Constituent Assembly Of India - Volume VII

Dated: January 03, 1949

The next amendment is No. 1381. I find this is of similar import to 1383, 1384,1385 and right up to 1392. All these amendments may therefore be considered together.

Amendment No. 1381 standing in the name of Shri Prabhudayal Himatsingka may be moved.

Shri Prabhudayal Himatsingka (West Bengal : General): I am not moving my amendment.

(Amendments Nos. 1381 to 1394 were not moved.)

Prof. K. T. Shah : Mr. Vice-President, Sir, I beg to move:

"That for clause (3) of article 67, the following be substituted:

'(3) All members of the Council of States shall be elected. Each constituent State shall elect 5 members by votes of adult citizens.' "

Sir, this is in consonance with the general principle I am advocating, namely, that the Legislature shall be constituted only by elected representatives election being by whatever method you may agree to.

Secondly, that, in the Council of States, all constituent parts of the Union--call them States. Units or what you like--shall be equally represented. Whereas in the lower House, or the House of the People you may have representation in accordance with number, in the Upper House or the Council of States the representation is more of the territory of the Unit, of the special interests of the Unit or region, than of the people pure and simple.

And these, also, I would suggest should be elected rather than nominated, co-opted, or chosen by any other method. The whole body should be elected; and none but elected representatives should come there.

Next, the representatives, so far as they are representatives of the Units, should be equal in number amongst themselves--that is to say, for each State the same number be returned,--so that it will bring some sense of a real Federation working, rather than of discrimination or differentiation as between the Units. On these grounds I commend my proposition to the House.

Mr. Vice-President : Amendment No. 1396 is formal and is therefore disallowed.

(Amendment No. 1397 was not moved.)

Mr. Vice-President : The first part of amendment No. 1398. and amendment No. 1402 are identical. I can allow the first part of amendment No. 1398 to be moved.

Mr. Mohd. Tahir (Bihar: Muslim): What about the second part?

Mr. Vice-President : That will come at the proper place.

Mr. Mohd. Tahir : Sir, I beg to move:

"That in sub-clause (a) of clause (3) of article 67, the word 'elected' where it occurs for the second time be deleted."

I have moved this amendment because I think that there should not be any distinction between the elected members and the nominated members so far as the election of the representatives in the Council of States is concerned. Nominated Members, as soon as they become Members of the House, should enjoy all the rights and privileges of a Member as such.

I had moved a similar amendment in respect of the election of the President of India, but in that respect the House adopted that only the elected members should be allowed to vote for the President of India. In that case there was some meaning to it, because if a President who nominates certain members to Parliament again stands for the Presidentship election, there would have been some difficulty for the members nominated by the said President in exercising their votes. But so far as the election of the representatives of the Council of States is concerned, I do not think that there is any reason why the nominated Members of the Legislature as such should be debarred from voting in the election of their representatives in the Council of States. I hope that taking all these facts into consideration the House will accept my amendment.

Mr. Vice-President : Now you may move the second part of the amendment. They will be voted upon separately. Do you want amendment No. 1402, which is identical, also to be put to vote?

Mr. Mohd. Tahir : Yes.

Mr. Vice-President : You may move the second part of amendment No. 1398.

Mr. Mohd. Tahir : Sir, I beg to move:

"That in sub-clause (a) of clause (3) of article 67 the words 'Legislative Assembly' be substituted for the words 'Lower House'. "

In this connection I would require the special attention of my honourable Friend Dr. Ambedkar. I have moved this amendment because in article 148 of the Draft Constitution the Legislative of the States has been defined as the Legislative Assembly and the Legislative Council; and there is no such term as has been suggested in article 67, that is to say, the 'Lower House'. In this connection I think my Friend Dr. Ambedkar was more conscious than myself because while we were discussing article 43 he introduced an explanation, namely, that "in this and the next succeeding article the expression 'the Legislature of the States' means, where the Legislature is bicameral the Lower House of the Legislature." This explanation, Sir, he had to add while we were discussing article 43, which means that this explanation is meant for article 43 and article 44 only. Therefore, Sir, in order to clear the position in the article under discussion, I think there is no other alternative but to accept my amendment; or I would request my Friend, Dr. Ambedkar to introduce an explanation as he has done in article 43, because unless it is done, the meaning of the article will not be clear, and I hope, Sir, this would be duly considered and accepted by the House.

Mahboob Ali Baig Sahib Bahadur (Madras : Muslim): Mr. Vice-President Sir, I beg to move:

"That in sub-clause (a) of clause (3) of article 67, for the words 'Lower House', the words 'two Houses' be substituted."

The sub-clause as proposed to be amended by this amendment reads like this:

"67 (3) (a) where the Legislature of the State has two Houses, be elected by the elected members of both the Houses."

I do not see any reason, Sir, why, when there are two Houses in the Provincial Legislature, the elected members of the Upper House should be excluded from taking part in the election. I am not thinking of those who may be nominated to the Upper House. I am urging that those members of the Upper House who have been elected may be allowed to take part in the election. On principle, there is no reason at all why the elected members of the Upper House should be excluded. That is the reason why I move this amendment.

I have got one other amendment. No. 1407, Sir. I may be allowed to move that also.

Mr. Vice-President : There are three amendments of similar import . One is amendment No. 1400, the other is No.1403 and the last is No. 1407. Amendment No. 1407 seems to me to be the most comprehensive. Mr. Baig can move that amendment.

Mahboob Ali Baig Sahib Bahadur : The other amendment that stands in my name is Amendment No. 1407.

Sir, I beg to move:

"That in clause (3) of article 67, the following new sub-clause (d) be added:-

'(d) The election under sub-clause (a) and (b) shall be in accordance with the system of proportional representation by means of the single transferable vote.' "

Shri Mahavir Tyagi (United Provin Mr. Vice-President : Because the three amendments have been moved together, namely, Nos. 1400, 1403 and 1407, as the honourable Members will find by reference to papers already circulated and in my view, Amendment No. 1407 seems to be the most comprehensive. The honourable Member will have his chance later on.

Mahboob Ali Baig Sahib Bahadur : I am glad that some Members are of the same opinion as I am with regard to the method of election, particularly my honourable friend, Mr. Mahavir Tyagi, and I am glad when we come to this part of the Constitution Mr. Mahavir Tyagi has changed his mind. I remember quite well when I moved for the election of the President in the earlier part of the Constitution, Mr. Mahavir Tyagi was, I should say uncharitable.

Shri Mahavir Tyagi : That was the President's election this is of the Council of States.

Mr. Vice-President : I think it would be better to substitute the word "emphatic".

Mehboob Ali Baig Sahib Bahadur : Perhaps he did not understand. But now he finds that the method of election by a system of proportional representation by means of the single transferable vote is not injurious for the solidarity of the country. I remember at that time........

Mr. Vice-President : May I suggest that instead of making remarks on the past attitude of Mr. Mahavir Tyagi, another honourable Member of this House, the honourable Member may proceed with his own amendment. Probably that would save the time of the House.

Mahboob Ali Baig Sahib Bahadur : Now, Sir, this House has already accepted the system of election under article 55, that is, in regard to the election of the President.

"The Vice-President shall be elected by the members of both Houses of Parliament assembled at a joint meeting in accordance with the system of proportional representation by means of the single transferable vote and the voting at such election shall be by secret ballot."

Therefore, Sir, there is nothing new or extraordinary in my proposing this method of election.

Further, Sir, may I refer to the opinions of certain authorities who are competent to speak on this matter which are referred to in the Constitutional Precedents, supplied to the Members of this House by the Constitutional Adviser? The opinions of persons who are competent to speak on this method of proportional representation are these:

"One of the best safeguards for minority rights and interests is the system of election by proportional representation with the single transferable vote (P.R) which has already been adopted in a large number of countries; Switzerland is a conspicuous example:

'In the past there were bitter differences, religious and cantonal. But for a long period of years now, government has been stable. The responsibility for forming a government rests upon parliament; its first duty is to elect an Executive. The Swiss parliament is elected by proportional representation.' "

The late Lord Howard of Penrith, who was Britain's representative at Berne, Stockholm, Madrid and Washington, and who made a study of the working of governments, wrote as follows:

"Two fundamental requirements of democracy, first that Government should be an expression of the people's will and secondly that it should work both smoothly and stably and not be subject to frequent crises, seem to have been met more successfully by the Swiss system than by any other in the world."

Another authority has stated like this:

"Sir Samuel Hoare addressing his constituents in Chelsea expressed the view that representative Government might function more satisfactorily in Europe if the Swiss rather than the British form of Government was adopted. The New York review Free World organised an unofficial round table discussion on the future of Italy. In this discussion Colonel Raudolfo Pacciardi, an active member of the Left, said: 'The frequent crises of the Latin democracies, which have so greatly discredited representative democracy, can be avoided by a constitutional form like that which has been developed in Switzerland."

This was issued by the Proportional Representation Society in June 1945.

Therefore, this method of election represents the expression of the people's will and it will be more stable as well as responsible. My submission is that all the fears that some people might entertain that this method of election would involve the country in sections and it will go against the solidarity of the country are false. Some people who are really communally minded smell a rat in anything in regard to this kind of representation; that is unjustifiable. This is the most scientific and most democratic method of representing the people of a country in a democratic system of Government. I, therefore, commend these two amendments, firstly that the elected members of the Upper House also should be allowed to take part in the election and secondly that the method of election should be by this system, that is proportional representation by means of the single transferable vote. Sir, I move.

Mr. Vice-President : The other two amendments which have been dealt with together are amendments Nos. 1400 and 1403.

Shri Mahavir Tyagi: Sir, these are my amendments and I beg to submit that I may be allowed to move these amendments separately so that the House may decide on the issues separately.

Mr. Vice-President : Come to the mike please.

Shri Mahavir Tyagi: Sir, I beg to move:

"That at the end of sub-clause (a) of clause (3) of article 67, the following words be added:

'in accordance with the system of proportional representation by means of the single transferable vote.' "

Sir, while moving this amendment.

Mr. Vice-President : I am afraid I have not given the honourable Member permission to move his amendments. I want to know the reason why he wants to move them. They are of similar import as amendment No. 1407.

Shri Mahavir Tyagi: That is perfectly true. My reason is the House can decide the issue in one case in one way and in the other, in another way. Therefore. I want to give the fullest opportunity to the House.

Mr. Vice-President : I can give the honourable Member an opportunity of making his point in the general discussion; but I cannot depart from the convention which has already been established. His two amendments will be put to vote one after the other.

Shri Mahavir Tyagi: Shall I have my say now, Sir?

Mr. Vice-President : I shall certainly give the honourable Member an opportunity in the general discussion.

Mr. Vice President: Amendment No. 1401, Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad.

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

"That at the end of sub-clause (a) of clause (3) of article 67 the word 'and' be added and the word 'and' at the end of sub-clause (b) be omitted."

I also beg to move amendment No. 1404:

"That sub-clause (c) of clause (3) of article 67 be omitted."

Sir, so far as this sub-clause is concerned, it introduces some anomalies. Clause (3) where this sub-clause occurs relates to the representation of the States. Sub-clause (a) deals with the representation of States having a legislature with two Houses. Sub-clause (b) deals with representation of States having a legislature with one House.

Mr. Vice-President : Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad, you might move amendment No. 1404 also.

Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : Yes, Sir. That is the amendment which I have also moved.

Mr. Vice-President : And one speech.

Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : Sub-clause (c) deals with representation of States having no legislature. States here comprise the Provinces, the Chief Commissioner's Provinces and the Indian States. All the Provinces, however, have legislatures and they will have legislatures too in the future constitution. Sub-clause (c) therefore really affects the States which are now called Indian States and the Chief Commissioners' Provinces. Where there is no legislature, power is being given to the  Parliament to prescribe or determine the manner of choosing their representatives. I submit this would be an encroachment on the rights of those States--specially the Indian States. These States having no legislature have a district identity, a modified kind of sovereignty. Dr. Ambedkar conceded the other day that they have some kind of sovereign rights, though not full sovereign rights. The mere fact that they have no legislature is no ground why their representation should be left to be determined by the Parliament. If they have no legislature for the time being there must be a President, or a Raj Pramukh or some authority who or which would function in the State. If the business of the State, its administration its executive and the judiciary and other matters could be carried on by some authority, that authority should also deal with the prescribe how the representatives of that State should come to the House. Therefore, this sub-clause is anomalous. Parliament may perhaps come in when there is a gap when there is really a constitutional vacuum in the State. The only void that is contemplated is the absence of any House of Legislature. There is not a political vacuum. But, still the State may have an organised Government without a legislature and their representation should really be a matter for them. It really is a question of the terms of the Accession. In fact, if a State having no legislature has acceded on certain terms, then sub-clause (c), to be valid, must come within those terms. As I see it, sub-clause (c) goes beyond the terms of Accession, and is an encroachment upon the sovereign or semi-sovereign rights of these States. I therefore submit that Parliament would not be entitled to deal with their representation. It would be beyond its competence. The States should be left to decide their own representation. In fact, it is due to them that they should decide their own representation. A legislature is desirable but by no means a constitutional necessity. The fact that they have no Legislature does not debar their expressing themselves as to how they will be represented.

In these circumstances, I submit that sub-clause (c) should be deleted. But I also feel that some appropriate provision recognizing the right of States themselves having no legislatures to determine their own representation may be substituted. In the shortness of time at my disposal I could not submit an alternative proposition but the question is one of principle. If the principle is acceptable to the House, a suitable substitute may easily be introduced. As at present advised, I submit that  Parliament would not be a legal and constitutional substitute for the authority of the States whatever be the form of Government or the nature of the authority which really functions.

With these few words, I submit that my amendment should be accepted.

(Amendment No. 1405 was not moved.)

Mr. Vice-President : No. 1406 disallowed as verbal.

(Amendment No. 1409 was not moved.)

No. 1410 is disallowed.

I would like to put one suggestion before the House, before the general discussion begins. It is this. I have broken many of the Rules of Procedure, some through ignorance others deliberately. I am going to break a convention already established deliberately, but I think I ought to get the permission of the House. This article falls under two separate board divisions. The first four clauses deal with representation in the council of States and the last few provisions deal with representation in the House of the People. My suggestion is that first of all we discuss the first part, i.e., the first four clauses dealing with representation in the Council of States. The amendments relating to these clauses have been moved one after another. Now I want to give an opportunity to honourable Members to take part in the general discussion on these four clauses. After that I intend to call upon Dr. Ambedkar to reply and after that only these amendments will be put to vote. Then we shall take up the amendments concerned with the clauses (5) onwards. Then the amendments will be moved, and then again a similar procedure will be followed. But this procedure is only for this clause. Have I the permission of the House?

Honourable Members : Yes.

Mr. Vice-President : Now these four clauses are open for general discussion. I call upon Mr. Rohini Kumar Chaudhari.

Shri Rohini Kumar Chaudhari: (Assam : General): Mr. Vice-President, Sir, I wish to say a few words on this article. My honourable Friend Moulvi Mohammad Tahir has moved an amendment objecting to the use of the word 'Lower House'. Practically speaking as is known to everybody, the lower House means really the Upper House. That is the House which has a more important voice and has the upper hand in the administration of the province. Similarly the House of Commons is the House of the Commoners and the House of Lords is the House of the Lords. All the same the House of Commons exercises more powers than the House of Lords and nobody for a moment suggests that the name should be changed for that purpose only. Further more the use of the word 'Lower House' connotes that there must be an Upper House in the same province. Now so far as the Upper House is concerned, its members have been denied many privileges--for instance, one would have normally expected that in selecting or in electing members of the Council of States. their compeers, the member of the Upper House should certainly have a voice. Because after all the birds of the same feather flock together and there is a sort of sympathy between members of the Upper House in a province and the members of the Council of State in the Center but, Sir, when you are not giving them the privilege which is exercised by the ordinary members of the Lower House or the Assembly, you must console them by calling them members of the Upper House. Therefore from that point of view also the words 'Lower House' should be allowed to remain where they are firstly because the Lower House does not mean a House of Lower dignity but it has to be used for purposes of expediency; and secondly, Sir so long as we think that we must have a second legislature in a Province, there should be one which is called 'Upper House' because as a matter of courtesy we should call them Upper House because we are not giving them many privileges.

Then I also want to say a few words on the amendment of Prof. Shah. It is certainly democratic to expect that members of any House should be elected but there is one difficulty in the way. If you leave the representation entirely to election in a Council of state the class of people whom we want to nominate by this article, i.e., the class of people who must have some special knowledge in agriculture, fishery, administration and social service, these people generally fight shy of election and will never be able to come to the House and therefore it is necessary in the exigencies of circumstances that some provision should be left for nomination so that the House may get the advantage of people who would normally not like to enter into a contest of election and at the same time whose services to the Legislature would be very useful.

With these words, Sir, I support the first part of the article.

Shri R. k. Sidhwa : Mr. Vice-Preisdent, Sir, this article so far as it relates to the Council of States contains two parts, one is clause 1 (a) which has been amended by Dr. Ambedkar by reducing fifteen members which he had originally suggested for nomination to twelve members and in clause (2) where the Drafting Committee had suggested about 14 categories under which the nomination had to be made, he has moved an amendment of 4 categories. Now this is the most contentious clause in this article, which ought to require the serious attention and consideration of the House. There is an election and also nomination in the clause. I have stood all along my whole life for election in all legislatures and public bodies and local bodies.

Not that I do not realise that conditions have changed today, but I do feel that even under the changed conditions, the power that is vested in the President may be misused, I mean the power of nomination. This, Sir, is a matter in which we cannot challenge the action of the President, because it is a matter which is absolutely within his discretion. A certain person 'A' may be more desirable to be nominated, but according to the President, another person, 'B' may be considered more suitable and he may nominate 'B'. The House cannot, and no one can challenge that choice or nomination of the President. No one can say that the President can be impeached because he has done something in bad faith or anything of that kind. I am afraid, Sir, that there will be a good deal of bickerings, that while able persons are available, some favourites, or some persons who are in the good books of the President or some persons who are always around the President, are nominated. Human nature being what it is, such a thing is quite possible. I am not stating something new, for persons above these things are exceptional. The President has to take into consideration so many factors when making his selection and at that time, qualifications or merit or service or sacrifices may be set aside or ignored. Therefore, I do feel that even these nominations should not be there, because they will lead to bickerings and out of them bickerings will accrue. The very fact that while the Drafting Committee had laid down some thing like fourteen categories, the Chairman of the Drafting Committee has now come forward with an amendment seeking to change the number to four, and also the number of amendments moved to this particular article show the degree of difference of views. One view is that experts will be required only for a few subjects such as law etc. which are rather technical. But it was asked, why have you left out health? Sir, I do not attach much importance to Law. There are many lawyers in this House, and some quite as competent as Dr. Ambedkar, if I may be permitted to say so. I am only saying that natural temptations will arise, and they are arising, as is shown by the various amendments that have been moved. Therefore, I feel, Sir, that these nominations, in the present juncture, should be done away with.

Coming to Prof. K. T. Shah's amendment I would certainly advocate the suggestion or rather the amendment moved by him proposing the appointment of advisory committees. I do not subscribe to his view completely. For instance, I do not agree with the various numbers and various other experts he has suggested, such as 25 for agriculture and so on. I do not subscribe to so many categories coming in. But certainly, I feel that there is scope for advisory committee of experts. For instance, we may require experts in civic life and also experts in Social life. We cannot ignore the civic service amongst the villages and local bodies. But I do not think such an advisory body should be provided for in the Constitution. In case nomination is to be there then as an alternative we may have these advisory committees on some two or three selected subjects. But that can be done by Parliament by enacting an Act. These persons need not be given undue prominence by making a provision in the Constitution for these advisory committees. According to the conditions that may be prevailing at an election, the Parliament may decide to have certain experts to be attached to particular ministries. But let the House itself be given an opportunity to find out from its own Members whether certain members with expert knowledge on particular subjects are available. If that is not possible, then Parliament can make a law to have Advisory Committees appointed. Sir, today you know we had to seek the advice of economic experts in view of the serious economic conditions in the country. But such an outside body would not be quite desirable, if we are to get a completely unbiased opinion or advice. But if they are in the service of the State, as suggested, they can be trusted to give unbiased opinions.

I would, however, like to make it quite clear that I am opposed to nominations, and the above suggestion is only made as an alternative. We cannot take it, that because we have all been elected, therefore, nomination will be harmless. As I have stated, we cannot expect everybody to be of sterling character, though we wish all of us were of sterling character, and that when we decide upon a person, we do so without any favouritism or any other such considerations, and select the really best man for the place.

With this reservation, Sir, I support the article.

Mr. Vice-President : Shri Mahavir Tyagi.

Shri Mahavir Tyagi : Sir, I must thank you for giving mean opportunity to express my views on this article. I wanted to move an amendment, but you were pleased to rule that it has been already covered by an amendment.

Mr. Vice-President : Yes, your amendments Nos. 1400 and 1403.

Shri Mahavir Tyagi : Yes, Sir. I wanted to say that "in accordance with the system of proportional representation by means of the single transferable vote" may be added at the end of sub-clause (a) of clause (3) of article 67, and in the same manner, similar modifications may be made to sub-clause (b). But I have not much to say now. My Friend Mr. Mahboob Ali Baig has already moved an amendment which I think has the same purpose. But I think the words he has suggested will not fit in properly with the existing words, and I am afraid Dr. Ambedkar will have to take the trouble of setting right the whole sentence. Mr. Baig has suggested that a new sub-clause (d) may be added. Now, sub-clauses (a), (b) and (c) all form part of one big sentence. The sentence begins like this;

"The representatives of each State for the time being specified in Part I or Part III of the First Schedule in the Council of States shall.. etc., etc."

and then come sub-clause (a), (b) and (c). If another sub-clause (d) is added, as suggested by my Friend Mr. Mahboob Ali Baig, it will read:

"(d) The election of the representatives of each State.... shall be in accordance with the system of proportional representation, etc., etc."

That will create a construction which is neither here nor there. I feel that my amendment is much more simple and does not lead to any such difficulties. I hope my suggestion will be considered by the House, because if it is accepted, then Dr. Ambedkar will not have to trouble himself about re-adjusting the wording of the article.

Sir, the Council of States will be represented by those members who are sent into the Council by the respective States, by general election, by majority voting, which means that the representatives of the States will not have any member belonging to the minority party of the respective States. It means that, if in the States the election is not by means of the single transferable vote, the minorities will have no representation at all in the Council of States. Sir, I do not agree with the type of democracy in vogue in Europe. This is the biggest fraud which the politicians of the world are unconsciously practising on the masses. Under the existing system of elections the masses do not get any real representation at all. All democracies based on party basis are the monopoly of the chosen few, the literates and the intelligentsia. They form parties and the elections are run on party lines. This being the case, the seats are held by the same set of people who are borne on the crest of the wave of emotion of the masses. The emotion of the masses is excited, fanned and inflamed by the politicians. So much so, that when people go to the booth, they go swayed by the emotion created by the head of the election campaign. When an elector goes to the polling station, he is not his normal self. His emotions are excited and he forgets his individuality. Mass mind is a separate entity. When the elector votes under his emotions, he does not exercise his individual judgment. He is swayed by the election propaganda. Under the circumstances even the representatives of the majority party are not really representatives of the normal mind of the masses. It is only those members of the minority who are either defeated at the elections or have won that represent the real spirit of the masses to some extent. They are the only bold ones who have withstood the attacks, hits, and pushes of the majority party and who have kept their heads cool and aloof amidst waves of mass emotion created by election propaganda and stuck to their principles. So, those who belong to the minorities should be always cared for and looked upon as people who hold to their own opinions staunchly. Therefore, although democracy as practised in the western countries is a hoax and a fiction, it has survived so long because of the opposition. It is the opposition that reflects the true voice of the people. It is the opposition that sustains democracy. Were it not for this, democracy would have long ago crashed and fallen down. I believe in the democracy.....

Mr. Vice-President : The honourable Member's time is up.

Shri Mahavir Tyagi : Please give me one more minute, Sir. I assure you I shall be giving useful suggestions.

Mr. Vice-President : But the honourable Members is taking away the democratic right of others to speak.

Shri Mahavir Tyagi : According to Mahatma Gandhi real democracy is Ram Raj where everyone puts himself and all his power and possession under the supreme control of the general will. Each in fact becomes an indivisible part of the whole body, and indivisible member of the body. Although he acts according to the total will of the people as a whole, even so he obeys himself alone and maintains his freedom. Under such a democracy an attack on the individual is a hit on the total body of the people and a hurt on the total body is a hurt on each individual. We have, however, adopted the western model of democracy which I cannot help. There must therefore be parties in our body politics. Let us therefore give seats in the Council of States to some Members holding the views of the opposition also. Such members can get elected only if my amendments are accepted. Only then Members who are opposed to the party in power in the States can come in. Whenever high State policy is under discussion we can have the advantage of the views of the other side only if they are allowed to come in by this method. The Democracy of the western type is based on free play of the opposition. Without good opposition the democracy will become one legged, it would limp and tumbledown. With these words I hope that my amendments will be accepted.

Mr. Mohamed Ismail Sahib (Madras : Muslim) : Mr. Vice-President, I want to say only a few words and will not take more than one or two minutes.

Under clause (2) of article 67, the different classes from amongst whom the President is to nominate members to the Council of States have been given. In the reason for omitting trade and commerce and industry, the Drafting Committee says that these people can as well come through the general election in view of adult suffrage. Sir, for the same reason you could have omitted to give representation by nomination also to the classes of the people enumerated in sub-clauses (a) to (d). They can also come through general elections under adult suffrage.

Sir, I do not know that the importance of commerce is in any way less than the importance of the other classes of people enumerated in this clause. Therefore I think it is very reasonable and fair that trade and commerce also should be included.

Sir, now coming to clause (3), in the various sub-clause, nominated members are being sought to be excluded from having anything to do with the election or the choice of representatives to the Council of States from the States. Sir, if no nomination is provided for at all, that is another thing and I would have no quarrel at all. But you think that nomination is necessary and are providing for the nomination of certain people. Then, when you have recognised the importance of nominating people and when you have actually nominated them to the Council of States, it will not do to discriminate against them. It will not be at all fair to place them at a disadvantage and give them an inferior status. When you have recognised their importance and nominated them, they must also be treated equally, after they have been nominated, with the other members who have been elected and who form part of the various bodies. Therefore I am not able to see the reason why these people should be eliminated from having anything to do with these elections.

Then, Sir, a word with regard to the system of proportional representation proposed in more than one amendment to this article. It is said that this system of election will lead to fissures and divisions amongst the People. But, in reality, it would not be leading to that result or effect at all, because people know that under this system of election every group of people has got an effective say in the election. Therefore every group will be drawn towards the other group. When it is a question of election they will be made to work with each other. They will be compelled to seek the franchise of every group. Therefore it will really bring the people together instead of disintegrating them. It will make each group seek the franchise of other people. Therefore it would really work for unity rather than for disunity. Sir, I think that the Chairman of the Drafting Committee would see the reasonableness of this proposal and would recommend to House the acceptance of this system.

Mr. Vice-President : Dr. Ambedkar.

(Pandit Hirday Nath Kunzru rose to speak.)

Mr. Vice-President : What is it that you want to say, Pandit Kunzru?

Pandit Hirday Nath Kunzru : I would like to say something about this question of proportional representation before Dr. Ambedkar rises to reply.

Shri L. Krishnaswami Bharathi : In the general discussion only two people have spoken so far, Sir.

Mr. Vice-President : On the whole four people have spoken. But I would allow you to speak, Pandit Kunzru, but please confine yourself to the question of proportional representation only.

Pandit Hirday Nath Kunzru : Mr. Vice-President, as it has been proposed that the members of the Council of States should be elected by the Lower Houses of the provincial legislatures, it is necessary that a system should be laid down for the election of the members as would be fair to men holding different views. It has accordingly been suggested that in their election the system of proportional representation by means of the single transferable vote should be used. Honourable Members may be afraid that, if this system is accepted, it would mean the introduction of communal electorates by the backdoor. We know the evils of communal electorates. We know that the partition of India is the direct result of such electorates. We have therefore to be on our guard against any system of election that would lead to the maintenance of the old evil in a new form, but let us consider whether the acceptance of the suggestion that has been made would in practice amount to the election of the members of the Council of States by people belonging to separate communities. In order to clarify our minds, it is necessary for us to consider how the members of the provincial legislative assemblies will be elected. They will not be elected on the basis of communal electorates. The electorates will be mixed. They will have consist of men of all communities, and the men returned by mixed electorates are not likely to be imbued with communal virulence. It should not be supposed that the representatives of any community would be able to get in merely by the votes of the members of that community. They will have to seek the suffrages of mixed electorates and it may therefore be supposed--we may take it for granted--that if they want to maintain their position, if they want to be re-elected, they will have to follow a policy that is not based on religious or communal divisions. Now if we get such members in the Lower Houses of the provincial legislatures, is there any reason to fear that if the system of proportional representation by means of the single transferable vote were introduced for the election of the members of the Council of States, the evils of communal electorates would be maintained or intensified? Sir, we ought not to consider this question entirely from the point of view of the representation of different communities. We ought also to consider the need for the representation of persons holding views that are not popular, and the method of proportional representation would enable fair representation to be given to minorities holding views different from those of the majority. Unless the system of proportional representation is introduced, the views that are unpopular would never be represented. Take, Sir, the election of members to the Constituent Assembly. There are some members of this House who do not belong to the Congress and have yet been able to get elected. They have been able to secure their election because of the existence of the method of proportional representation with the single transferable vote for the election of the members of the Constituent Assembly. But for this system no one who was not a Congressman could have been here.

Maulana Hasrat Mohani (United Provinces : Muslim) : Hear, hear.

Pandit Hirday Nath Kunzru : I think therefore that it is desirable that we should adopt the system of proportional representation by means of the single transferable vote in connection with the election of the members of the Council of States. I need not repeat that these members will be elected by provincial representatives who have not been returned on a communal ticket so to say. They will be elected by men who will owe their election to an electorate that will consist to an overwhelming extent of members of the majority community. There need be no reasonable fear therefore that the election of members of the Council of States by means of proportional representation would mean the reintroduction of communal electorates with all the evils that they involve. On the contrary, I think that in the changed circumstances this method would enable a fair representation of the views of sections that would otherwise be overwhelmed and would not be able to make their voice heard, to be secured.

Mr. Vice-President : Dr. Ambedkar

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Mr. Vice-President, I am agreeable to amendments Nos. 1369, 1375, 1378,1380,1400 and 1403. With regard to the last two amendments (Nos. 1400 and 1403) those are also covered by an amendment moved by Mr. Mahboob Ali Baig. It is amendment No. 1407. I would have been glad to accept that amendment but unfortunately, no examining the text of that amendment, I find that it does not fit in with the generality of the language used in clause (3) of article 67. That is the only reason why I prefer to accept amendment No. 1403, because the language fits in properly with the language of the article.

With regard to the other amendments, I think there are only three which call for special consideration. One is an amendment by Mr. Kunhiraman. The aim and object........

Mr. Vice-President : It was not moved.

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Then I do not think I need say anything about it. There remain only two-one is the amendment of Mr. Kunzru. He was very naturally considerably agitated over the proviso which stood in the Draft Constitution and which provided for the 40 per cent representation to representatives of the States. I think it is desirable that I should clear the ground and explain what exactly was the reason why this proviso was introduced and what is the present position. It is quite true that in the Government of India Act, it was provided that although the States population formed one-quarter of the total population of India as it then stood in the Lower House, the States got representation which was one-third of the total and in the Council of States they got two-fifths representation which was 40 per cent. That is not the origin as to why this proviso was introduced in the Draft Constitution. I should therefore like to go back and give the history of this clause.

Members of the House will remember that this House had appointed a Committee known as the Union Powers Committee. That Committee recommended a general rule of representation, both for people in British India as well as people in the Indian States and the rule was this: That there should be one seat for every million up to five millions, plus one seat for every additional two millions. As I said, this was to be a rule to be applicable both to the provinces as well as the States. But when the report of the Union Powers Committee came before the Constituent Assembly for consideration, it was found that the representatives of the States had moved a large number of amendments to this part of the report of the Union Powers Committee. Great many negotiations took place between the representatives of the Indian provinces and the representatives of the Indian States. Consequently, if honourable Members will refer to the debates of the Constituent Assembly for 31st July 1947, my friend and colleague, Mr. Gopalaswami Ayyangar, who moved the adoption of the Report of the Union Powers Committee, moved an amendment that the States representation shall not exceed 40 per cent. Now that rule had to be adopted or introduced in the Draft Constitution. So far as I have been able to examine the proceedings, I believe that this proviso of granting the States 40 per cent representation was introduced not so much with the aim of giving them weightage but because the number of States was so many that it would not have been possible to give representation to every State who wanted to enter the Union unless the total of the representation granted to the State had been enormously increased. It is in order to bring them within the Union that this proviso was introduced. We find now that the situation has completely changed. Some States have merged among themselves and formed a larger Union. Some States have been integrated in British Indian provinces, and a few States only have remained in their single individual character. On account of this change, it has not become as necessary as it was in the original state of affairs to enlarge the representation granted to the States, because those areas which are now being integrated in the British Indian provinces do not need separate representation. They will be represented through the provinces. Similarly, the States which have merged would not need separate representation each for itself. The totality of representation granted to the merged States would be the representation which would be shared by every single unit which originally stood aloof. Consequently, in the amendment which I have introduced, and which speaks of Schedule 3-A, which unfortunately is not before the House, but will be introduced as an amendment when we come to the schedules, what is proposed to be done is this:

We have removed this 40 per cent ratio granted to the States and there will be equality of representation in the Upper Chamber, both to the Indian State as well as to the Provinces, and I am in a position to give some figures, which, although they are not exact for the moment, are sufficient to give a picture of what is likely to be the contents of Schedule 3-A.

According to Schedule 3-A, the provinces will have 141 seats. The Chief Commissioners' provinces will have two and the States will have seventy altogether. Consequently, the total of elected members to the Upper Chamber will be 213. Add to that twelve nominated seats. That would bring the total to 225. Our clause, as amended, says that the total strength of the Council of States shall not exceed 250. You will thus see that the allocation of seats which it is proposed to make in Schedule 3-A satisfies two conditions, in the first place it removes weightage and secondly, it brings the total of the House within the maximum that has been prescribed by the amendment that I have made. I think the House will find that this is a very satisfactory position.

Pandit Hirday Nath Kunzru : May I ask my honourable Friend whether the States in Part III of the first Schedule have been represented in accordance with their population?

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Yes, everybody will now get population ratio.

Then I come to the second amendment--No. 1377 by Prof. K. T. Shah. Prof. K. T. Shah proposes that there should be a council of the representatives of agriculture, industry, commerce and other special interests created by statute. It will be a permanent body of people. The States shall be required to give them salaries, allowances, and the duty of this council, as proposed by Prof. K. T. Shah, is that it shall have the statutory duty of giving advice to Government, and the Government will have the statutory obligation of consulting this body, and it shall not be permissible for the Government, I take it, to introduce any measure which on the face of it does not bear the endorsement that the statutory body has been consulted with regard to the contents of that Bill. I believe that is the purpose of Prof. K. T. Shah's amendment.

There are various objections to this. In the first place anyone who has held any portfolio in the Government of India or in the Provincial Governments will know that this is the normal method which the Government of India and the Provincial Governments adopt before they finalise their legislative measures: there is no proposal brought forth by the Government of India in which the Government of India has not taken sufficient steps to consult organised opinion dealing with that particular matter. It seems to me that this provision which is a matter of common course is hardly necessary to be put in the Constitution. I therefore think that from that point of view it is unnecessary.

Then I should like to tell the House that it is proposed that at a later stage I should bring in an amendment which would permit the President to nominate three persons either to the Council of States or to the House of the People who shall be experts with regard to any matter which is being dealt with by any measure introduced by Government. If it is a matter of commerce, some person who has knowledge and information and who is an expert in that particular branch of the subject dealt with by the Bill, will be appointed by the President either to the Council of States or to the Lower House. He shall continue to be a member of the legislature until the Bill is disposed of; he shall have the right to address the House, but he shall not have the right to vote. It is through that amendment that the Drafting Committee proposes to introduce into the House such expert knowledge as the Legislature at any particular moment may require. That justifies, as I said, the rejection of Prof. K. T. Shah's amendment; and also the other amendments which insisted that the other clauses of this article requiring that agriculture, industry and so on be also represented, become unnecessary. Because, whenever any such expert assistance is necessary, this provision will be found amply sufficient to carry out that particular purpose. Honourable Members might remember that in the 1919 Act when Diarchy was introduced in the Provinces a similar provision was introduced in the then Government of India Act which permitted provincial Governors to nominate experts to the House to deal with particular measures. Sir, I suppose and I believe that this particular proposal which I shall table before the House through an amendment will be sufficient to meet the requirements of the case.

Shri R. K. Sidhwa : Will the nomination clause remain?

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Yes.

Mr. Vice-President : I shall now put amendment No. 1379 to vote. The question is:

"That clause (2) of article 67 be deleted."

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. Vice-President : The question is:

"That clause (4) of article 67 be deleted."

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. Vice-President : The question is:

"That in amendment No. 1369 of the List of Amendments, in the proposed clause (1) of article 67, for the word 'two' the word 'one' be substituted."

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. Vice-President : The question is:

"That in amendment No. 1369 of the List of Amendments, sub-clause (a) of clause (1) of article 67 be deleted."

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. Vice-President : The question is:

"That in amendment No. 1369 of the List of Amendments, in sub-clause (a) of the proposed clause (1) of article 67, for the words 'twelve members' the words 'not more than 6 per cent, of the total number of members of the House' be substituted."

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. Vice-President : I shall put the short notice amendment of Sardar Hukam Singh to vote. The question is:

"That in amendment No. 1369 of the List of Amendments, in sub-clause (a) of the proposed clause (1) of article 67, for the words, 'in the manner provided' the words 'from amongst the categories of persons illustrated' be substituted."

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. Vice-President : The question is:

"That for clause (1) of article 67, the following be substituted:

`(1) The Council of States shall consist of not more than two hundred and fifty members of whom--

(a) twelve members shall be nominated by the President in the manner provided in clause (2) of this article; and

(b) the remainder shall be representative of the States'."

The amendment was adopted.

Mr. Vice-President : I shall put amendment No. 1375, standing in the name of Dr. Ambedkar, to vote.

It reads:

"That the proviso to clause (1) of article 67 be deleted."

Shri L. Krishnaswami Bharathi : On a point of Order, Sir. Amendment No. 1375 is out of order in view of the fact that we have already adopted amendment No. 1369 which is a substitution of the clause including the proviso. The proviso has been omitted now by the acceptance of the new clause. There is no point in having an amendment about something which is not in existence.

Mr. Vice-President : Then I shall not put it to vote.

Mr. Vice-President : The question is:

"That to clause (1-a) of article 67 as now moved, the following words be added:

'Provided that the ratio of the total number of representatives of the States for the time being specified in Part III of the First Schedule to their total population shall not exceed the ratio of the total number of representatives of the States for the time being specified in Parts I and II of that Schedule to the total population of such States'. "

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. Vice-President : The question is:

"That in amendment No. 1378 of the List of Amendments for the proposed clause (1-a) of article 67, the following be substituted:

'(1-a) The allocation of seats to representatives of the States in the Council of States shall be based on the following principles:

(i) one representative for every million population up to the first seven million population in each State in Schedule I, provided that no State shall have less than one representative in the Council of States;

(ii) one representative for every two million population after the first seven millions'."

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. Vice-President : The question is:

"That in amendment No. 1378 of the List of Amendments, for the proposed clause (1-a) of article 67, for the words   'in accordance with the provisions in that behalf contained in Schedule III-B' the words 'on the basis of equal representation to each of the component States, the number of which representation shall in no case be more than three' be substituted."

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. Vice-President : The question is:

"That in amendment No. 1378 of the List of Amendments, after the proposed clause (1-a) of article 67, the following new clause (1-b) be inserted :

'(1-b) Steps should be taken to see that, as far as possible, men from different units are represented.' "

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. Vice-President : The question is:

"That the following new clause be added after clause(1) of article 67:

'(1-a) The allocation of seats to representatives of the States in the Council of States shall be in accordance with the provisions in that behalf contained in Schedule III-B'."

The amendment was adopted.

Mr. Vice-President : The question is:

"That the proviso to clause (1) of article 67 be deleted and the following new clause be added after clause(1):

'(1-a) Parliament may by law establish a Consultative Council of Representatives of Agriculture (25), Industry (15), Commerce (10), Mining, Forestry and Engineering (10), Public Utilities (5), Social Services (5), Economists (5), to advise Parliament and the Council of Ministers on all matters of policy affecting Agriculture, Industry, Commerce, Mining, Forestry, Engineering, Public Utilities and Social Services; and prepare or scrutinise proposals for legislation concerning any of these items.

Explanation.--The number given in the brackets after each group is the total number of representatives from each section

Members of this Council shall have, individually or collectively, no administrative or executive duties, functions, or responsibilities. Every member of this Council shall be paid such salaries, emoluments, or allowances as Parliament may from time to time provide'."

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. Vice-President : The question is:

"That in amendment No. 1380 of the List of Amendments, in the proposed clause (2) of article 67, for the words  'special knowledge or practical experience' the words 'real knowledge of or actual devotion for', and for the words  'Letters, art, science and social services' the words 'History of ancient Indian Philosophy and Culture, art and science and social services towards reconstruction of "Introspective India" ' be substituted respectively."

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. Vice-President : The question is:

"That in amendment No. 1380 of the List of Amendments, in the proposed clause (2) of article 67, after the word 'science' the words 'philosophy, religion, law' be inserted."

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. Vice-President : The question is:

"That in amendment No. 1380 of the List of Amendments, at the end of the proposed clause (2) of article 67, the words commencing 'Letters, art, etc.' be numbered as sub-clause (a) of that clause and the following new sub-clause be added thereafter:

'(b) journalism, commerce, industries, law.' "

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. Vice-President : The question is:

"That for clause (2) of article 67, the following be substituted:

'(2) The members to be nominated by the President under sub-clause (a) of Clause (1) of this article shall consist of persons having special knowledge or practical experience in respect of such matters as the following, namely:

Letters, art, science and social services.' "

The amendment was adopted.

Mr. Vice-President : The question is:

"That for clause (3) of article 67, the following be substituted:

'(3) All members of the Council of States shall be elected. Each constituent State shall elect 5 members by votes of adult citizens.' "

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. Vice-President : The question is:

"That is sub-clause (a) of clause (3) of article 67, the word 'elected' where it occurs for the second time be deleted."

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. Vice-President : The question is:

"That in sub-clause (a) of clause (3) of article 67, the word 'elected' where it occurs for one second time be deleted."

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. Vice-President : The question is:

"That in sub-clause (a) of clause (3) of article 67, the words 'Legislative Assembly' be substituted for the words 'Lower House.' "

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. Vice-President : The question is:

"That in sub-clause (a) of clause (3) of article 67, for the words 'Lower House' the words 'two Houses' be substituted."

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. Vice-President : The question is:

"That in clause (3) of article 67, the following new sub-clause (d) be added:

'(d) The election under sub-clause (a) and (b) shall be in accordance with the system of proportional representation by means of the single transferable vote.' "

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. Vice-President : The question is:

"That at the end of sub-clause (a) of clause (3) of article 67, the following words be added:

'in accordance with the system of proportional representation by means of the single transferable vote.' "

The amendment was adopted.

Mr. Vice-President : The question is:

"That in sub-clause (b) of clause (3) of article 67, after the words 'of that House' the words 'in accordance with the system of proportional representation by means of the single transferable vote' be inserted."

The amendment was adopted.

Mr. Vice-President : The question is:

"That at the end of sub-clause (a) of clause (3) of article 67, the word 'and ' be added and the word 'and' at the end of sub-clause (b) be omitted."

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. Vice-President : The question is :

"That sub-clause (c) of clause (3) of article 67 be omitted."

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. Vice-President : It thus appears that there are altogether 5 amendments which have been carried, namely Nos. 1369, 1378, 1380,1400 and 1403.

I am now in a position to make a formal announcement to the House that we definitely adjourn from the 8th of this month, but we do sit on the 8th Saturday. The House now stands adjourned to 10 A.M. tomorrow.

The Assembly then adjourned till Ten of the Clock on Tuesday, the 4th January 1949.