of any Unit so desiring, they should be at liberty and entitled to
demand of the Central Parliament that, in their case at any rate, a Second
Chamber is needless and therefore should be done away with, where as for others
there may be a Second Chamber if the people of that unit so desire. I therefore
recommend the motion to the House.
Mr. Vice-President: The next amendments Nos. 2228 and 2229 standing in the
name of Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad are disallowed as being merely verbal.
Mr. L. N. Sahu may move amendment No. 2230.
Shri Lakshmi Narayan Sahu (Orissa : General): *[Mr. Vice-President, the
amendment that I am moving before the House is:
“That in sub-clause (a) of clause (1) of article 148 after the words ‘States of’
the word ‘Orissa’ be inserted.”
It implies that Orissa should have two Houses instead of one and that one of
these two should be the Upper Chamber. My Friend Shri K. T. Shah observed a
little while ago that a Second Chamber is not very essential and that it may
only be constituted where the popular will demands it. There does not appear to
be anything objectionable in this proposition. But the constitution, as now
being framed, makes provision for a Second Chamber. What I demand is that this
provision should continue for the future as well. Second Chambers are
functioning even now in Assam, Madras and Bihar. It was not felt necessary to
have Second Chambers for the other provinces. I think that a Second Chamber is
not needed in Assam at present. But in my opinion it would not be proper for us
to decide that a Second Chamber is not necessary for Orissa merely on the
ground that the Members from Orissa do not desire to have one. My submission is
that there should be the at least this provision, that there can be a Second
Chamber if it is demanded by the will of the people. It would then be possible
for us to decide whether we need a second Chamber or not. We have adopted the
American Constitution as a model in drafting our Constitution. Under the
American Constitution, however, bicameral legislatures exist in all the States.
Besides, we want a bicameral legislature at the Centre in order that Provinces
may be represented there in. Recently twenty-five States have been merged in
Orissa. So far they were separate from Orissa. Recently they have been merged
in Orissa. A Second Chamber, therefore, is very necessary there.
An objection raised by a few people is that dilatory tactics are adopted in the
Second Chamber and therefore it is unnecessary. As for dilatory tactics, they can
be adopted even where there is only a single Chamber. For instance the Hindu Code
Bill is under consideration for the last four or five years. Many people fear
that if Chamber is constituted well-to-do-persons and big capitalists would be
able to secure its membership quite easily. But this is what I would like to
happen. Now that our country is free and until we establish a socialist State
here, we should give every opportunity to men of outstanding ability and wealth
to take their due share in the governance of the country. There is absolutely
no justification for denying them this share. I may add that there cannot be
any harm done if a few rich men are able easily to secure election to the
Second Chamber. Besides, we exclude one important fact from our consideration
when we criticize the proposal for a Second Chamber. It is that most probably
elections are not going to be on the basis of proportional representation in
the Provinces. It is, therefore, quite probable that minorities would fail to
secure their due representation in the legislatures. Political parties are not
yet properly formed in our country. So long as parties are not properly
organised, it is possible for people of all shades of opinion to secure
election only through the system of proportional representation. But there
being no proportional representation, a Second Chamber appears to be essential,
till parties come to be organised on a proper basis, for, then those Sections
which fail to get representation in the Lower House would have a chance of
getting representation in the Second Chamber.
We see that many people do not very much like a Second Chamber. But as I said a
little before, Orissa has been newly formed. Twenty-five States have been
merged in it recently. Therefore a Second Chamber should certainly be provided
for Orissa. Besides, changes are taking place fast in our country as in the
world. The creeds of Socialism, Communism and so many other isms are appearing,
and are making big advances. In order to delay these changes to ponder over
them and to control them, it is absolutely necessary to have a Second Chamber.
Prof. Shah observed that the House of Lords in England is tradition-ridden. But
this need not frighten us, for the Second Chamber we are going to constitute
would not be of the type of the House of Lords. It will be altogether of a
different kind. I may add that even the English people feel the necessity of a
Second Chamber, for even there is a move to make it strong and effective. Further,
ours is not a unitary type of government. It is federal, even though many
powers of the Units have been taken over by the Central Government. I,
therefore, submit that two Houses are absolutely necessary, for there is very
great need of careful thought being given to all the problems that may arise. I
may add that when the Centre would be so very powerful it is necessary that
there should be two Chambers in the provinces. In any case a second Chamber
must be provided for Orissa in the new Constitution that we are framing. I
would like to add that this question of a Second Chamber may be left over to be
decided by the will of the people of Orissa, and till the people take a
decision in the matter we should take no decision but keep this question open.]*
Shri L. Krishnawami Bharathi (Madras: General): Sir, I move:
“That in sub-clause (a) of clause (1) of article 148,after the words ‘in the
States of’, the word ‘Madras’ be inserted.”
Honourable Members will see that article 148(1) reads:
“For every State there shall be a Legislature which shall consist of the
Governor; and
(a)
in the States of ...............”
(here there is a blank to be filled in later on.)
My amendment, if accepted, will fill up the blank to some extent, in the States
of Madras; that is to say, in the States of Madras there shall be two
Houses--one the legislative Assembly and the other the Legislative Council.
Sir, it was understood that Members representing the different provinces should
meet together and come to a decision as to whether they would like to have a
Second Chamber for their province. Accordingly, Members belonging to the
different provinces met separately, and the representatives of Madras also met
similarly under the presidency of Rashtrapati Dr. Pattabhi Sitaramayya, and
after sufficient discussion it was decided that Madras shall have two Chambers.
Recently this decision was come to, but last year . . .
Shri Mahavir Tyagi (United Provinces: General): On apoint of order, may I
know if it is necessary that honourable Members from all the provinces that
have decided to have two Chambers should come here and move separate amendments
for their provinces: Cannot the decisions reached by those Members be included
in one full list?
Mr. Vice-President: If the honourable Member will have patience for a few
minutes longer, he will find the answer to this query given by the Chairman of
the Drafting Committee.
Shri L. Krishnaswami Bharathi : I was saying that the Members representing
Madras met together and decided sometime last year, when a similar decision was
come to, and to regularise it we met recently and decided accordingly.
There is some opposition to this idea of a Second Chamber. I am inclined to
think that it is born more out of prejudice of the present Second Chambers and
the general view is, and I also agree with that view, that the idea of a second
Chamber is to prevent or check hasty legislation. Experience has shown that so
far as the proceedings of this Assembly are concerned, last year we decided
many matters. In similar matters we have come to decisions and it was only submitted
to the Drafting Committee to put them in order. But we find that we are
revising many articles: even article 150, where we fixed a limit is undergoing
constant changes. That shows that there is always need for some time to elapse.
In this connection, I might invite the attention of the House to an interesting
incident reported in the life of George Washington. It appears that Thomas
Jefferson was protesting very strongly against the idea of a Second Chamber, to
Washington. Mr. Farrand reports this incident very interestingly: they were
taking coffee at breakfast time. Suddenly George Washington asked: “Why, Mr.
Jefferson, why are you pouring the coffee into your saucer?” Jefferson replied:
“To cool it!”. Even so, we want to cool legislation by putting it into the
saucer of the senatorial Chamber. That is a forceful way of expressing the idea
and as we are going to be constituted, it is to check or prevent hasty
legislation and not at all to impede progressive legislation. There shall be no
mistake about it; the idea is not to check progressive legislation but to have
some time so that cool, calm and deliberate conclusions may be arrived at.
Therefore, there is absolute need for a Second Chamber for some time, and as I
understood Prof. K. T. Shah, I think he wanted that there must be some
provision so that if we did not want a second Chamber later on, we must be able
to do away with it, not necessarily by amending the Constitution, which is not
an easy affair, but provision must be made in the Constitution itself. That is
how I understood him.
If the Prof. turns to article 304, sub-clause (2), a provision therefor is
therein made. That provision enables the Units or the Legislative Assemblies of
the different States or Provinces, as the case may be, to initiate proceedings
in a particular assembly with a view not to have the Second Chamber. That is a
broad clause which enables a Provincial Legislative Assembly to decide upon the
number of Houses if they so desire. With your kind permission, I may be allowed
to read that portion of article 304 (2) . . . . . . . . . .
Shri S. Nagappa (Madras: General): Not necessary !
Shri L. Krishnaswami Bharathi: Why? It is not for Mr. Nagappa alone: I
am reading it for the enlightenment of the House. I suppose, Sir, I have your
permission. If Mr. Nagappa knows it, that does not mean that others need not be
enlightened.
Article 304(2) reads:
“Notwithstanding anything in the last preceding clause, an amendment of the
Constitution seeking to make any change in the provisions of this Constitution
relating to the method of choosing a Governor or the number of Houses of the
legislature in any State for the time being specified in Part I of the First
Schedule may be initiated by the introduction of a Bill for the purpose in the
Legislative Assembly of the State or, where the State has a Legislative
Council, in either House of the Legislature of the State, and when the Bill is
passed by the Legislative Assembly or, where the State has a Legislative Council,
by both Houses of the Legislature of the State, by a majority of the total
membership of the Assembly or each House, as the case may be, it shall be
submitted to Parliament for ratification, and when it is ratified by each House
of Parliament by a majority of the total membership of that House it shall be
presented to the President for assent and upon such assent being given to the
Bill, the Constitution shall stand amended in accordance with the terms of the
Bill.”
So, provision has been made. As I was speaking, some honourable Members wanted
to know whether there was a possibility of the Provincial Assembly scrapping
it. I looked it up and I thought it my duty to invite the attention of the
House to the provision made in this Constitution. I therefore hope that this
amendment will be accepted.
Sir, I move:
Mr. Vice-President: There is an amendment to this amendment--No. 46 of List
II, standing in the name of Dr. Ambedkar. Is the honourable Member going to
move it ?
The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Sir, I move:
“That for amendment No. 2231 of the List of Amendments, the following be
substituted :--
‘That
in sub-clause (a) of clause (1) of article 148, after the words ‘in the States
of’ the words ‘Madras, Bombay, West Bengal, the United Provinces, Bihar and
East Punjab’ be inserted’.”
Sir, I should like to state to the House that the question of whether to have a
second Chamber in the provinces or not was discussed by the Provincial
Constitution Committee, which was appointed by this House. The decision of that
Committee was that this was a matter which should be left to the decision of
each province concerned. If any particular province decided to have a second
Chamber it should be allowed to have a Second Chamber : and if any particular
province did not want a second Chamber, a second Chamber should not be imposed
upon it. In order to carry out this recommendation of the Provincial
Constitution Committee it was decided that the Members in the Constituent
Assembly, representing the different provinces should meet and come to a
decision on this issue. The Members of the different provinces represented in
this Assembly therefore met in groups of their own to decide this question and
as a result of the deliberations carried on by the Members it was reported to
the office that the provinces which are mentioned in my amendment agree to have
a Second Chamber for their provinces. The only provinces which decided not to
have a second Chamber are the C. P. & Berar, Assam and Orissa. My amendment
gives effect to the results of the deliberations of the representatives of the
different provinces in accordance with the recommendation of the Provincial
Constitution Committee.
Sir, I move.
Mr. Vice-President: Then we come to amendment No. 2232 standing in the name
of Shri Mohanlal Gautam. Amendment No.2233 also is in his name. The honourable
Member is not in the House, so these two amendments go out.
The article is open for general discussion.
Shri Kuladhar Chaliha (Assam: General): Mr. Vice-President, Sir, one of the
most vexed questions of political science is the problem of a Second Chamber.
In the 19th century in Europe, Second Chambers were necessary in order to check
hasty legislation, but in modern days even if a second Chamber is allowed to
exist we must restrict its powers so that it may not be a clog on our
progressive ideas.
Almost all the important States had Second Chambers in olden days, but Turkey
and Bulgaria have dispensed with them. The Second Chambers are regarded as an
essential element of feudal constitutions. They are the exceptions to the rule
of the Constituent units not to have any Second Chambers anywhere. In the
U.S.S.R. and in the Union of South Africa the Constituent units are all
unicameral. In the Dominion of Canada we find that out of eight Provinces only
two have Second Chambers. In the case of Switzerland out of 18 Cantons, except
two, all the other 16 are unicameral. In Weimar Germany half the States were
unicameral.
The Second Chambers seem to have been created by force of tradition. It seems
that the vested interests--men of dignity and nobility--want that they should
adorn the benches where they can find some defence against the attack on their
rights. It is said that wherever there are vested interests which require
defence, the Second Chamber will always be claimed. In India we find that where
there are Zamindars, they want the Second Chamber. We find from the
claims made by the different Provinces that are now claiming the Second
Chamber, there are the vested interests, there are the Zamindars, and they want
to be protected against the majority. But then in these progressive days
legislation will be held up if we have a Second Chamber, and therefore we should
not allow these Second Chambers to exist. Yet, we find that there is a certain
amount of desire on the part of some of the Provinces. Assam has rightly said
that they are not in want of it; Orissa has also said that they are not in want
of it and C.P. has also said that. It is in the fitness of things that they
have done so.
A Second Chamber is nothing but a clog in the way of progressive legislation.
In our old Central Legislature, by delaying tactics, we have held up the Hindu
Code for about four or five years. It is very easy to obstruct progressive
legislation as we have done in the case of the Hindu Code. But if we have
another Second Chamber I think it will only be adding further trouble in the
way of passing progressive legislation. It is really surprising that some of
our Provinces are claiming that there should be Second Chambers even today.
They should think that this is rather a burden to them than adding to their
progress; the Second Chamber in the past has clogged some very good pieces of legislation
in Europe and other countries. I think as a modern people we should get rid of
these ideas and we should march forward. Therefore, we should not have Second
Chambers in our country.
Secondly, there is another thing. We do not find a sufficient number of leaders
in our Provinces to man the Second Chamber. In the smaller and backward
Provinces we feel the difficulty and we have rightly voted against the Second
Chambers. Even in the bigger Provinces I think we have not been able to produce
a sufficient number of leaders who can man it very well.
An Honourable Member: That may be the case in your Province !
Shri
Kuladhar Chaliha: I see. There may be an exception but then it does not
prove the case--it rather proves the other way.
You will only be clogging the progress of the country by having second Chambers
in Bombay, Madras and other Provinces, so that there may not be any advance.
That is how things will be done. These four Provinces will be a clog to us and
they will be a drag on our progress. Therefore, the sooner they get rid of this
idea and the sooner Dr. Ambedkar withdraws that amendment, the better it will
be for the country. Before accepting the amendment, I trust the House will
consider it properly and see whether they would like their progress to be
clogged, as they want to do.
Shri K. Hanumanthaiya (Mysore): Mr. Vice-President, Sir, the Draft
Constitution makes provision for either unicameral or bicameral legislature, as
the case may be; it leaves the choice to the States concerned and some States
have chosen to have bicameral legislatures. Three States--rather
Provinces--have chosen to have unicameral legislatures. We are very familiar
with the arguments for and against a bicameral legislature. I merely want to
draw the attention of the House to the practical aspect of the matter. The
people who advocate a bicameral legislature usually say that it is a device
against hasty legislation. My Friend Mr. Bharathi gave a very picturesque
illustration.
I want my friends who are in favour of a bicameral legislature to remember that
we are framing a Constitution for a responsible system of Government. That
presupposes party system. Party system of Government works in a peculiar way
and not in the way of unicameral or bicameral legislature as such. Every major
decision is taken in the party meeting and not in the Upper House or in the
Lower House. So that real legislature from the point of view of practical
politics seems to me, Sir, to be the party meeting. Once the question is
decided in the party meeting, it does not matter whether the question is
brought up before the Lower House or the Upper House, or even if there are ten
Houses; there is no question of preventing hasty legislation, once the party
decision is taken on the subject. Hence when . . . . .
Shri O. V. Alagesan (Madras: General): Will not the members of the Upper
House be the members of the party also?
Shri K. Hanumanthaiya: That is exactly what I was going to say. You are
arguing for me. The party in power will certainly have under the Constitution
we are framing a majority both in the Upper House and the Lower House, because
it happens to be an elected legislature. Once the joint meeting of the Party
Members of both the Upper House and the Lower House takes a decision, that
decision goes through irrespective of the opposition or the arguments to the
contrary. Such being the case, it is a costly formality to have two Chambers.
My Honourable Friend Bharathi gave an illustration of a cup and saucer to show
the utility of the second Chamber. Whether it is the cup or the saucer into
which the coffee is poured, it is the pot that determines the temperature of
the coffee. The pot here is the party meeting; it determines the way we have to
vote. Therefore, I really do not see how the Second Chamber under the existing
circumstances will be able to show us a better way or a sober way.
It have got another point, Sir. In a federation the legislative field is to a
very great extent restricted so far as the legislatures of the unit are
concerned. Much of the legislative field and administrative field is taken
under the present Constitution by the Centre and what remains is very
restricted. For that restricted field, to have two House, I fear, is really a very
costly and unnecessary affair. Apart from the point of view of legislation,
there is also the point of view of administration from which we have to examine
this problem. The Ministers who are popular leaders have to devote much of
their time to visitors. It is the experience of every Minister in India that
much of his time is taken away by visitors and by people who come to see them
for all sorts of purposes and very little time is left to them. If we have got
two Houses, probably the Lower House will have to sit several months in the
year and in addition to it. The Ministers would have to spend necessarily much
of their time in the Upper House also. I think practically they have to do
talking all the time and administrative work suffers in consequence. In fact,
If I may claim to know a little of the working of the Ministeries in India in
the units and the States, they are usually charged with inefficiency. The speed
with which administrative work used to be done in the olden days is not done
now. That is the specific charge levelled against the various ministries in the
units. I do not know how it is in the Centre. But the real reason is they have
no time; they have to be talking all the time. it is better in the interests of
efficiency and speed of the administration to do away with the Second Chamber.
Mr. Vice-President: Many speakers would like to speak on this subject.
Mr. K. Hanumanthaiya: Very well, Sir. I have done.
Shrimati Renuka Ray (West Bengal: General): Mr. Vice-President, I am one of
those who hold the opinion that the bicameral legislature in the present
context of things is unnecessary, if not retrograde. Sir, in India,
particularly at the present moment, when we need to go through a good deal of
legislation in the economic and social field, which has been long overdue
during the years of foreign rule, I do feel that the Second Chamber,
particularly in the provinces will be very dilatory. The only reason advanced
for having a second Chamber is that we can thus prevent hasty or careless
legislation. But, Sir, when there is a Governor, in the Province and a
President at the Centre, who is empowered to send back to the legislature any
Bills which may have been enacted carelessly, for revision, I do not think that
this excuse obtains. However, Sir, the majority of provinces have decided to
have a second chamber and therefore, in the present Constitution, we shall be
embodying it. I want to point out only this, that even if we at the present
moment do have to agree to have second chambers in the provinces, there should
be some provision in the Constitution that the second chambers can be got rid
of as speedily as possible, not at the initiative or the votes of both Houses
of Legislature in the provinces, but according to the desire of the Lower House
alone. I do not think that it is right that whether a chamber shall continue to
exist or not, should be left to the chamber to decide in any way. Although
there is an article in the Draft Constitution regarding the manner in which the
provinces may decide later not to have Second Chambers, if they do not wish to,
that article prescribes that this can be done by both Houses of the
Legislature. I hope, Sir, that when the time comes, at least the House and Dr.
Ambedkar will agree that it should be the Lower House alone which shall decide
whether the Second Chamber should continue or not. As I said before, I do not
think that bringing in the Second Chamber is going to be helpful at the present
moment. I do understand that the composition of the Second Chamber is going to
be fundamentally different from the composition of the Upper Houses of the
past. But all the same in the present context of things, as I have said, it
will be very much better if we had just one Chamber. As we have seen during the
past year or so, while this Constituent Assembly has been functioning as a
Dominion Legislature and with an unicameral Chamber, even so the procedure by
which legislation is enacted is slower than we desire. I do not see why it is
necessary, particularly in the Provinces, that we should go in for a second
Chamber, and if we do so, at least let us provide that the Lower Houses in the
Provinces are in a position to rid themselves of this encumberance as soon as
possible.
Shri O. V. Alagesan : Mr. Vice-President, Sir, the Principle of a second
Chamber directly comes before us only today. It was considered by the House
when the Report of the Provincial Constitution Committee was submitted to the
House not in a direct manner, but in a sort of a backdoor way, I should say.
Shri L. Krishnaswami Bharathi: How ?
Shri O. V. Alagesan: Because, the Honourable Sardar Vallabhai Patel, who
moved the Provincial Constitution Committee report for the consideration of the
House said that the Committee generally agreed that there should be only one
House of legislature; but, then, he went on to describe the procedure that the
Honourable Dr. Ambedkar just now told the House. The choice was left to the
Members of the Constituent Assembly from the various provinces; they were asked
to decide whether they should have a Second Chamber or not for their province.
This liberty was good in a sense; but that very same liberty prevented the
House from going into the question in a deeper way and examining it on its
merits. When the Honourable Sardar Patel moved the particular clause dealing
with this matter, he expressed the hope that the small provinces may not elect
to have a Second Chamber. But, actually it turned out that the six provinces
enumerated by Dr. Ambedkar have elected to have a second Chamber. They did not
do it, I submit, on merits. What has been originally conceived as an exception
has come to stay as a rule.
Shri L. Krishnaswami Bharathi: May I point out, Sir, that the honourable
Member was not present on that occasion and that therefore he is not entitled
to say this ?
Shri O. V. Alagesan: That was because I was not well. That does not take
away my right to express my opinion.
Mr. Vice-President: Please try to address the Chair; do not try to reply to
Mr. L. Krishnaswami Bharathi.
Shri O. V. Alagesan: Yes, Sir. That particular procedure made the Members
of the various provinces think, “Let us have this ornament of a second Chamber.”
On the other hand, if the question had been placed before the House in a direct
and straightforward way, I think the House might have decided against a second
Chamber. That was my submission. Since this is the first occasion when we are
dealing with this question on merits, this House has got every right to say
that we shall not have a second Chamber now.
Then, it was said that these six provinces happen to be big ones now. In some
future date they may get split up. Then, what is the provision? They cannot
easily get rid of this second Chamber. Already there is an objection to the
formation of linguistic provinces on the ground of their financial instability.
This will be an additional reason for that, because, the cost of the second
Chamber will be an unnecessary burden on the small provinces when they are
formed.
Several speakers before me showed how a second Chamber is an unnecessary
anachronism. I will say that this is a sort of an old age pension device for
the politicians. When we deal with the composition of the second Chamber, I think
I shall be able to explain how it will be a demoralising influence and not a
helpful influence in the politics of the State. My Friend, Mr. Krishna swami Bharathi,
gave us the cup and saucer example given by Washington. I beg to submit that we
have far advanced several centuries from the days of Washington and enlightened
constitutional opinion in America today is against a second Chamber. Several
experts have prepared a model constitution for the United States of America.
They have omitted this bicameral system and have recommended only a unicameral
legislature for the States. Though, up till now, only one State has elected to
have a unicameral system. I shall quote an American authority on this specific
matter and it will be clear how this Second Chamber acts as a reactionary
Chamber. The argument often advanced in favour of the second Chamber is that it
will be a check on hasty legislation by the lower Chamber. He shows how it is
only a myth. The learned author says:
“While this idea might seem reasonable and logical, the practice of the
bicameral system has contributed little or no evidence in support of this
theory. On the contrary, large numbers of instances indicate that politicians
have played one House against the other to defeat proposals for which there was
a wide public demand, and that they have in this way succeeded in avoiding
personal responsibility for their action.”
In such unexceptionable words the bicameral system has been condemned by this
author. So, I would like first of all that this principle of a second Chamber
for the Provinces should be outright rejected by this House and if that is not
possible, if the House does not propose to do that, I would request that there
should be at least a provision by which the lower Chamber in any province will
be able to do away with the second Chamber by a simple resolution. As it is,
sub-clause (2) of article 304 was quoted. Even there, the procedure is rather
complicated. When the majority in the lower House is rather precarious, the
Upper House, because it will naturally stand for its preservation, may defeat
the purpose. Again, it has to be approved by Parliament to come into force. So,
that provision should be altered so as to permit the lower Chamber to do away
with the upper Chamber by a simple resolution passed by a majority of the lower
House.
Sir, I have done.
Shri T. T. Krishnamachari (Madras: General): Mr. Vice-President, Sir, I
have listened with the attention that a discussion on a matter like this
deserves, to the speakers that spoke before me. Speaking for myself, I am in
sympathy with many of those who opposed the idea of the introduction of a
second Chamber in the provinces. It is a matter that has been debated all over
the world ever since the idea of constitutions came into being, whether second
Chambers are necessary or not, and it admits of a wide room for difference of
opinion. I am not, Sir, today concerned with examining whether it is right to
have a second Chamber for the provinces or not. What I wish to point out to
this honourable House is that this House on a former occasion has accepted
certain fundamental principles which were intended to serve as a guide for the
Drafting Committee to frame the Constitution. The question is whether these
principles could be given the go-by means of the negation of an article,
without the whole thing being overhauled or upset in the proper way, namely by
a proper number of people wanting a complete change in a decision made by this
honourable House on a previous occasion, according to the rules made for that
purpose.
Sir, it may be open to question what is a fundamental principle and what is
not. For instance, if we had said that a President is not necessary for this
Constitution, that would be going against a fundamental decision made by this
House on the report of the Union Constitution Committee. Similarly, if we say
that a Governor is not necessary for a State, that would, again, be going
against a fundamental principle. It would not be, Sir, going against a
fundamental principle based on a decision of the House if we say that the Governor
is to be elected in such and such a manner or be nominated in such and such a
manner or that the President is to be elected in such and such a manner. On the
18th of July 1947, this House accepted the broad outlines of the Provincial
Constitution Committee’s report, particularly in regard to Rule 19 which bears
some relation to the article that is being discussed by the House.
The Honourable Sardar Vallabhhai Patel moved--
“There shall for every province be a Provincial Legislature which will consist
of the Governor and the legislative Assembly; in the following provinces, there
shall, in addition, be a Legislative Council.”
Actually, the provision was fairly carefully framed so as to give the maximum
amount of latitude to each province to decide whether or not to have a second
Chamber. Some of my honourable Friends have referred to the manner in which
this decision was arrived at. Sir, after the particular rule was passed by this
House, at the appropriate time the Secretariat of the Constituent Assembly sent
summons for Members representing each particular province to meet on a
particular day and arrive at a decision whether or not to have a second
Chamber. Sir, I think it is not disclosing any confidence or making any breach
of confidence if I say that I was one of those who stoutly opposed the
introduction of second Chamber so far as Madras province was concerned in the
meeting of the representatives of that province and I was outvoted, but I do
not think that merely because the decision of a large number of Members who
represented my province ran counter to my own views that I could take advantage
of the discussion on this clause to go against not merely the decision of the
legislators of my province but also against the decision arrived at by this
honourable House on the 18th July 1947. Sir, the proper course undoubtedly
would be, for such of the Members as feel that this is not the proper thing to
do, to take advantage of Rule 32 of the Rules of procedure of the House and
have the whole question mooted once again by getting the requisite number of
Members to sign a requisition for reopening this particular question. That is
the proper way to go about this business and I do feel that, though the House
can ordinarily reject this particular article 148 either in its entirety or a
portion of it,--there is nothing to prevent a sovereign House from doing a
thing which it wants to do,--I think in all decency we cannot go against a
principle which has been accepted on the 18th July 1947, a principle which was
further supported by meetings of the representatives of the various provinces
meeting separately and deciding whether or not a particular province will have
an Upper House. It is a different matter completely if this House should decide
that the constitution of the Upper House should be different from what it was
decided on the 18th July 1947, or what is mentioned in this Draft Constitution
as drafted by the Drafting Committee. I shall have something to say about that
at the appropriate time. But we are perfectly entitled to say that the Upper
House shall be elected in entirety by the Lower House, that the Upper House
should be nominated in its entirety by the Governor, that the Upper House
should be elected from all kinds of mushroom constituencies, that the Upper
House should only represent lab our and not vested interests or conversely that
the Upper House should only represent vested interests and not labour, or that
there should be equal representation of both, and it may or may not have
representatives of functional interests in the province--all these things are
matters in which the House has got perfect liberty morally to go into and make
appropriate changes if it so feels disposed. But I do feel that in view of the
commitments that we have already entered into on 18th July 1947 and a further
reinforcement of that commitment agreed to by the fact that representatives of
provinces have to second Chambers in those particular provinces which have been
enumerated by the amendment moved by my honourable Friend Dr. Ambedkar, I think
it is not right for the House to go further into the original question as to
whether or not a particular province should have an Upper House and the matter
should therefore be left at that and the article should be accepted in the form
in which it has been presented to the House.
Shri Biswanath Das (Orissa: General): I do not like to inflict on this
House a review of the working of the Upper Chambers in various States in the
world. That is a function beyond the possibility of the limitations in which I
am here. Sir, enough to say that the sort of second Chamber that is called upon
to be constituted in the provinces is in many ways different from the ones that
you find in very many States today functioning in the World Enough we have got
a second Chamber at the Centre. The second Chamber in the Centre is also shorn
of the usual prestige and responsibility which is attached to it in advanced
States like U.S.A. Nowadays it need hardly be stated that the Chamber which has
an indirect election, and much less a Chamber having a nomination, has the
least prestige and influence in the country and much less to arrest the
progress of any legislation, be it hasty or revolutionary. Under these
circumstances, the system that is being devised and kept ready to be utilized
for the Second Chamber in the provinces is not very helpful. We have in it a
conglomeration of various things. You have in it an indirect election, you have
in it a nomination, you have in it an admixture of election and panel again
leaving to the will of the Ministries. Under these circumstances, the system
that is devised for the second Chamber is not useful and I must say that is not
going to be helpful. Therefore it cannot influence the decision of the Lower
House of which it will be merely a reflection--a sad reflection. Sir, secondly,
it cannot check hasty legislation if the Lower House is going to make any hasty
legislation because of the limitation under which it is to work. Sir, under
these circumstances the second Chamber that is devised for the provinces is not
helpful and, need I say, will be a costly show. So far as our province is
concerned, I must thank the honourable Members of this House and more
especially those who are responsible for the decision of leaving this to the
provinces. It is in the fitness of things that the delegates from the provinces
are called upon to decide this question. I do not see how much could be said or
stated against the point as was mentioned by Mr. Krishnamachari. True it is
that it was left to the provinces. My friend says the provinces have decided. I
do not know when they decided. I come from the Province of Orissa. We delegates
from Orissa were never called upon to discuss this question except once and
that decision was against the constitution of the Second Chamber.
Sir, I have thanked, and I again thank the Committee as also the honourable
Members of this House, for leaving this question entirely to the Provinces.
Speaking for ourselves, we have taken extraordinary precautions in coming to
the conclusion that we did. We intimated the Ministers, and also the Premier of
Orissa who happens to be a Member of this honourable House, though he was
absent. We also had the views of the Ministry, and we had before us the views
of the Premier, and also those of the Member delegates. And to make ourselves
doubly sure, we also invited the representatives of all the States who had
merged into Orissa and also those of the States who intended to merge into
Orissa; all these were invited and they were allowed to take part in the
deliberations. Therefore, as a result of the combined deliberation of all these
persons, unanimously we came to the conclusion, with the single exception of
one Member, Mr. Sahu. We came to the majority conclusion that we shall not have
a second Chamber. Sir, second Chambers are not useful. They are not helpful. As
I have already stated, they are only ornamental. But if they were merely
ornamental, that would have been something, because ornaments have their value,
they make even things attractive. But here it is so very expensive, it entails
such a heavy burden on the provincial exchequer, with no useful purpose, that
it makes me feel that it is absolutely unnecessary and that it is an appendage
which it is better if it is thrown out.
Mr. Vice-President: Dr. Ambedkar.
Shri H. V. Kamath (C.P. & Berar: General): Mr. Vice-President......
Mr. Vice-President: Mr. Kamath comes from the C. P. which has no upper
Chamber. (Laughter.)
Shri H. V. Kamath: That is exactly. Sir, why I would like to speak.
Mr. Vice-President: I thing the point has been sufficiently discussed. Some
four more honourable Members would probably like to speak, but we have already
spent one and a half hours, and we have to make a definite progress every day.
I offer my apologies to those gentlemen who have been disappointed; that is all
I can offer in the present circumstances. Dr. Ambedkar.
The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Mr. Vice-President, Sir, I regret I
cannot accept any of the amendments that have been moved to this particular
article. I find from the speeches that have been made that there is not the
same amount of unanimity in favour of the principle of having a second Chamber
in the different provinces. I am not surprised at the views that have been
expressed in this House against second Chambers. Ever since the French
Constituent Assembly met, there has been consistently a view which is opposed
to second Chambers. I do not think the view of those who are opposed to second
Chambers can be better put than in the words of Abbe Seiyes. His criticism was
two-fold. He said that if the upper House agreed with the lower one, then it
was superfluous. If it did not agree with the lower House, it was a mischievous
body and we ought not to entertain it. (Laughter). The first part of the
criticism of Abbe Seiyes is undoubtedly valid, because it is so obvious. But
nobody has so far agreed with the second part of the criticism of Abbe Seiyes.
Even the French nation has not accepted that view; they too have consistently
maintained the principle of having a second Chamber.
Now, speaking for myself, I cannot say that I am very strongly prepossessed in
favour of a second Chamber. To me, it is like the Curate’s egg--good only in
parts. (Laughter.) All that we are doing by this Constitution is to
introduce the second Chamber purely as an experimental measure. We have not, by
the Draft Constitution, given the Second Chamber a permanent place, we have not
made it a permanent part of our Constitution. It is a purely experimental
measure, as I said, and there is sufficient provision in the present article
304 for getting rid of the second Chamber. If, when we come to discuss the
merits of article 304 which deals with the abolition of the second Chamber,
honourable Members think that some of the provisions contained in article 304
ought to be further relaxed so that the process of getting rid of the second Chamber
may be facilitated, speaking for myself, I should raise no difficulty (hear,
hear), and I therefore suggest to the House, as a sort of compromise, that
this article may be allowed to be retained in the Constitution.
Mr. Vice-President : I am now going to put the amendments to vote, one by
one.
The question is--
“That for the existing clause (1) of article 148, the following be substituted
:--
‘(1)
For every State there shall be a Legislature which shall consist of such number
of Houses, not exceeding two, as Parliament shall determine by law in each
case; provided that it shall be open to the Legislature of any State to request
the Parliament of the Union to change a bicameral into unicameral Legislature.
and such request being duly made and received, Parliament shall pass the
necessary legislation’.”
The amendment was negatived.
Mr. Vice-President: The question is--
“That in sub-clause (a) of clause (1) of article 148, after the words ‘States
of’ the word ‘Orissa’ be inserted.”
The amendment was negatived.
Mr. Vice-President: The question is--
“That for amendment No. 2231 of the List of Amendments, the following be
substituted:--
‘That
in sub-clause (a) of clause (1) of article 148, after the words ‘in the States
of’ the words ‘Madras, Bombay, West Bengal, the United Provinces, Bihar and
East Punjab’ be inserted’.”
The amendment was adopted.
Mr. Vice-President: No. 2231, standing in the name of Shri L. Krishnaswami
Bharathi need not be put to vote.
Now, the question before the House is:
“That article 148, as amended, stand part of the Constitution.”
The motion was adopted.
Article 148, as amended, was added to the Constitution.
Article 149
Mr. Vice-President : Then we come to article 149.
The motion before the House is:
“That article 149 form part of the Constitution.”
Coming to the amendments, I find that amendment No.2234, and the first part of
amendment No. 2235 are identical. No. 2234 may be moved.
(Amendment No. 2234 was not moved.)
Amendment No. 2235 may be moved, standing in the name of Mr. Lari.
(Amendment No. 2235 was not moved.)
Amendment No. 2240. The Member who has given notice of it is not moving it.
Amendment No. 2236 of Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad is disallowed as being verbal.
Amendments Nos. 2237 and 2238 are of similar import. The latter being the more
comprehensive one may be moved. The Member concerned, is not moving it.
Therefore amendment No. 2237 may be moved. This is also not moved.
Then we come to amendment No. 2239 standing in the name of Shri Damodar Swarup
Seth. It may be moved. I understand that the Member is not in the House. It is
not therefore moved.
Amendments Nos. 2241 and 2242 are identical. Amendment No. 2241 may be moved.
It stands in the name of Dr. Ambedkar.
An Honourable Member: It is not being moved. (Voices: ‘Member not in the
House’) (Laughter.)
Mr. Vice-President: (Seeing the Honourable Dr. Ambedkar coming into the
Chamber) Honourable Members are at perfect liberty to go out to take a cup of
coffee or have a smoke. They will kindly realise the difficulties of those who
are accustomed to both these types of relaxation. Honourable Members will agree
that Dr. Ambedkar is entitled to relaxation of that sort. The Chair has nothing
to do but to listen to the debates, but Dr. Ambedkar has to listen to the
debates and reply. (Laughter.)
I understand that Shri Lokanath Misra and Shri Nand Lal are not moving
amendment No. 2242.
Amendment No. 2243 is disallowed as it is verbal.
Amendment No. 2244 and the first part of amendment No. 2245 are identical. The
latter may be moved. As the mover Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena is not in the
House, it is not moved. Therefore amendment No. 2244 may be moved. The members
concerned are not moving it. The second part of amendment No. 2245 is also not
moved for the reason that the Member is not in the House. The next amendment,
viz., 2246,standing in the names of Mr. Mohd. Tahir and Saiyid Jafar Imam, also
is not moved, the Members concerned being absent.
Now, Prof. Shah may move amendment No. 2247, as also amendment No. 2248
immediately following.
Prof. K. T. Shah : Mr. Vice-President, as suggested by you, I shall move
both the amendments now. I beg to move.
“That the following new clauses be added after clause(2):--
‘(2-a)
No person shall be entitled to be a candidate or offer himself for election to
either House of a State Legislature, if Bicameral, or to the Legislative
Assembly of the State, who is duly certified to be of unsound mind, or
suffering from any other physical or mental incapacity, duly certified, or is
less than 25 years of age at the time of offering himself for election, or has
been proved guilty of any offence against the safety, security or integrity of
the Union, or of bribery and corruption, or of any malpractice at election, or
is illiterate.
No
one who is unable to read or write or speak the principal language spoken in
the State for as eat in whose Legislature he offers himself for election, or
after a period of ten years from the date of the coming into operation of this
Constitution, is unable to read or write or speak the National Language of
India, shall be entitled to be a candidate for or offer himself to be elected
to a seat in the State Legislature, or either House thereof.
(2-b)
The election shall be on the basis of proportional representation with a Single
Transferable Preference Vote. For the purpose of election, every State shall be
deemed to be a single constituency, and every member shall be deemed to have
been elected in the order of Preference as recorded by the electors; and this
arrangement shall hold good in the case of a General Election, as well as at a
by-election, if and when one become necessary :
Provided
that where there is a second chamber in any State, the voters may be grouped,
for electing members to the Legislative Council, on the basis of Trade,
Profession, occupation or interest recognised for the purpose by an Act of the
State Legislature, each trade, profession, occupation or interest voting as a
single constituency for the entire State’.”
and
“That clause (3) of article 149 be deleted and the following be substituted :--
‘The
representation in the State Legislature shall be on the basis of one
representative for every lakh of population:
Provided
that the total number of members in the legislative Assembly of a State shall
in no case be less than sixty’.”
There are several points in amendment No. 2247 which have, on an earlier occasion,
been brought before the House. They refer to the disqualifications and
qualifications which were stated while discussing the composition of the
Central Legislature. The House apparently did not agree with me and on that
occasion, at any rate, rejected my proposal. I am again bringing it forward
from the point of view now of the local legislatures, I hope with better fate.
The point, however, of great importance is that even if you cannot make all the
voters literate within the time that the legislatures are constituted, you
should certainly insist, in my opinion, upon candidates for the high office of
the legislature to be qualified in certain ways, or not to suffer from
disqualification in other ways.
The qualifications I have suggested are quite modest, not very exacting and in
no way offend against the basic principles of democracy, that is to say, every
individual should have the right to choose his representative. That being
conceded, it may yet be desirable that those who offer to represent should at
least have the minimum qualifications not of property, not of economic
strength, not of any measure that indicates inequality as between citizens, but
of capacity to render service, ability to understand the issues coming before
them and honesty enough impartially to record their votes in the legislature so
that you may have a fair legislation for the benefit of the country. I think
that though it may be possible to have even between equally qualified and
equally honourable men, differences on grounds of principle, we should
differentiate between people who suffer from certain disabilities of the type I
have suggested in this amendment. I put it to those who are responsible for
this draft and to the House also that, even if we decide as we have decided and
must insist upon that, without waiting for the coming of complete literacy, all
the adult population should have the vote, we should nevertheless insist that
the candidate must to start have certain qualifications and not suffer from
certain disqualifications which I have tried to illustrate. These are only
illustrations, not, so to say absolute qualifications or indexes of merit in
themselves. I have stated nothing more than the minimum requirements for
understanding the issues that would come before the legislature. As such I
think it is but right and proper that at least in the case of candidates we
must insist upon these qualifications. Those who become Members should
similarly be free from certain practices or convictions against them; that may
be taken also as the common places of constituting legislatures and should not
require any further argument on my part.
There is a point which I have made in a part of this amendment that deals with
proportional representation. I am afraid the House is not in favour of that
idea and therefore I will not labour the point. It is liable to be ruled out of
order and therefore I shall not myself press it.
The last point stressed in my amendment No. 2248 is that the representation in
the State Legislature shall be on the basis of one representative for every
lakh of population: Provided that the total number of Members in the
Legislative Assembly of a State shall in no case be less than sixty. The former
is I admit an arbitrary selection. It may be varied. I only put it forward
because I thought it is indicative of the State Legislature being really
representative of large numbers of the population at the same time keeping the
membership within manageable proportions. A lakh is a large number. Adult voters
in a population of one lakh would be about fifty to sixty thousand and as such
the possibility of securing a clear verdict on the multiplicity of issues that
may be placed before the provincial electorates at the time of the general
election would be too great to enable a voter justly to say that every single
issue before that electorate has been clearly voted upon by all the voters even
if all go to the polls.
But while recognising the limitation, I have also in mind the practical
requirements of having legislative assemblies of manageable sizes and as such,
this kind of arbitrary selection is necessary. That can only be remedied, I
think, if you continue the process of legislative organisation in units of
smaller and smaller population, that is to say, carry it from your huge
provinces down to some district or municipal level where perhaps you will have
a much more direct representation and therefore direct self-government of the
people. But as the provinces or States now stand, it seems unavoidable to
select a figure such as the one that is selected and for that I claim no more
merit than that it is likely to give you a more direct and more full
representation of the people than any larger number. For the rest, the second
part of the amendment gives the minimum and not the maximum. I am against
keeping a clause which gives the maximum number of representatives to be found
in any province of any State on the ground that by fixing such a maximum,
whatever the figure may be, you deny the larger electorate really speaking, the
right to assert itself. it is not that you are disfranchising, it is that you
are combining them in such a manner that considerable portions may neutralise
the effect of other portions and as such your representative body may not be
truly representative. On these grounds I commend these two amendments to the
House.
Mr. Vice-President: The next amendment is No. 2249 standing in the name of
Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad.
Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad (West Bengal: Muslim): Sir, with your permission I
wish to move the alternative amendment to this, i.e., No. 48 in List II
as I think that form it may be acceptable to the House. Sir, I move:
“That for amendment No. 2249 of the List of Amendments, the following be
substituted :--
‘That
in clause (3) of article 149, for the words ‘last preceding census’, the words ‘last
preceding census of which the relevant figures have been published’ be
substituted’.”
This principle has already been accepted in two other contexts. It is laid down
in clause (3) that there should be one representative for every lakh of the
population. It is stated also that that population will be found from last
preceding census. My point is that the figures of the preceding census may not
be available and in that case we may have to go to the immediately preceding
census of which figures are available. Some doubt has been expressed in the
House whether it would be wise to depend upon the 1941 census, that is to say,
that the 1941 census is already obsolete in view of the mass exchange of
population. Not only in the case of West Bengal and East Punjab but other
provinces also the population figures have been disturbed. So far as the next
elections are concerned, I suggest that there should be a fresh census or some
method of ascertaining the actual number of persons in each province and if
communal reservations are allowed, we shall also need the figures on a communal
basis. In any case, some method of ascertaining the population figures is
absolutely inevitable. This principle has already been accepted.
(Amendment No. 61 of List IV was not moved.)
Mr. Vice-President: Amendment No. 62 of List IV standing in the name of Mr.
T. T. Krishnamachari.
Shri T. T. Krishnamachari : Mr. Vice-President, Sir, I move:
“That with reference to amendment No. 2249 of the List of Amendments, in clause
(3) of article 149, for the words ‘every lakh’ the words ‘every seventy five
thousand’ be substituted.”
Sir, as the House will understand, this amendment seeks to meet certain
objections that may possibly be raised to fixing the figure at a lakh in the
case of areas which are backward where the population is sparse but the area is
very large. Such areas abound in the country in very many provinces. There are
a good number of pockets where perhaps a whole taluk does not contain more than
seventy-five thousand people. Actually in the Constitution we envisage that
every voter should be able to exercise his vote, but distance happens to be a
very important factor in the exercise of that vote. It might be that in an area
where there are about seventy-five thousand people, if the total number of
voters are roughly half of seventy-five thousand, because of the distance to
the polling booth, even a fraction of the thirty-five or thirty-seven thousand
voters may not exercise their votes; and the problem therefore is that we must
minimise those factors which will prevent the voter from exercising his vote.
Actually, in the Constitution which is based on adult suffrage, we are making
no provision with regard to transit for the voter to go to the polling booth.
Distance will be a vital factor for a number of people in exercising their
votes. Sir, it is a matter of common knowledge to Members of the House who have
had to face elections that the person who has the largest number of conveyances
is usually the person who succeeds in an election, though it often happens that
people go in one person’s conveyance but vote for another person: But, by and
large, the person who is able to command the largest number of conveyances is
able to secure the largest number of votes. If possible, we should minimise the
effect of this particular factor operating in our future constitution. Having
in view the peculiar conditions of our country, the peculiar conditions in the
various provinces, it seems right that the limit ought to be lowered from one
lakh to seventy-five thousand, though the sequel to it would be that there
would be variations in the number of voters in constituencies, but we shall
perhaps be able to insert provisions in this Constitution later on so as to
minimise these variations to the lowest possible limit. Taking my own province,
we may probably have six or seven such constituencies where the population will
be seventy-five thousand, but this will not detract from the representative
character of the legislature concerned or do any injustice to the areas which
are more thickly populated. This is a saving clause which is very necessary in
order to provide representation for the backward areas. I hope, Sir, the House
will accept this amendment.
May I also move the related amendment which is No. 662.
Mr. Vice-President: You can do it later on.
Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad: I have a point of order. You will be pleased to find
that in the notice sent to me with reference to amendments Nos. 2249 and 2250
that in the first place neither of these have been moved. Secondly, in place of
2249 I have moved another amendment and that has a reference to a different
subject altogether. In fact it has a reference to the census but the present
amendment deals with the number of units.
Mr. Vice-President: Kindly come up to the ‘mike’. You are inaudible to me.
Shri T. T. Krishnamachari: May I suggest that the House has already agreed
to his moving an amendment to his amendment No. 2249 and as such he may be
restrained from raising any further point of order.
Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad: In raising this point of order I have nothing to say
against the merits of the amendment. My point will be a technical one. It is
said in this amendment that it is with reference to amendments Nos. 2249 and
2250. That is amendment No. 62 in List IV.
Mr. Vice-President: Wait, wait. Do not be in such a hurry !
Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad: This amendment is sought to be moved with reference
to amendments Nos. 2249 and 2250. I have not moved the first one. But I have
moved a substitute amendment with regard to No. 2250. If by implication a
reference is being made to the substitute amendment. That will be found to
relate to a different subject.
Mr. Vice-President: Your contention is that it is not right to move
amendment No. 62 in List IV here !
Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad: Yes, I want to clarify the position.
Mr. Vice-President: The position is quite clear and the commonsense view is
that it should come here.
Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad: In that case we should also get an opportunity of
coming in by reference to other amendments. In that case I shall be happy.
Mr. Vice-President: I shall try to accommodate you as I have done except in
the case of verbal amendments.
Shall we now go on to amendment No. 2250, standing in the name of Dr. Ambedkar
?
The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Not moving.
Mr. Vice-President: In that case amendment No. 59 in List III falls
through.
Amendments Nos. 2251, 2252 and 2253 may be moved one after the other.
Amendment No. 2251 is passed over as the honourable Member is not in the House.
Amendment No. 2252 is in the name of Shri Rohini Kumar Chaudhari.
Shri Rohini Kumar Chaudhari (Assam: General): Sir, here I am, moving an
amendment after all ! Sir, I move:
“That in clause (3) of article 149, for the words ‘autonomous districts’ the
word ‘State’ be substituted.”
I think, Sir, I have to cut short my jubilation because there is an amendment
to this amendment and I think that it would be more acceptable. Therefore, Sir,
I merely move this amendment so that the other one may be moved.
Mr. Vice-President: The amendment to this amendment stands in the name of
the Honourable Shri Gopinath Bardoloi.
The Honourable Shri Gopinath Bardoloi (Assam: General): Sir, I move:
“That with reference to amendment No. 2252 of the List of Amendments, after the
words ‘autonomous districts of Assam’ the words ‘and the constituency
comprising the Cantonment and Municipality of Shillong’ be added.”
It will be seen, Sir, from the amendment that has been proposed by Mr.
Krishnamachari, which I hope the House will accept, that the old formula of a
lakh of population has been substituted by 75,000 population. That could apply
I feel to all the places except the “autonomous districts of Assam” which the
amendment of Mr. Krishnamachari contemplates. By this amendment we propose to
exclude also the constituency comprising the Cantonment and Municipality of
Shillong. That Constituency consists of about 38,000 population. At present it
represents not only a constituency with a seat for a male, but also a female
constituency. That is to say, a constituency of less than 40,000 people,
represents two seats today. To exclude it altogether from the category of a
constituency without allowing any representation whatsoever would in my opinion
be very wrong. In view of that, I have tabled this amendment and I hope the
House will accept it.
In connection with the amendment which has been tabled by Mr. Rohini Kumar
Chaudhari, I want to add this only. What that amendment proposes to do, is to
exclude altogether the Province of Assam from the operation of the clause about
the lakh population. I feel, Sir, that with the acceptance of the amendment
proposed by Shri Krishnamachari our difficulty about the number of seats will
be easy to solve. What is more, the difficulties which might otherwise
arise--the same sort of difficulties that have arisen in this Assembly over the
number of seats--would be obviated if we accept a general formula. In my
opinion the 75,000 formula is a good one. Therefore, I do not think there is
any necessity for taking into consideration the motion of Mr. Rohini Kumar
Chaudhari tabled in No. 2252. I therefore request the House to accept my
proposal that the constituency comprising the Cantonment and Municipality of
Shillong be excluded from the operation of this 75,000 clause proposed by Mr.
Krishnamachari.
Mr. Vice-President: The next amendment No. 2253 is in the name of Rev.
Nichols-Roy. As he is not in the House it is passed over.
(Amendment No.2254 was not moved.)
The Honourable Dr. B.R. Ambedkar : Sir, I beg to move:
“That for the proviso to clause (3) of article 149, the following be
substituted :--
‘Provided
that where the total population of a State as ascertained at the last preceding
census exceeds three hundred lakhs, the number of members in the Legislative
Assembly of the State shall be on a scale of not more than one member for every
lakh of the population of the State up to a population of three hundred lakhs
and not more than five members for every complete ten lakhs of the population of
the State in excess of three hundred lakhs:
Provided further that the total number of member sin the Legislative Assembly
of a State shall in no case be more than four hundred and fifty or less than
sixty’.”
Mr. Vice-President: There are a number of amendments to that amendment.
Shall I call the movers one after another? There are amendments Nos. 31 to 34.
No. 31 stands in the name of Mr. Sidhwa.
Mr. R. K. Sidhwa (C.P. & Berer: General): I am not moving it, Sir.
Mr. Vice-President: No. 32 stands in the name of Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena.
The honourable Member is not in the House. Nos. 33 and 34 stand in the name of
Shri Kamleshwari Prasad Yadav; he is not in the House. Then we come to No. 49
standing in the name of Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad.
Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : I beg to move:
“That in amendment No. 2255 of the List of Amendments, in the proposed first
proviso, after the words ‘the last preceding census’ the words ‘of which the
relevant figures shave been published’ be inserted.”
Sir, the principle has already been accepted.
Mr. Vice-President: Then we have amendment No. 63, standing in the name of
Shri Jaspat Roy Kapoor.
Shri Jaspat Roy Kapoor (United Provinces: General): Sir, I am not moving
it. Nor am I moving amendments Nos. 64 and 65.
Mr. Vice-President: Then we have No. 66 standing in the name of Shri T. T.
Krishnamachari.
Shri T. T. Krishnamachari : Sir, I beg to move:
“That in the proviso to clause (3) of article 149, for the words ‘three hundred’
the words ‘five hundred’ be substituted.”
This, I think, will not necessitate the House accepting the amendment of Dr.
Ambedkar. Dr. Ambedkar’s amendment seeks to explain why and wherefore the limit
should be raised from 300 to 450; the logic of it is explained along with the
manner how it is to be computed, but this is not necessary in view of the fact
that there will be a body coming into being, whether constituted by the
Provincial Legislature or by Parliament in whichever way the House might ultimately
decide, which will definitely lay down how the maximum of the number of Members
of each Lower House of the Legislature in a Province should be arrived at.
Therefore, I think it is not necessary to go through the process of explaining
in what manner the number is to be raised beyond the figure 300.
It is also felt that the figure 450 may not be adequate in the case of the
large provinces with a growing population, particularly, for instance, U.P. and
Madras, where the population is much above the 50 million mark. Therefore it
was felt that 500 will not be an unduly large number in view of the fact that
the House itself has approved of this limit for representation to the House of
the People so far as the Centre is concerned.
These factors have emboldened me to move this particular amendment which I
think appropriately enough should be an amendment to Dr. Ambedkar’s amendment
and which I hope he would be good enough to accept and withdraw his own
amendment, so that the House can decide straightaway whether it would like the
figure to be raised from 300 to 500.
Sir, I move.
Mr. Vice-President: Then we come to No. 2256 standing in the name of Begum
Aizaz Rasul.
Begum Aizaz Rasul (United Provinces: Muslim): Sir, I move:
“That in the proviso to clause (3) of article 149, for the words ‘three hundred’
the words ‘four hundred and fifty’ be substituted.
The House will remember that last year when the discussion on the different
clauses of the Constitution was taking place, the House decided that the
maximum number of Members in any House in the Provincial Legislature should not
exceed 300. Later on, it became apparent that my Province, the United
Provinces, stood to lose a great deal by this clause. The population of the
United Provinces, is over 55 million and it would be very unfair to that
Province if the maximum number of Members for the Lower House was fixed at 300.
I think this honourable House will agree that some amendment in that direction
is necessary. The reason why I supported the maximum number of 300 members last
year was that a House consisting of more than 300 Members would be a very
unwieldy House and the discussions in a very big House on legislation would not
give results that would be conducive to good working of a legislature in a
State. But as I have made it clear, our Province stands to lose a great deal if
this maximum number is adhered to and I am therefore moving this amendment.
I am glad to see that the Chairman of the Drafting Committee, the Honourable
Dr. Ambedkar, has also seen the injustice and the unfairness of limiting the
number of Members to 300 and is moving an amendment to that effect. My
amendment, therefore, is strengthened a good deal by the amendment that has
been moved by the Honourable Dr. Ambedkar. I hope that the number of 450 will
be accepted. Though according to the population our number really should have
been above 550, considering that a House of 550 or more would be an extremely
unwieldy House, I feel that the number of 450 serves the purpose and we would
be willing to make a sacrifice and have a lesser number of Members than our
population demands. I hope, therefore, that this amendment of mine, if it is
supported by the Honourable Dr. Ambedkar, will be accepted by the House.
With these few words, I move this amendment.
Mr. Vice-President: There is an amendment to this amendment, No. 35 of List
No. 1 standing in the name of Pandit Thakur Dass Bhargava. Is he moving it?
Pandit Thakur Dass Bhargava (East Punjab: General): I am moving another
amendment, Sir.
Sir, I beg to move:
“That with reference to amendment No. 2249 of the List of Amendments, in clause
(3) of article 149, after the word ‘census’, the following be added:--
‘except in the case of East Punjab and West Bengal where fresh census will be
taken to ascertain the population before the first election sunder this
Constitution’.”
This is a very simple amendment and I need not take the time of the House for
pressing it. The exodus has resulted in the variation of the proportion of the
population in the Punjab and West Bengal and the population concerned is not so
trifling as to be ignored. Therefore, it is absolutely necessary that fresh
census should be taken. If fresh census is not taken, then some other means
must be found whereby the population of these parts may be ascertained rightly.
Unless this is done, the difficulty will be that in regard to reserved
constituencies, such communities as for instance, the Muslims, who have gone
away from here, five million of them, will get much more representation than
would be allotted to the Hindus and Sikhs, who have come in very considerable
numbers--I think they are more than four millions. Therefore, my submission is
that either fresh census should be taken or some other steps should be taken to
see that these words “last preceding census” do not entail hardship to the rest
of the population, who have come here.
I, therefore, submit, as was observed by me two days back that either a fresh
list of electors should be so prepared and the population should be ascertained
from that source if that is possible, but my humble submission is that it will
be more or less a conjecture. The right thing would be to take a fresh census
of these two Provinces before the first elections are held.
Mr. Vice-President: You may also move your next amendment.
Pandit Thakur Dass Bhargava: So far as this amendment is concerned, this
relates to Amendment No. 2260 and I will move it after that amendment is moved.
(Amendments Nos. 2257 and 2258 were not moved.)
Mr. Vice-President: Amendment No. 2259 stands in the name of Pandit Thakur
Dass Bhargava and two others and amendment No. 2263 stands in the name of Prof.
Shibban Lal Saksena. These two amendments are of similar import. Amendment No.
2263 may be moved.
Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena (United Provinces: General): Mr.
Vice-President, Sir, I beg to move:
“That for amendment No. 2263 of the List of Amendments, the following be
substituted:--
‘That after clause (3) of article 149, the following new clause be inserted:--
(3a)
The ratio between the number of members to be allotted to each territorial
constituency in a State and the population of that constituency as ascertained
at the last preceding census of which the relevant figures have been published
shall, so far as practicable, be the same throughout the State’.”
Sir, if we glance at clause (3) of article 149 together with the amendment of
Mr. Krishnamachari, just moved, in every Legislative Assembly, we shall have
the maximum of 500 and a minimum of 60, but there is no provision that every
constituency shall be equal. In my Province of U.P. there may be one
constituency of 25,000; there may be another constituency of 2 lakhs and a
third even 3 lakhs. This is something which leaves a lacuna in the
Constitution. I cannot understand how the constituencies can be so different,
one having 1 lakh, another 2 lakhs and a third 5 lakhs. This is certainly a
grave lacuna in this Constitution.
I only want to draw the attention of the House to sub-clause (c) of clause (5)
of article 67, wherein we have provided, although it is one representative for
every 5 to 71/2 lakhs, that the ratio between the number
of members to be elected at any time for each territorial constituency and the
population of that constituency as ascertained at the last preceding census
shall, so far as practicable, be the same throughout India. It is provided that
the constituencies shall be equal and that means if in the U.P. we decide to
have constituencies of the average size of 61/4 lakhs,
then so far as practicable, the representation will be equal. But this will not
be so in actual practice; one will be 5 lakhs and another 71/2
lakhs. Therefore all the constituencies shall be equal and the same throughout
India. Similarly I want in the States also the same and when there are various
constituencies, they must be nearly equal. I think that unless this is provided
for in some of the provinces, there will be grave consequences. There may be
provincial jealousies which may play a role; some may get the upper hand and
may be able to provide those seats. They may have more seats, having one for
10,000, and there may be others where they do not want to give more seats and
they may provide one seat for 2 lakhs. I therefore think that what we have
provided as safeguard in article 67 should be followed. I hope, Sir, this
amendment will be accepted by the House, especially Provinces like East Punjab
and West Bengal who will be particularly affected. Sir, I move.
Mr. Vice-President: Amendment No. 2259 cannot be moved, but it can be voted
on. Does Pandit Thakur Dass Bhargava want that a vote should be taken on this ?
Pandit Thakur Dass Bhargava: No, Sir.
(Amendments Nos. 2260 and 2261 were not moved.)
Mr. Vice-President: Amendment No. 2262. Verbal; disallowed.
Pandit Thakur Dass Bhargava : With your permission, Sir, I move an
amendment to Mr. Shibban Lal Saksena’s amendment number 67, which runs thus :
“That after clause (3) of article 149, the following new clause be inserted:--
‘(4)
The ratio between the number of members to be elected at any time for each
territorial constituency and the population of that constituency as ascertained
at the fresh census mentioned in clause (3) shall so far as practicable be the
same throughout the East Punjab and the West Bengal Province’.”
In moving this amendment, Sir, I base my case on article 67 (3) which we have
already passed. I have just heard an argument from my honourable Friend Mr. T.
T. Krishnamachari who said that they want to arrange the constituencies in such
a manner that such constituencies as have not got facilities of communication
might be given a less number of electors whereas those constituencies which are
developed in point of communication etc., may not have the same number of
electors. My humble submission is that this will not be fair. If you do not
make all the constituencies equal or so far as practicable equal in the
provinces, there will be much confusion and bitterness. I understand the real
notion of democracy is one man one vote and not a collection of men and a
collection of votes. It is not areas which we are recognising, but the number
of population which we are recognising for giving a candidate to a particular
constituency. Therefore, my humble submission is, that the principle which the
House has already accepted in relation to article 67(3) is the sound principle.
Otherwise it might happen that in East Punjab and West Bengal such
constituencies might be formed as may not be equal for all the communities.
This will engender a great amount of bitterness and confusion. Therefore, my
humble submission is, so far as East Punjab and West Bengal are concerned,
first of all a census must be taken and after that, it will be best to have as
far as possible constituencies with equal numbers of population. If the
original amendment of Mr. Shibban Lal Saksena is passed by the House, the
difficulty in East Punjab and West Bengal would be that the last census is not
accurate and does not represent the true percentage of the communities.
Therefore, I have already moved that a census must first be taken and then the
constituencies must be so arranged that they represent almost equal number of
the population.
Sir, I move.
Mr. Vice-President: The article is now open for general discussion.
Shri R. K. Sidhwa : Mr. Vice-President, Sir, in clause (3) of this article,
there was originally a proviso that the total number of Members in the Legislative
Assembly of a State shall in no case be more than three hundred or less than
sixty. When this proviso came up for discussion last year, the House will
remember, I opposed it very strongly; but, Sir, I did not carry the House with
me. I am very glad that on second thought, the Drafting Committee have thought
it themselves advisable to make an improvement on this proviso, and remove the
words three hundred and increase it to four hundred and fifty. There is an
amendment now proposed that the maximum should be five hundred. I am at least
glad that though the fullest latitude and fullest opportunity according to the
population,--one member for every seventy-five thousand or one lakh of the
population--will not be given even under this maximum, this deficiency which
would have considerably come in the way of equal representation in the
legislature has been removed.
Similarly, Sir, last year, when we were discussing one of the clauses regarding
the term of the legislature which was proposed by the House as four years, I
moved an amendment to extend it to five years; and the House did not accept it.
But when our Constitutional Adviser went to foreign countries, he was advised
that in Ireland and other countries, the term of a legislature was five years;
and the proposal has come before us and that we have accepted. This shows that
our amendments are not considered on merits, but on personalities. However, Sir
I do not want that credit to myself; but I am very glad that this amendment has
been brought before the House today after mature consideration.
It has been stated, Sir, that the larger the number of members, it will be a
cumbersome Assembly. I cannot understand this. If three hundred is not an
unwieldy number, I fail to understand how the number five hundred could be
regarded as cumbersome. Why should we be apprehensive of a larger number? Are
there not in foreign countries legislatures of six hundred and seven hundred?
You are copying the Constitution of the Parliament of England. Are there not
600 members in the House of Commons? I want to know where is the harm. It these
provinces the United Provinces and Madras, which are the largest, are not going
to accommodate and give an equal right of returning members to the legislature,
then, they have no business to remain so large. They must be prepared for a
partition if they are not going to take in 600 members according to their
population. I am of the view, Sir, that if there is to be one member for every
75,000 of the population, the number of seats in the United Provinces comes to
650, and why should they deny that right to 150 members. If you are afraid of a
larger number of members in your province, you must be prepared to increase the
limit from 75,000 to 1,25,000. That is a different matter. So long as you
accept a certain percentage or proportion, then there must be uniformity and
you should not deny the right of returning members because you are a big
province. Provinces must be prepared to accommodate everybody; one should not
say that he has no accommodation and therefore he is not prepared increase that
number. Similarly is the case of Madras. If there are five crores of
population, there must be 500 members. But, with all that, I am really very
glad, and I congratulate the Drafting Committee, that they have though at a
late stage, seen the wisdom of increasing the maximum number. Sir, I entirely
support the amendment of my friend Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad about census and I go
further than that and support my friend Pandit Bhargava. This matter has been
repeatedly stated in this House that you cannot ignore the exodus and the
number of persons who have migrated from one province to another and without
taking a proper census, you cannot be really doing service to that class of
people who have unfortunately come out. I know the Constituent Assembly has
issued an order to the Provincial Governments that irrespective of residential
qualifications, their names should be entered in the electoral rolls; but I
know in certain provinces, e.g., in Bombay, it is not being fully
followed. It is merely an executive order and the authorities are not going to
take that into consideration seriously because they feel that it is a very
expensive method and unless they are given sufficient money for the purpose, sufficient
enumerators etc. It is not possible to put in the census all those refugees who
have come out from Pakistan. I therefore feel, while there has been no official
announcement on this matter, Dr. Ambedkar should make an official statement on
this matter as to really what would be the position even under the amendment of
Mr. Naziruddin which I understand is going to be accepted. It is stated ‘latest
census’ What is the meaning of that? Will it mean that all those who have come
from Pakistan will be really enumerated in the electoral rolls? If that is so,
the language is not very clear and some sort of declaration will have to be
made, if we are not going to put that in the Constitution, that the provincial
Governments should bear that in mind in preparing electoral rolls.
Sir, I am happy that an improvement has been made in the proviso that whatever
the number, the members should be elected according to the population basis
that we are going to accept, viz., 75,000. With these words I support,
Sir, this article.
Sardar Hukam Singh (East Punjab:
Sikh): Mr. Vice-President, Sir, I will confine myself to the amendment moved by
Mr. Thakur Dass Bhargava and I fully support that. It is very essential that
census must be taken before elections are held. Mr. Thakur Dass Bhargava has
confined himself to two provinces and as we know, there has been mass migration
from these provinces. If we were to rely on the previous or last census,
certainly it would be very unfair to these provinces. I take this opportunity
of bringing it to the notice of the Government that besides being unjust and
unfair to the provinces, if this last census were to be relied upon, it will be
particularly harmful to my community--the Sikhs. As is well known, they have
not confined themselves after coming over from the West Punjab by settling in
the East Punjab. They have gone further and in large numbers to the Provinces
of Delhi and U.P. If we were only to depend upon the previous census, and for
the present only fresh electoral rolls were to be prepared, then as we are
proposing in the new constitution that seats would be reserved, as is so far
provided in the Draft--and we do not know if this will be changed afterwards
but so far we can safely say that seats are to be reserved on the population
basis--then it will be very unfair. Mere preparation of electoral rolls would
not give them sufficient representation because in Delhi and U.P. they would
not get any representation if the last census were to be relied upon. My humble
request to Government is that census should first be prepared and then
elections should be held and particularly of these provinces, Punjab and Bengal
because otherwise it would not only be simply unjust and unfair but would be
definitely harmful to my community.
Dr. Monomohan Das
(West Bengal: General): Mr. Vice-president, Sir, some apprehension appears
before our mind about the word last preceding census in article 149. This point
was cleared by our Honourable Law Minister during the time of the discussion of
some previous articles. Some of our friends have brought amendments to the
effect that new census should be taken, at least in the provinces of West
Bengal and East Punjab before the elections are fought. I like to add one-point
to the arguments that have been put forward for taking a new census before the
elections. Sir, vehement propaganda by some political parties was carried on
during the last census of 1941 in Bengal. The contention of the propaganda was
that Hindus as a nation should not give any caste against their numbers. So
about 44 lakhs of Hindus were mentioned with no caste mentioned against them.
From the census it cannot be known how much or what part of the 44 lakhs of
Hindus are from Scheduled Castes and what part are from Caste Hindus. Now a
controversy has arisen between the Scheduled Castes of West Bengal and the
Caste Hindus. The Caste Hindus claim that all these 44 lakhs of Hindus belong
to Caste Hindus only and the Scheduled Caste people claim that a substantial
part of this 44 lakhs are Scheduled Castes.
Shri Mihir Lal Chattopadhyay (West Bengal: General): May I know whether
a person is bound to give his caste when the census is taken?
Dr. Monomohan Das: I am not speaking of the question whether he is bound to
give his caste or not.
Mr. Vice-President: Will you please allow me to make a few remarks. There
is a sense of grievance and as I have said, whatever the technicalities of the
case be, let the sense of grievances be ventilated. Very often when a grievance
is ventilated, it loses half its rancour or its passion. Remember that you
wanted five minutes but you have already spent five minutes.
Dr. Monomohan Das: If a new census is to be taken before the elections,
then we have nothing to quarrel but if for some reasons, the new census is not
taken before the elections and the records of the 1941 census be taken as our
guidance for the new elections, then this point must be solved by the
Government. I mean, Sir, what part of this 44 lakhs Hindus are Caste Hindus and
what part of them are Scheduled Caste. Sir, I thank you for this opportunity.
Shri Rohini Kumar Chaudhari : Mr. Vice-President, Sir, I hope honourable
Members will excuse me if in this discussion I speak only of Assam and nothing
but Assam.
Honourable Members will be pleased to recollect that a short while ago I read
out an amendment in which I had asked for making an exception in the case of
Assam. I wanted such an exception because there was this qualification of one
lakh population for a constituency. If that condition had remained, a great
mischief would have been done to the people of the province of Assam. But
fortunately that condition has been removed by the amendment which the House
was pleased to accept and which was moved by Mr. T. T. Krishnamachari. In order
to make the position more comprehensible, I would like to draw the attention of
the House to page 188 of the Draft Constitution, and Part I of the Table there.
There, the autonomous districts have been enumerated. There are the Khasi and
Jaintia Hills District, excluding the town of Shillong, the Garo Hills District
the Lushai Hills District, the Naga Hills, the North Cachar, and the Mikir
Hills portion of Nowgong and Sibsagar Districts. Now, in the Khasi and Jaintia
Hills District, as also in the Mikir Hills portion of Nowgong and Sibsagar
Districts, there is a large population which does not belong to the tribal
denomination; and if article 149 stood as it did originally, great harm would
have been caused to these non-tribal people of these areas. If honourable
Members will kindly look at sub-clause (5) and (6) of article 294, they will
find this--
“(5) The constituencies for the seats reserved for any autonomous district of
the State of Assam shall not comprise any area outside that district.”
So if the position had stood as it was before, then a portion of the city of
Shillong--the Cantonment and Administration of Shillong, will not come under
the constituency of the Khasi and Jaintia Hills District at all.
In article 294, clause (6) it is stated--
“(6) No person who is not a member of a scheduled tribe of any autonomous
district of the State of Assam shall be eligible for election to the
Legislative Assembly of the State from any constituency of that district.....”
That is to say, if any portion which has a large population of non-tribal
people is included in the autonomous district, that large portion of non-tribal
people will be entirely disenfranchised. In that case, it is meaningless to
have any right or franchise, if it does not take along with it the right to
stand for election.
So far as Shillong is concerned, it has been excluded from the Khasi and
Jaintia Hills, vide Part I of Table on page 188. If the population of
Shillong is less than 75,000, then Shillong will not have any separate
constituency. But by this amendment which was moved by Mr. Bardoloi, an
exception has been made in the case of Shillong. If it stood as it was, in that
case, the non-tribal people would not be included in the Khasi and Jaintia
Hills, and they will be completely disenfranchised. The same difficulty would
be felt in the case of the Mikir Hills also, because if the area which is
inhabited by the Mikirs only are taken aside, then the non-tribal population in
the Mikir Hills will not come to 75,000.
Now, one difficulty has been removed, by excluding Shillong from the operation
of this 75,000 formula. My object in moving the amendment was that in order to
remove all the complication Assam might have been made exceptional together. In
the past, Assam has been made an exception in various matters, both in favour
of and against Assam, mostly against Assam. I think there was at one time
exception made in the case of Assam being considered a province--that was
recommended by the Cabinet Mission. Similarly, it might have been possible and
it might have been better if Assam had been entirely excluded and my amendment
accepted. But wiser heads have thought that my amendment had better not be
moved, and I thought, Sir, that I had to agree to that.
Mr. Vice-President: But you have not thanked me, Mr. Chaudhari, for making
an exception in your case and allowing you to speak, though you have not moved
the amendment.
Shri Rohini Kumar Chaudhari: Thank you Sir; but I did not speak on my
amendment.
Mr. Vice-President: That is all right. I only wanted to make my position
clear to the House. I allowed the honourable Member to speak, in my own
unconventional way; he only read out the amendment. The convention was broken
because Mr. Chaudhari had something important to talk about areas in Assam
which had not been touched upon by Mr. Bardoloi.
Shri Raj Bahadur of Matsya Union.
Shri Raj Bahadur (United State of Matsya): Mr. Vice-President, Sir, I
regret I have to express my dissent from the provisions prescribing and
restricting the maximum number of representatives provided for the Lower House
in the Provinces. It has been restricted to a maximum of 500, and it has been
provided that for every one lakh or 75,000 there shall be one member. But this
provision is bound to lead to a disparity and inequality in the right of
representation allowed to the people from province and province. We can easily
see that in smaller provinces the people would get better right of representation,
and hence a better vote, as compared to people in provinces where the
population is bigger. For instance, if we take Bihar and Orissa and compare it
with Madras or U.P. the people of Bihar and Orissa will be getting one member
for every 75,000 and the people of U.P. will be getting hardly one member for a
lakh and 25 thousand or a lakh and 50 thousand. I submit it would have been
better if the scale of representation had been universal and uniform for all
the provinces. It is obviously desirable that in our Constitution, the scale of
representation should not vary from province to province or from State to
State. Even the argument that the House would become cumbersome if no maximum
is fixed, does not, I think cut at the root of my suggestion. We can see that
in the House of Commons in England there are as many as 640 members and during
the course of an experience of 300 years that number has not proved cumbersome
or unwieldy to the oldest democratic State in the world. Therefore, it cannot
be unreasonable to suggest that the people of U.P. or Madras should be allowed
the full quota of members which may be calculated on the basis of one member
for every one lakh or 75,000 of their population. Sir, I am submitting all this
because I am interested in this matter as a representative of a State vitally
affected by the proviso. The States which have merged or which are about to
merge with the U.P. or other provinces are all interested in this question,
because if you restrict the number of seats for example in U.P. or Madras to a
maximum of 500, the people of such States which propose to enter these
provinces will obviously stand to lose. The people of Bharatpur and Dholpur are
eager to merge their identity with the people of U.P. because of their traditions,
history, folklore, culture, and language, etc., etc. If the people of Bharatpur
and Dholpur are allowed the right of self-determination, which, I am sure, no
Member in this House would deny them and if they go to the U.P., it will not be
fair if all the 500 seats are already taken up by the present population of the
United Provinces and the people of Bharatpur or Dholpur or of any other State
which joins U.P., are deprived of their right of representation in the
legislature.
Secondly, there is the question of those States which would merge after the
first elections. We know that the boundaries of our provinces are still in a
ferment. From day to day experience, we might come to realise that certain
provincial boundaries have to be changed and consequently the population of
certain areas would be affected. There should be some provision by which the
population of the affected areas are secured the right of representation.
Therefore, I submit that if there had been no maximum fixed it would have been
much better. When the power to de-limit the constituencies and to take
decisions on other consequential matters have been left to the discretion of
provincial Governments under article 291 and 312, it would be proper if the
right of fixing the maximum number of members in the legislatures is also left
to the discretion of the provinces or the States concerned.
Next, I wish to submit that the grounds of disqualification of a voter as
provided in clause (2) of article 149 have been made exhaustive. We notice that
these grounds have been limited to certain conditions only, and I think that
the powers and authority of the legislatures of the provinces, also have been
restricted, in this respect to the grounds mentioned in the said clause. But it
is possible that cases of high treason, sedition, undischarged bankruptcy or
illiteracy may have to be included among these grounds. Hence it would have
been better if the list of these grounds is not made exhaustive but only
illustrative.
Lastly I have to submit that so far as the amendment moved by Prof. Shah is
concerned, I do not see any ground for its acceptance. To disqualify a voter no
certificates of unsoundness of mind or body are needed. When the grounds of
disqualifications are laid down in the Constitution or in the Provincial Acts,
there should be no necessity for such a provision. To revert to my first tow
points, I may submit again that in view of the changing boundaries of provinces
and States, my suggestions may still be considered.
Pandit Lakshmi Kanta Maitra (West Bengal: General): Mr. Vice-President,
while we are in the midst of discussion of article 149, I think quite
unexpectedly a matter of very great importance has been raised and, fortunately
several honourable Members have realised the importance of the subject and
given their views or it.
Sir, there are two things in particular which should demand the vary serious
consideration not only of the Members of the House but also of those who are in
authority. In the present case by ‘those in authority’ I mean my honourable
Friends Dr. Ambedkar, the Honourable Minister in charge of the Bill, I mean the
Draft Constitution.
Shri H. V. Kamath: This is not a Bill.
Pandit Lakshmi Kanta Maitra: I quite realise that. But Dr. Ambedkar is
the one Member who has been piloting this measure in this House and so all the
credit and discredit go to him. And I want to warn him that if there are
certain matters which are likely to bring discredit to his fair name, he should
desist from talking for a moment and listen to me.
Sir, the two points to which I would confine my observation now are, one, the
representation in the provincial legislatures based on certain figures of
population and, two, the principle of uniformity. What is more important and
pertinent to the point is that, besides the quantum of representation, there is
the other vital principle involved, namely, that there should be absolute
uniformity with regard to the scale of representation based on that population.
Two amendments have been moved in this connection, one by Pandit Thakur Dass
Bhargava which seeks to further amend the amendment moved by Prof. Shibban Lal
Saksena. When these two amendments are read together, it will be realised that
what is sought to be done by these amendments is nothing extraordinary, but
bare minimum justice, political justice to all concerned. In a democratic
State, the mechanics of representation cannot be based on any haphazard or
slipshod foundation. There must be a definite principle or principle son which
the whole scheme of representation should be based. It should be based in such
a way that the fundamental concept of democracy does not suffer. I think this
proposition is beyond challenge.
Now let us see how it is going to affect certain parts of the Indian Dominion
and certain States within that Dominion if article 149 is accepted by the House
as it is. It is all very well to say that representation will be based on
population which has been ascertained at the last preceding census.
Theoretically it is absolutely unexceptionable, provided the Government is in
the mood to wait decennial census would be due about the year 1950, a year
hence. If it is to be held preparations must be set on foot from now on or six
months hence if the census is to betaken very seriously and is to be conducted
expeditiously before the year 1950 runs out. Now, on a previous occasion in
connection with an earlier article, I explained at great length the dangers,
the difficulties that certain provinces in India would have to suffer if the
previous census figures, which for all practical purposes would mean the census
figures of 1941, are acted upon in the case of West Bengal, East Punjab, Bombay
and Delhi. The present amendment no doubt relates only to the two provinces,
West Bengal and East Punjab. The House will remember that with regard to these
four provinces including West Bengal and East Punjab, I emphatically
declared--and I am glad that several members who followed me after that
supported me--that it would be practically useless to depend on the census
figures of 1941 with regard to representation in the new scheme of things. Who
is there in this country, at least in this House, who does not know that the
census figures of certain provinces were cooked up in 1941 with the object of
getting political advantage in the succeeding stage of political reforms? That
is all well-known, and is it necessary for me to repeat it in this House in
season and out of season to those who are in authority? There should be a clear
realisation of this position. Now, we are going to start on a clean slate. (At
this stage the lights failed in the Chamber). It is all darkness. I see nothing
but darkness for the province of West Bengal if this political injustice is
done to them, as also in the case of East Punjab.
Mr. Vice-President: The needful will be done as far as possible. You please
continue, Pandit Maitra.
Pandit Lakshmi Kanta Maitra: The difficulty is that I do not see whom I am
addressing.
Honourable Members: You need not see our faces.
Pandit Lakshmi Kanta Maitra: Sometimes faces give encouragement. Sir, the
House is aware that this principle of representation was accepted in the case
of the Central Legislature, the Parliament of India, in article 67. The
amendments now moved propose to bring the representation in the provincial
legislature in line with that which has been provided and accepted by the House
for the Parliament. Sir, the arguments I advanced on the last occasion need not
be repeated now, but some of them will bear repetition here.
With regard to my ill-fated province of West Bengal and also East Punjab, I
want the House to realise that the vast migration that has taken place in these
two provinces should be officially recognised. It has been recognised for
relief and rehabilitation to some extent, but for political adjustment, for
granting political rights and franchise, this recognition is equally necessary.
I deem it more necessary than the question of rehabilitation and resettlement.
You cannot effectively rehabilitate and resettle people, unless at the same
time you give them political rights and privileges for the coming governance of
the country. Therefore, Sir, I think that this question should be decided by
the authorities under pressure from this House. There should not be any further
dilly-dallying or shilly-shallying with this question. The problem is very
simple. It is this that the 1941 census figures have not been accepted by us
with regard to the province of West Bengal. That is also true of East Punjab.
West Punjab has been completely denuded of Hindus and East Punjab has been
similarly denuded of Muslims. Therefore the census figures of 1941 are
absolutely no guide to the real position of things with regard to East Punjab.
With regard to west Bengal, I pointed out--and I point out this once again and,
I hope, for the last time--that this migration started not from 1947 only. This
migration started since the end of 1941 when Japan entered the war against
Great Britain. Vast areas of East Bengal now comprising Eastern Pakistan were
evacuated by order of the military aurthorities for various military
preparations such as the construction of airfields, aerodromes and other
military installations. Those areas were completely cleared and the people were
driven in quest of their livelihood to the province of West Bengal,
particularly to Calcutta and Greater Calcutta, the industrial areas, where
numerous production centres had been opened. Thousands and thousands of people
came over with their families to West Bengal from areas like Chittagong,
Tippera, Chandpur, etc. for personal safety from the Japanese bombs which were
dropped on those areas and which was not a pleasant experience to have. Then
came the disastrous famine of 1943. My province has the unique distinction of
having a number of calamities, one closely following another, and yet the
province has survived. Do you want it to survive or do you want to give it a
death blow and extinguish it for ever? Are you going to give West Bengal
minimum political justice or not? I ask this simple question and want a
straight answer. Sir, the famine of 1943 brought lakhs and lakhs of people to
West Bengal from East Bengal in quest of food. Even today in West Bengal the
price of rice per maund is Rs. 16 or Rs. 17, whereas it is about Rs. 50 in East
Bengal, which is supposed to be the granary of Bengal. In those days, there was
more chance of getting food in West Bengal and Calcutta than in the desolate
corners of East Bengal. We do not know what is the population position now. The
Famine Commission put the deaths at thirty lakhs. Every community claims that
it is that community who suffered most.
An Honourable Member: It is the Scheduled Castes who suffered most.
Pandit Lakshmi Kanta Maitra: I have heared this statement from responsible
quarters that it is the Scheduled Castes who suffered most. It is true. It is
the women and the children who were the worst suffers. The whole point of my
contention is that in this province after the last census had taken place the
situation had developed from year to year to such an extent that the whole
equilibrium--if it existed at all--in the proportions that are given in the
census figures, has been completely destroyed. Then came the division of the
country and the partition of the Province of Bengal into East and West. The
House is aware that the undivided province of Bengal got cut up into three
parts--West Bengal, East Bengal and North Bengal: the districts of Jalpaiguri
and Darjeeling were allotted to West Bengal. It had a tongue of Pakistan
territory in between and migration has been going on both in the northern area
from this area of Pakistan and throughout the southern portion.
Mr. Vice-President: What I am afraid of is that both of us coming from the
same province, and I being in agreement with your views, Members may say that I
am partial. That is an ordeal which I would like to avoid.
Pandit Lakshmi Kanta Maitra: I do not want to create any embarrassment for
the Chair. So far as I am concerned, I am not a novice in parliamentary
activities and I get the indulgence of the House. If the House so desires I
will stop.
Honourable Members: Go on, go on.
Mr. Vice-President: Now it is all right. You can go on.
Pandit Lakshmi Kanta Maitra: This migration has been going on and it is
perfectly open to the authorities, if they want to shirk any responsibility for
the unfortunate victims from East Bengal, to quarrel about the figures but the
fact is that migration is continuing. Does my honourable Friend, Dr. Ambedkar,
the hero of this whole show, know that thousands of scheduled casts people are
pouring into the Indian Union? I am sure he knows it. I look up to him to take
a dispassionate view, because he is the one man whom we can get hold of here
quickly, expeditiously and effectively perhaps! He is the one man who has to
realise the gravity of this and to tell those who differ from him that this is
a matter which must be tackled in right earnest. Some say the migration figures
go into 15 lakhs. We have our own figures, but 20 lakhs is the official figures
of West Bengal.
Mr. Vice-President: Today it is 20 lakhs !
Pandit Lakshmi Kanta Maitra: I can understand the position of the
authorities to put down the figures as low as possible, but the fact is that at
least 20 lakhs have been driven into the Indian Dominion by the very kind
treatment of our friends in Pakistan, and more will continue to come; I am
confident of that. But the whole question is: Are these people going to be left
in the lurch? They have left their hearths and homes. They have left behind
everything. I am talking of West Bengal, because the Punjab case is well known.
They have all become destitutes and they have come over here. But there is less
appreciation of what is happening there because the facts about it are being
much less dramatised. Are these people not going to have any political justice
and any representation, when they have cast in their lot with us in this
Dominion and when they have settled down here and when they desire that they
should be part and parcel of the Indian Union? They in their own way joined in
this struggle for freedom and they made their sacrifices which are by no means
negligible. It is all very well to say that if we want to take a census of East
Punjab and West Bengal the elections will be deferred by one year. What does it
matter? Are you going to deprive lakhs of people of their legitimate right of
representation in the legislatures of the country? Do you want to have
expedition at the cost of justice? That is a simple question you have to
answer. Are we anxious to have expeditious elections at the sacrifice of these
people? That is for you to answer. I am told that a rule of thumb has been
invented by which the electoral roll will go on being prepared and thereafter
it will be multiplied by two and the number of the population will be obtained.
But why not go about it in a straight forward way and have a general census?
With our resources will it not be possible to finish the census business and at
the same time carry on the preliminaries for holding the elections? That
Constitution has to be finalised and it cannot be finalised before August in
any case: there is the Third Reading and all that: then there is the date for
its coming into operation and then a date for the delimitation of
constituencies. If you start now, you can hold a census for this province. In
case you cannot do that, then some arrangement must be made for these
unfortunate provinces of West Bengal and East Punjab. They cannot be made to
fit in with your census figures because you demand that elections should be
held forthwith.
Sir, the observation from an honourable Friend, who is closely associated with
the honourable Member in charge of this Bill created some kind of consternation
in our mind. His idea seems to be that the scale of representation could vary
according to different parts of the country because some parts are well
developed from the point of view of communications and others are not. This
means that according to his idea--which, I believe, will catch the official
mind, and I do not know whether it is a reflection on the official mind--that
where 50,000 people can have representation by one Member, in another area
1,20,000 people will have one seat. This would be the height of injustice.
Democracy demands that one man/one vote should have an equal value. There is a
differentiation in value if 50,000 people are asked to elect one man and
1,20,000 people are also asked to elect only one man. There is a lot of
difference. Therefore, that will cause great discontent in the whole of East
Punjab and West Bengal. This discontent borders on bitterness and I ask the
Honourable the sponsor of this Bill, Dr. Ambedkar, to take steps to see how
this can be eliminated so that we can go on in this business with perfect
amity, concord and goodwill. Let no sense of rankling injustice be left in the
minds of those who are clambering for this bare modicum of justice. These two
amendments provide that not only shall this representation be based on the
figures of population but these figures must be the latest figures from a
census to be held for the purpose, be it even an ad hoc census. In any
case the census figures of 1941 will be no index of the real population of
these areas. There has been a considerable change. That is one point.
The second point is that the sizes of the constituencies should not be made to
vary from place to place in the sense that the population should not be made to
vary. If you fix one seat for 75,000 or one seat for one lakh, by all means try
to see that in every constituency throughout India the proportion is
maintained--one lakh people having one representation or 75,000 people having
one representation. But it will be a travesty of justice if 50,000 are given
one seat and one lakh of people are also given one seat. There will then be
enormous scope for jerrymandering. I think I should sound a final note of
warning that this condition must cease. The authorities must make up their mind
and make a declaration that so far as these two Provinces are concerned the
census figures for 1941 will not be acted upon and that a fresh census will be
taken or that a fresh mechanism for ascertaining the real population figure of
these two Provinces--West Bengal and East Punjab--is brought into action before
this particular article is implemented.
Sir, I support wholeheartedly the amendment of Prof. Saksena as sought to be
modified by Pandit Thakur Dass Bhargava. I thank you, Sir, and I thank the
House also.
The Assembly the adjourned till Ten of the Clock on Friday, the 7th January
1949.
------------------------------------------------------------
*[Translation of Hindustani Speech.]*
Related Documents:-
Role of Sardar Hukum Singh in Constituent Assembly Debates - Article 3
Role of Sardar Hukum Singh in Constituent Assembly Debates - Article 10
Role of Sardar Hukum Singh in Constituent Assembly Debates - Article 13
Role of Sardar Hukum Singh in Constituent Assembly Debates - Article 22
Role of Sardar Hukum Singh in Constituent Assembly Debates - Article 37
Role of Sardar Hukum Singh in Constituent Assembly Debates - Entries in Union List
Role of Sardar Hukum Singh in Constituent Assembly Debates - Article 3
Role of Sardar Hukum Singh in Constituent Assembly Debates - Article 10
Role of Sardar Hukum Singh in Constituent Assembly Debates - Article 13
Role of Sardar Hukum Singh in Constituent Assembly Debates - Article 22
Role of Sardar Hukum Singh in Constituent Assembly Debates - Article 37
Role of Sardar Hukum Singh in Constituent Assembly Debates - Entries in Union List
Role of Sardar Hukum Singh in Constituent Assembly Debates - Article 67
Role of Sardar Hukum Singh in Constituent Assembly Debates - Article 67 (Contd)
Role of Sardar Hukum Singh in Constituent Assembly Debates - Article 102
Role of Sardar Hukum Singh in Constituent Assembly Debates - Government of India (Amendment) Bill
Role of Sardar Hukum Singh in Constituent Assembly Debates - Entries in Union List 2
Role of Sardar Hukum Singh in Constituent Assembly Debates - Article 67 (Contd)
Role of Sardar Hukum Singh in Constituent Assembly Debates - Article 102
Role of Sardar Hukum Singh in Constituent Assembly Debates - Government of India (Amendment) Bill
Role of Sardar Hukum Singh in Constituent Assembly Debates - Entries in Union List 2
No comments:
Post a Comment