Constituent Assembly Of India -Volume X

Dated: October 16, 1949

I agree, I admit freely, that this course must be adopted if there is imminent danger of a financial breakdown,-that is certainly a much worse situations potentially a much more dangerous situation than economic instability. Economic stability may mean nothing to anybody or all things to all men If them is any danger of financial breakdown or economic disaster, then certainly I can agree to vest certain emergency powers in the President, but not otherwise; not on the mere threat to economic stability or financial stability of a province, That may mean, as I said, many things.' I cannot agree to vest emergency powers in the President for this reason of any threat to economic stability. My submission toHouse is that if there is danger of a breakdown or a disaster, then only thePresident may be invested with emergency powers.

I amafraid, looking to the paucity of attendance in the House today, that we are very likely to pass this article without mature care and attention being bestowed on it. It Is an unfortunate circumstance that Depawali is so close. Honourable Friends are more keen on illuminating their homes during Diwali than on illuminating the darkness that seems to have overtaken the House at the fag-end. I hope, in spite of the paucity of attendance, those Members who are Present here will carefully consider this matter as to whether it would be necessary to invest the President with such powers when the financial stability or credit is merely threatened.

I come now to amendments 442 and 444 which seek to delete clauses 4 (a)it ought to be 4(a); It has been wrongly typed here; I sent amendment No. 442 as referring to clause 4(a) of the proposed new clause, not the whole of clause (4)--and clause 5 of the proposed new article. The House will see that clause (3) gives the President ample powers in the event of a Proclamation of Emergency under these circumstances. The last part of clause (3) reads thus: "and to the giving of such other directions as the President may deem necessary and adequate for the purpose." This omnibus provision enables him to do practically What he likes so long as when he passes the order he says, "I am satisfied that it is necessary and adequate for the purpose." He can do whatever he likes and nobody can question his acts or decrees or ordinances in a court of law or anywhere else on earth. In the face of this, I personally feel that there is no necessity for incorporating clause 4(a) in this article, because clause 4(a) refers to the reduction of salaries and allowances and some provisions about Money Bills which are matters which could come within the scope of the provision embodied in the second part of clause (3). So, this can be safely deleted without any detraction from the meaning that is attached to clause (a) and without derogating from any.of the powers that this clause confers on the President in the event of a financial emergency.

Clause (5) is a mere consequential provision. Why it is put in here at all. I do not understand. I fail to see any raisen d'etre for this clause. If the House will turn to article 277A and 278 which this House adopted a few months ago my honourable Colleagues will see that this contingency when the Government of any State cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution is clearly, unambiguously visualized in these articles 277A and 278. Now, Sir, the Governor of the State must decide as to whether the Government of that State can or cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of this, Constitution and the Governor makes a report. The first clause of 278 says--

"If the President, on receipt of a proclamation issued by the Governor of a State under article 188 of this Constitution, is satisfied that a situation has arisen in which the government of the State cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution, he may by proclamation etc. etc."

This is very clear. After the issue of directions by the President under this new article 280A when he. visualizes a financial emergency in India or any part thereof, what is the need for this clause (5)? The Governor is on the spot and he can and will, if he is a conscientious and diligent Governor, he is bound to report to the President from time to time as to how these directions are being implemented. What are we doing here by incorporating all shorts of jumble I would not use stronger words-and absolutely unnecessary verbiage? We have adopted articles where we have provided for emergency powers, and if the Governor feels and is satisfied that the Government of the State cannot be carried on in accordance with the Constitution, he will report to the President, Why should we say 'Any failure to comply with the directions given etc.?' Who will judge? That is the crux of the matter referred to in clause (5). Who will judge will it be the President or Governor or some other authority? Make it clear and do not leave it vague. If the President is satisfied it is a failure, then make it clear that if the President is satisfied that it is a failure, then it means the State Government has failed. Otherwise say that the Governor of the State will report to the President about the failure or otherwise.

But clause (5) in the first place is unnecessary, redundant, and secondly, it is very vague. The authority or the person to judge where there is a failure or not is nowhere defined and it is dangerous to leave it so vague as this. Make it clear beyond any shadow of doubt that the President will judge as to whether it is a failure or not. If it is left vague, it will reflect on our own wisdom. I hope that Dr. Ambedkar's learning is not so completely divorced from good sense and wisdom that he cannot see the force of my contention. He is learned I agree, but I hope his learning is not completely divorced from other components of human wisdom; and I hope he will bestow sufficient attention upon the amendments I have moved. I commend them with all my heart to the House for the consideration.

Shri Brajeshwar Prasad : Mr. President, Sir I move amendments 439, 440 and 443. They read as follows:

"That in amendment No. 429 of List XVIII (Second Week), in clause (1) of the proposed new article 280A after the words "threatened" the words "or is likely to be threatened "be inserted

"That in amendment No. 429 of List XVIII (Second Week). for clause (2) of the proposed now article 280A. the following be substituted:-

'(2) The proclamation issued under clause (1) of this article shall continue till such time it is revoked by the President.'"

"That in amendment No. 429 of List XVIII (Second Week), for paragraph (ii) of subclause (a) of clause (4) of the proposed new article 280A, the following be substituted:-

'(ii) a provision requiring all Bills to be reserved for the consideration of the President after they are passed by the Legislature of the State;'"

I would make a few comments in connection with the amendments which I have moved. Sir, I am of opinion that when there is a period of financial crisis, provincial autonomy must completely be suspended till such time as the emergency lasts. There should be no hesitation, there should be no qualms of conscience on this account. I am of opinion that the period of emergency should last till such time as the President in his discretion may consider to be necessary. This proclamation should last till the emergency lasts. There is no sense in going to Parliament and seeking its approval whether the period should be "tended or not. The President and the President alone is the best person to judge whether the emergency is over or not. Do not distrust the President he is the first citizen of the State. He represents the people of India in a more true sense than any member of Parliament. He is elected by the representatives of the Legislatures of the Centre and the Provinces. He is not elected by a particular constituency. Therefore it is in the fitness of things that power should be vested in the hands of the President alone.

I am of opinion that by doing so we will not be violating any Constitutional convention because the essence of Federal Constitution is the separation of powers. Under the new Constitution our Parliament is not going to be a sovereign body. I cite the case of the American President. He has a large number of powers. Nobody can say that he is a dictator or autocrat or that by vesting powers there has been any violation of the principle of federalism. Therefore, I am of opinion that power must be vested in his hands to deal with any situation that may arise in the future as a result of financial instability or crisis.

We have achieved our freedom only a few years ago. Is it right or proper that we should jeopardise our freedom at the altar of some newfangled notion or concept? Our State has become free at a time when the political horizon is full of anxiety. The political and economic situation not only of this country, but of all parts of the world is on the brink of disaster.

Therefore, our Constitution must take these factors into account.

Sir, there is another factor which must be borne in mind. This institution of Parliamentary Government is quite alien to the genius of our people. Our ancient law givers were Saints and Seers and not Parliamentarians. Therefore. I have more faith in a President than in a Parliament elected on the basis of adult franchise in a country where there is no literacy, where the standard of living is very low and where the people are the victims of communal passions. Therefore, I am of opinion that we must not jeopardise the interest of the State at the altar of Parliamentarism or of any ideology. Ideologies are mere concepts. They may be cloudy, hazy and nebulous. But the State is a solid reality, and we cannot jeopardise the interests, of the State at the altar of some newfangled notions. In the words of the German philosopher Hegal-"The State is God on earth". I am, therefore, of opinion that if vital questions are left to be decided by Parliament, it will mean the end of the State. It is only in a very highly developed community that Parliament plays an effective part. In a country like India it is bound to occupy a secondary role. For a long time to come, the executive and the executive alone will play a dominant part in our national life. If our Constitution does not recognise this fact, it will break down and plunge the country into chaos and anarchy.

Mr. President: Did you move amendment No. 443?

Shri Brajdshwar Prasad: Yes, Sir, all the three amendments.

Mr. President: All the amendments are moved and they and the article are now open for discussion.

Shri R. K.Sidhva (C.P. & Berar: General): Mr. president, Sir, yesterday, when my Friend Mr. Krishnamachari told me that a clause regarding financial emergency was to come up, I felt that probably there was going to be some another cut upon the right and previleges of the legislature. But when I received this article last night, I must admit that I found that this article is justified; and under the conditions that exist now, and that may exist, I do feel that if this article had not been there, our Constitution would not have been complete. I give credit to the Drafting Committee for even at this last moment, to have realised that such a situation might arise, and therefore, the President must be empowered with these extraordinary powers. My Friend Mr. Kamath has been having unnecessary apprehensions of the President misusing these powers. Mr. Kamath said that even if there is a deficit budget, the President might declare that there is an emergency in the financial stability of the country. If we have a President who really declares, because of a deficit budget that there is financial emergency, then I must say that that President is not worthy of occupying the high place that he would occupy, and I may add that it is the House and the persons who will be electing the President who would be responsible for it. But I am quite confident that both Houses will elect a really able and eminent, just and right type of person who will exercise his powers rightly and who will judiciously interpret the provisions of this article. I have no apprehensions on that, whosoever may be the President of the Indian Union.

Sir, what does the clause say ? It says-

"If the President is satisfied that a situation has arisen whereby the financial stability or credit of India or of any part of the territory thereof is threatened, he may by a proclamation make a declaration , to that effect."

Now, we know from our experience of our two and a half years of independence, that the political freedom that we arc enjoying is absolute, but as far as our economic conditions is concerned, we have to depend upon other countries finances: as, we have not stabilised our finances yet. I do not mean, therefore. that there is an emergency now. I can only say, here is the economic picture before us; and whatever may have been the reasons that have led to it, they are not of our making. But the circumstances under which we were living and were governed, and the world situation, have led to the present economic condition. This is not an emergency. But a real emergency might arise whereby the financial stability may be affected, and we will be perfectly justified if we have an article like this, and I have no doubt at all in my mind that this article then would be very helpful.

Mr. Kamath made capital out of clause (4), but I welcome that article. What does it say? It says that the President shall have the power to reduce the salaries and allowances of the staff when necessary.

Shri H. V. Kamath: My only difficulty was that this power was not vested under clause (3).

Shri R. K. Sidhva: But clause (4) says-

"Notwithstanding anything contained in this Constitution-

'ny such direction may include (i) a provision requiring the reduction of salaries and allowances of all or any class of persons serving in connection with the affairs of a State.'"

Today we know very well how our staff is not only heavily paid but how they are excessive in numbers. But that apart, this is a very happy provision, and we should all welcome that the President is vested with this power, because we know that in the Constitution, we have provided for the salary of the Judges and that it may not be reduced in times of emergency. We have been clamouring over the high salaries of the Judges, and when the Drafting Committee comes with a provision that in the event of a financial instability. The President win have the right even to cut down the salary, we say that it is not proper. I am very sorry to hear this. I must, an the other hand, give credit to the Drafting Committee. I am a man to give credit where credit is due, though I give a bit of my mind where that is necessary. About the judges also, in (b) we have said that the President can reduce the salaries of the judges of the Supreme Court and the High Courts. I welcome this article. It did not strike me at all that such a provision is necessary, but after reading it, and after seeing what is surrounding us, and what is going to happen, I feel that it is very necessary. Let us foresee things. We must also foresee what may happen in future. We cannot always be content with confining our ideas to the. present. A Statesman is he who foresees things. A politician is he who foresees what is going to happen.

We know we have achieved our political freedom, but unless our economies are fully stabilised, then the political freedom which we have won will always be in such a position that we will not be able to render the service to humanity as we would like to. 'Today we know we passed so many laws and I know there was a little fear in the minds of several Members in connection with the article relating to the Sales Tax. And I do feel that they were justified in feeling that they would have to cut down their finances and so would not be able to introduce so many of their development schemes. But still I supported the article, because it is in the greater interests of the country. And at any time when there is a question of cutting down the powers of the Legislature or of the President comes up, we should look at the merits of it, and looking at the merits of the present question. I feel the article is perfectly justified and I am confident that the President, whosoever he- may be, he will exercise his power rightly, and interpret this article in the right sense and in the right manner and for the bene fit of the country and the benefit of the people of this country. With these words, I support the amendment that has been moved by Dr. Ambedkar, article 280A.

I do not want to say anything more. But if you were to look at the article and at the provisions of sub-clause (ii) of clause (4), you will see that it relates to even money Bills. Power is given to the President to see that if he feels that the provisions of article 174 combined with those of 182 are likely to jeopardise the financial stability of the country, he will certainly use his power, and apply the brakes in applying this article 280A. But as the preamble of the article states, it comes up only when there is an emergent situation as far as the financial stability is concerned. I have no apprehension that this article will be misused by the President, and with these words, I commend it to the House.

Pandit Hirday Nath Kunzru: Mr. President, the Mover of the amendment excused himself for not justifying the amendment by saying that it was certain that every Member understood its need. That was a very easy way for him of getting rid of his responsibility. He made a show of defending the amendment by referring to the American National Recovery Act. Now, the American National Recovery Act was meant to enable the American nation to tide over the great economic depression that had overcome the United States of America along with the other countries of the world in the thirties. Is there anything in this amendment that will enable the Government of India to deal with an economic depression when it comes in the same way in which President Roosevelt tried to deal with it? The whole object of the amendment seems to be to reduce expenditure and to prevent the provincial Governments from giving up any of their existing sources of revenue. Can an amendment with this purpose be said by any stretch of language to resemble even remotely the National Recovery Act of the United States?

Sir, every Member of this House I am sure will admit that the power that is being conferred on the Central Government is a drastic power. It is necessary therefore for us to understand why article 280A is proposed to be inserted in the Constitution at the fag-end of the debate on the Second Reading of the Constitution. This matter, if it is of cardinal importance, could have been dealt with along with the other financial provisions contained in the Constitution. But the fact that this was not done shows that there was no general need felt at the time the financial articles were considered for enabling the Central Government to- exercise complete budgetary control over the provinces. What has occurred since then to justify this amendment? Sir, clause (4) of the amendment refers to certain matters that may be included in the directions given by the President when a Proclamation has been issued declaring that the financial stability or credit of India or of any part of it is threatened. The President will have the power to direct any state to observe such 'canons of financial propriety as may be specified in the directions given by him. Clause (4) is illustrative of the directions that the President may issue. Sub-clause (a) of this clause empowers the President to require a State to reduce the salaries and allowances of all or any class of public servants. Sir, we had to go through a serious economic crisis not many years ago. It affected not merely the Central Government, but also the provinces. Were the provinces backward then in reducing their expenditure? Did they show any reluctance to reduce the salaries of their public servants or were they only too glad to follow the example of the Central Government and reduce the salaries of all classes of public functionaries? Why has it been necessary, with this experience before us, to propose such an amendment to this House? Is there any reason why, disregarding all past experience, we should show complete distrust of the provinces and treat them is though they were children and the President a village school master?

Sir, item (ii) of sub-clause (a) lays down that the President may require that all Money Bills or other Bills to which the provisions of article 182 of the Constitution apply shall be reserved for his consideration after they are passed by the Legislature of the State.

The House knows what the definition of a Money Bill is. A Money Bill is any Bill that provides among other things for the imposition, abolition, remission, alteration or regulation of any tax. I think these words give us a clue to the significance of the amendment that has been placed before us. A Province can by itself hardly do anything that would jeopardise the financial stability or credit of India. It can at the most injure itself. But if we turn to the provincial sources of revenue that are enumerated in the Provincial List, we shall find that there is hardly any source the use of which can be a danger to the financial stability of the Centre or of a province. Even if a province by its foolishness places itself in a difficult financial position, why should it not be allowed to learn by its mistakes?

Perhaps, Sir, it will interest the House if I enumerate the chief sources of provincial income. They are chiefly land revenue, stamp duties other than those mentioned in the Union List, estate and succession duties on agricultural land, income-tax on agricultural income, excise duties on alcoholic liquors, opium, etc., sales taxes including taxes on the consumption of electricity and taxes on luxuries including taxes on entertainments and amusements.

Shri T. T. Krishnamachari: What about vehicles tax?

Pandit Hirday Nath Kunzru: I have not mentioned it because vehicles tax, etc. are generally used for the benefit of local bodies. Now, which of these source of revenue can be misused by the provinces? If the policy that has been followed by certain provinces with the approval of the Centre is followed by other provinces, land revenue is bound to go down, and its reduction cannot be a grievance to the Central Government. The provincial governments have so far shown no reluctance to increase the rates of stamp duties, or to make as much use as they can of sales taxes or taxes on agricultural income. The only tax in respect of which a serious difference of opinion has arisen between the Central Government and some of the provincial governments is the excise duty on alcoholic liquors and certain narcotics. Some provinces, notwithstanding, I understand, the advice repeatedly given to them by the Government of India, have persisted in following a policy of prohibition, which will lead in course of time to a complete abolition of the revenue from excise duties. The advice given by the Central Government may be perfectly right. The present situation may well in the opinion of students of Indian finance require that the provinces should proceed slowly in respect of the introduction of measures leading to complete prohibition. The Centre and the provinces alike are faced with financial difficulties, and it does not seem to be right that at a time like this any' province should try to forego any large source of revenue. It may in theory be desirable to bring about a complete cessation of the use of alcoholic liquors and narcoties, but we cannot have all the good things of the world at once. It will therefore be necessary for the provinces to exercise self-restraint and wait for better times to bring about this reform.

But if they do not listen to the Central Government, is this any reason why so drastic a power as article 280A will confer on the Government of India should be taken so that the provinces may be able to do nothing contrary to the wishes of the Central Government once the President has proclaimed that the financial stability not merely of the whole of India but of any part of it is threatened? Whenever there is serious disagreement between a province and the Central Government, the President can always be persuaded to say that the financial stability or credit of the province is in danger, and then the consequences envisaged by article 280A will follow. The Centre will acquire complete control over the budget of the province and will be able to dictate both to the provincial govern ment and to the provincial legislature what financial policies they should adopt.

This is not a measure for bringing about a better distribution of the resources of India between the Centre and the provinces. This is not meant to enable the Central Government to deal with unemployment relief, or public works, or any of those problems whose solution would lead to economic contentment and add to the wealth of India. The object of this measure is totally different. As the Mover of the amendment has prudently abstained from giving any reasons justifying the amendment, we have to 'think- for ourselves and find out as best we may what may have induced the Central Government to agree to the insertion of such an article into the Constitution. Thinking over the recent financial history of these provinces, I can discover no reason for the anxiety of the Central Government to have the power to exercise financial control over the provinces except the one that I have given.

It is for the House to determine whether the Constitution which our Prime Minister stated in his address before the American House of Representatives and the Senate the other day, followed the principle of federalism which had been borrowed from the American Constitution, should for all practical purposes be converted into a unitary Constitution. Even if the Constitution were unitary, would it be wise for the Central Government to try to curb the financial discre tion of the provinces even if their measures were likely to injure them ? How is democracy to be established in the provinces, how is a sense of responsibility to be created among the legislators, how are the Ministers to learn by experience unless they are left to face the consequences of their mistakes? If the Centre wants to step in at every turn, if it wants that it should be able to exercise such complete control that nothing that was harmful to the interests of any province or of India might be allotted to be done, then we must say goodbye to democracy The Centre will certainly be glad to exercise even greater control than is given to it by this Constitution, if we may judge from the facts that we have before us, if we may judge from past experience. But this will. Pot put it right and I venture to say that the mover has not made out the slightest justification for the acceptance of his amendment,

Shri K. M. Munsi (Bombay: General): Mr. President, Sir, I can easily appreciate the feelings of my honourable Friend, Pandit Kunzru, in opposing this 28A but he will also realise the grave situation to which reference has already been made by my Friend. Dr. Ambedkar. The debate in the Parliament, in the other part of the House, a fornight ago, clearly showed that the country is on the brink of a precipice, and I do not think that the crisis which we are facing now is in any way less important than what faced France in 1937 when it passed the law of June 1937 or a similar measure passed by the United States of America in 1933. If I may read the preamble of the N.R.A. which America adopted:

"A national emergency productive of widespread employment and disorganization to industry which burdens the State and foreign commerce and affects the public welfare and under mines the standard of living of the American people is hereby said to exist."

If my honourable Friend, Pandit Kunzru reads the speeches made by the Members of this House and the Finance Minister on the devaluation debate, I am sure he will feel convinced that a situation like the one which is before the country may require wider powers in the Centre of the nature of those that are contained in article 280A. His fears that there, will be multiplication of functionaries is not real because the Centre, when it acts under this article 280A, will act through the functionaries of the State itself. It is not going to employ its own machinery in place of the provincial machinery. The other argument that the provinces can do nothing without the permission of the Centre is also not quite correct. In normal circumstances, when the finances of the country are stable, so long as the credit of the country stands, there is no chance of this article being brought into force. It is only when there is a financial emergency that it has to be brought into force and till then the provinces are completely free to do what they like. The attitude is not "school masterly" as Suggested. The attitude is that the Centre will step in at the time when there is a breakdown in the financial structure of the country.

This article in the Constitution is the realization of one supreme fact that the economic structure of the country is one and indivisible. If a province breaks financially, it will affect the finances of the Centre: if the Centre suffers, all the provinces will break. Therefore the interdependence of the provinces and the Centre is so great that the whole financial integrity of the country is one and a time might arise when unitary control may be absolutely necessary.

Sir, I may mention that the different articles which this House has passed so far provide that in an emergency, and even in ordinary times, there be a certain amount of integration between the Centre and the provinces. I will only refer to article 226 under which a vote of the Upper House can rule that an item in the State List should be transferred to the Centre. We have the nominated Governors, whom we accepted in place of elected Governors. We have also the emergency sections in articles 275 and 278; when the constitutional structure of a province breaks down the Centre can interfere. When, for instance, internal disturbance threatens any part of the country, the Centre can interfere by emergency legislation. But is it suggested that if there is a financial breakdown of the whole country the Centre must sit idle and do nothing? I submit, therefore, that we have not go far departed from the fabric which we have raised.

Only one word more and I have done. my Friend, Pandit Kunzru, has said that the mover of the article. Dr. Ambedkar, has not explained the object of the measure. I think the object of the measure is patent on the face of it It is not merely the desire of this Government that they should interfere in the provinces but it should be the desire of every Government in India to see that the financial stability of India is maintained at any cost and under all circumstances. This is the primary consideration before any Government, either this or any, other.

We have in the preamble, which will come before the House tomorrow, said that the sovereign people of India make this Constitution. The sovereign people are not all the people but the sovereign people of India as one unit acting through its supreme organ, the Constituent Assembly, which is creating the Constitution for the country as a whole. There is no provincial-autonomy, there is no federation by or for itself: these are not sacrosanct words. Every Government must satisfy the needs of the sovereign people of India. In a financial emergency there cannot be a greater privilege than that all financial affairs shall be controlled and directed from the Centre, as put forward in 280A. That is the object, and I submit it is an object without which the Constitution would remain incomplete and I invite the House to carry this article unanimously.

Mr. President: Have you anything to say?

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: If you think it is necessary, I will speak.

Mr. President: No, no. I do not say so. Then I will put the amendment to the vote.

Shri H. V. Kamath: I suggest that Dr. Ambedkar might consider the change of the wording from "threatened" to "gravely threatened".

Mr. President: You did make your suggestion. He will consider whether it is worth considering. I do not think I should allow you to make a second speech in the form of a suggestion to Dr. Ambedkar.

Srijut Rohini Kumar Chaudhuri (Assam : General): I wanted to make my only speech.

Mr. President: But I have already closed the debate.

The question is:

"That in amendment No. 429 of List XVIII (Second Week), in clause (1) of the proposed now article 280A, for the words 'has arisen' the words 'is imminent' be substituted."

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. President: The question is:

"That in amendment No. 429 of List XVIII (Second Week), in clause (1) of the proposed new article 280-A, for the words 'whereby the financial stability or credit of India or of any part of the territory thereof is threatened', the words which threatens India or any part thereof with financial break down or economic disaster', be substituted.

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. President: The question is:

"That in amendment No. 429 of List XVIII (Second Week), in clause (1) of the proposed new article 280-A. after the word 'threatened' the words 'or is likely to be threatened' be inserted."

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. President: The question is:

"That in amendment No. 429 of List XVIII (Second Week), for clause (2) of the proposed new article 280-A, the following be substituted:-

(2)The proclamation issued under clause (1) of this article shall continue till such time it is revoked by the President."

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. President: The question is:

"That in amendment No.429 of List XVIII (Second Week),in clause (3)of the proposed new article 280-A, after the words 'operation' the word 'Parliament shall have Power to make laws in respect of subjects contained in the State List as if they were subjects in the Concurrent List, and' be inserted."

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. President: The question is:

"That in amendment No. 429 of List XVIII (Second Week), clause (4) of the proposed now article 280-A be deleted.,"

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. President: The question is:

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. President: The question is:

"That in amendment No. 429 of List XVIII (Second Week), clause (5) of the proposed now article 280-A be deleted."

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. President: I shall now put the original amendment of Dr. Ambedkar.

The question is:

"That after article 280, the following now article be inserted;-

'280A.Provision as to financial emergency.

(1) If the President is satisfied that a situation has arisen whereby the financial stability or credit of India or of any part of the territory there of is threatened, he may by a proclamation make a declaration to that effect.

(2) The provisions of clause (2) of article 275 of this Constitution shall apply in relation to a proclamation issued under clause (1) of this article as they apply in relation to a Proclamation of Emergency issued under clause (1) of the said article 275.

(3) During the period any such proclamation as is mentioned in clause (1) of this article is in operation, the executive authority of the Union shall extend to the giving of directions to any State to observe such canons of financial propriety as may be specified in the directions, and to the giving of such other directions as the President may doom necessary and adequate for the purpose.

(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Constitution-

(a) any such direction may include-'

(i) a provision requiring the reduction of salaries and allowances of all or any class of persons serving in connection with the affairs of a State;

(ii) a provision requiring all Money Bills or other Bills to which the provisions of article 182 of this Constitution apply to be reserved for the consideration of the President after they are passed by the Legislature of the State;

(b) it shall be competent for the President during the period any proclamation issued under clause (1) of this article is in operation to issue directions for the reduction of salaries and allowances of all or any class of persons serving in connection with the affairs of the Union including the judges of the Supreme Court and the High Courts.

(5) Any failure to comply with any directions given under clause (3) of this article shall be deemed to be a failure to carry on the Government of the State in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution.'

The motion was adopted.

Article 280A was added to the Constitution

Article 85

Mr. President: We shall now take up the other items.

Shri T. T. Krishnamachari: Sir, I move:

"That for clause (3) of article 85, the following clause be substituted:-

(3) In other respects, the privileges, immunities and powers of each House of Parliament and of the members and the Committees of each House shall be such as may from time to time be defined by Parliament by law, and until so defined, shall be those of the House of Commons of the Parliament of the United Kingdom and of its members and committees at the commencement of this Constitution.

The reason for making this change is that the scope of the sub-clause has to be extended as the original clause merely referred to the privileges and immunities of Members only. All that tile present clause seeks to do is to apply it to the two Houses to all the Members and to the Committees of each House. This has been necessitated by the reason of the fact that we have provided in entry 69, List I, Schedule VII the legislative power to Parliament in 69A. The legislative power reads:

"The privileges, immunities and powers of each House of Parliament and of the Members and Committee of each House."

In order to bring sub-clause (3) of article 85 in line with that entry, this amendment has been moved. Honourable Members of the House will please see that it merely seeks to expand the privileges, immunities and powers from the members to the Houses and also to the Committees and it is a matter which will not invoke controversy as it is consequential on the House accepting 69A, List I, Schedule

The Honourable Shri K. Santhanam: Clause (4) also provides the same Privileges to Committees as to the Members.

Mr. President: This refers to the House also, not only to the Members.

There is one amendment of which notice has been given by Shri Brajeshwar Prasad. But that is covered by another amendment-No. 397. Therefore this does not arise,

Shri Brajeshmar Prasad: But there are two parts (a) and (b) on the next page.

Mr. President: Yes, there is 3(b). But is this a matter for the Constitution? That the President shall issue a White Paper is not A matter for the Constitution The President shall issue a White Paper if it is suggested to him or if a resolution, is passed in the Assembly.

Shri Brajeshwar Prasad: The whole purpose is to know what are the powers and privileges of the members of the House of Commons.

Mr. President: You may ask the President to issue that White Paper but it cannot form part of the Constitution.

Shri Brajeshwar Prasad: I can make a verbal change in this amendment. Mr. President: I think we had better leave it alone.

Shri R. K. Sidhva: Sir, when this article was discussed last time we were not certain what were the privileges of the Members of the Commons. I tried to find it out from May's Parliamentary Procedure but I cold not So, let us know something as to what are the privileges of the Members of the House of Commons. Otherwise a conflict may arise in Parliament. Until two or three years after the formation of Parliament these privileges may lot be framed because I know that no act of privileges have so far been framed till now although under the Government of India Act, 1935 there is a provision that Members' Privileges may be framed; they have not been framed either in the Centre or in the provinces except in two Provinces.

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Sir, I might with your permission inform my Friend Sidhva that since the time when the discussion took place I made a little research and I find that the South African Parliament has passed an Act defining the immunities and privileges. I have got a copy; if he wants. I can transmit it for his study. It might be possible later on for our own Parliament to embody the privileges.

Shri Brajeshwar Prasad: Sir, in amendment No. 419 the words "Provincial Parliament" occur. This is a printing mistake. The word is not "Provincial", but "Provisional". This is a separate amendment which has not been moved by anybody else. May I move it?

Mr. President: I suppose the Provisional Parliament has got all the powers and privileges of the Parliament which will be of a permanent nature. So this does not arise really.

Shri Mahavir Tyagi: Could we not leave this power to the Parliament itself to decide?

Mr. President: That is exactly what the article says. The Parliament will define the powers and I privileges, but until the Parliament has undertaken the legislation and passes it the privileges and powers of the House of Commons will apply. So, it is only a temporary affair. Of course the Parliament may never legislate on that point and it is therefore for the Members to be vigilant.

Shri H. V. Kamath: Will it be open to the Provisional Parliament to define these powers ?

Mr. President: Certainly, it will be open to it, if it chooses to do it.

Shri B. Das: Sir, in this amendment No. 419, is it the "Provincial Parliament" or the "Provisional Parliament"?

Mr. Presidnet: It is a mistake. It ought to be "Provisional Parliament". When Mr. Brajeshwar Prasad pointed it out I did not follow him. It is a mistake in printing. So, the Provisional Parliament has the same right as the permanent Parliament. Is any discussion necessary? So, I will put this amendment to vote.

The question is:

"That for clause (3) of article 85, the following clause be substituted--

'(3) In other respects, the privileges, immunities and powers of each House of Parlia ment and of the members and the committees of each House shall be such as may from time to time be defined by Parliament by law, and until so defined, shall be those of the House of Commons of the Parliament of the United Kingdom and of its members and committees at the commencement of this Constitution.' "

The amendment was adopted.

Article 111 Shri T. T. Krishnamachari: Mr. President, Sir I move:

"That for the proviso to clause (1) of article 111, the following proviso be substituted:-

'Provided that no appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from the judgment, decree or final order of one judge of a High Court."

This, in effect, simplifies the position as it now is. The present proviso is a longish one. The present proviso which the amendment seeks to supplant reads thus:-

"Providedthat no appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from the judgement, decree or order of one judge of a High Court or of one judge of a Division Court thereof, or of two or more judges of a High Court, or of a Division Court constituted by two or more judges of a High Court, where such judges are equally divided in opinion and do not amount in number to a majority of the whole of the judges of the High Court at the time being."

It is felt that this is not necessary by reason of the fact that this was borrowed from the original Letters Patent, which was amended in 1928. The amended Letters Patent, as it is applied to our courts is simpler than this longish proviso and the purport of it was more or less analogous to the provision that we are now seeking to introduce as a proviso to article 111, instead of the original proviso. I do not think there is any scope for discussion in this particular matter, because what is done by this amendment is to simplify and restrict the limitation that is put in regard to appeals to the Supreme Court. If honourable Members are satisfied with this explanation it can go through. If, on the other hand, they want an elaborate explanation of the whole question of how the powers of benches in the high courts were affected by the Letters Patent, and how much we have borrowed therefrom. I think my honourable Colleague Mr. Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar is prepared to satisfy Members on this particular point.

Sir, I move.

Mr. President: The question is:

"That for the proviso to clause (1) of article III, the following proviso be substituted 'Provided that no appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from the judgement, decree or final order of one judge of a High Court.'"

The amendment was adopted.

Article 112

Shri T. T. Krishnamachari: Sir, I move:

"That with reference to amendment No. 364 of List XV (Second Week), for article 112, the following article be substituted:-

'112.Special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court.

(1) The Supreme court may, in its discretion, grant special leave to appeal from any judgement, decree, determination sentence or order in any cause or matter passed or made by any Court or tribunal in the territory of India.

(2) Nothing in clause (1) of this article shall apply to any judgement, determination,sentence or order passed or made by any court of tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the Armed Forces.'"

The amendment to clause (1) of article 112 as it now stands is a very simple one. The words "final order" in the original article are sought to be removed and revised by the insertion of the words "determination, sentence or order" So far as clause (2) is concerned, the amendment must be perfectly clear to honourable Members. It seeks to exclude from the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court (the omnibus jurisdiction which article 112 confers on it) any decision of a court-martial covering matters which relate to the armed forces and matters which are governed by the Army Act. I understand that this follows the practice that now obtains in the U.K. where courts do not interfere with the decisions of the court-martial. I would at once confess that this matter, which escaped our attention at the time this article was framed and put before the House, has now been brought to our notice by the Defence Department, who have convinced us that a provision or this nature which obtains currency in other countries should also find a place in our Constitution.

Sir, if you would permit me I would like to move also another amendment which relates to the same subject, so that discussion on the whole matter might be taken up together.

Sir, I move:

"That to article 203, the following clause be added, namely:-

'(4) Nothing in this article shall be deemed to extend the powers of superintendence of a High Court over any court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the Armed Forces.'"

Clause (4) of article 203 and clause (2) of article 112 deal with the same subject, In the case of article 203 it seeks to prohibit the jurisdiction of the High Courts extending to courts-martial, whereas a similar restriction in regard to the Supreme Court is contemplated under article 112. The reason for introducing these two new amendments is the view expressed by the Defence Ministry that such protection is necessary in respect of the decisions of courts-martial which deal with the Armed Forces and the analogy of what obtains in other countries was brought before us. We therefore felt that there was a case for putting in a provision of this nature in articles 112 and 203.

Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena: Sir, I move:

"That in amendment No. 421 of List XVIII (Second Week), clause (2) of the proposed article 112 be deleted."

I wish to bring a charge of breach of faith against Dr. Ambedkar in this matter. Sometime ago I had tabled an amendment to article 112A in which I had specially desired that provision should be made that persons sentenced to death by courts-martial should be able to appeal to the Supreme Court. Dr. Ambedkar assured me that such persons are covered by article 112 and the Supreme Court can take notice of such persons under its powers under article 112. Probably a report of the discussion in the House appeared in the papers and the Defence Department has tried to strengthen itself against the protection given by this article to persons condemned by courts-martial. And therefore Dr. Ambedkar has been asked to table this amendment. Mr. T. T. Krishnamachari just now said that this was necessary because the Defence Department wants so. Probably they have read the report of the discussion and that is why they have asked for this provision.

I therefore, think, Sir, that this is not fair. I had withdrawn my amendment that day on the assurance that this will be covered by this article and now just the reverse provision is being made and it is going to be accepted. I have seen and heard many Judge-Advocates who deal with these military courts-martial and they say that they are the persons who prepare the prosecution and they are also the persons who hear the cases and then give the judgement and if any Judge-Advocate made frequent decisions against cases prepared by himself, then he is also dismissed by the military authorities. They do not like that these cases should be dismissed. I think, Sir, this is a grave matter. Recently after the War in Britain also a Commission was appointed to study the administration of these military courts-martial and they also recommended that the procedure should be made more civilized and in the name of discipline the people should not be butchered. I have seen that the present procedure of Judge-Advocates is something against all the laws of jurisprudence and I think that at least persons convicted of death should have the right of appeal to the Supreme Court after their judgements. I consider that this provision is not only unfair but is also against the promise given to me by Dr. Ambedkar on a previous occasion.

Shri R. K. Sidhva: Mr. President, Sir, I have my doubts about this clause, I am in entire agreement regarding protection to be given to Armed forces and with the decision that martial law should not be subject to the revision by the Supreme Court. To that extent I am agreeable, but I can show a number of cases where a number of armed forces arc involved with a number of the civil population. Sir, there have been many cases of military motor drivers who have met with accidents and killed a number of civilians and those cases are tried by court-martial and in 90 per cent of the cases the civilians, poor fellows, had to suffer. They do not get any compensation and no justice not is the military driver punished in any way or sentenced. My point, therefore, is that the Drafting Committee in the interests of the civilian population will kindly bear this matter in mind and make some arrangement or provision here that the civilian population who suffer from these accidents should be protected. They should not be tried by martial law. I can state a number of cases and if these cases are tried by the civil courts, there would have been fair trial. In the civil and criminal courts they get compensation and also subject to punishment. On account of this lacuna many of the drivers are so rash that they drive rash and kill many civilians. I draw the attention of the Honourable Dr. Ambedkar to this matter. Probably this matter did not come to his notice before, but this is a very important matter and while we want the armed forces to be protected'and their appeal should not come to the Supreme Court, the civilians ought equally to be protected.

Shri B. Das: I wish Dr. Ambedkar should make it clear whether the tribunal in the territory of India applies to the Income-tax tribunal or the different Railway tribunals the I at we have. If the power is extended, then the Income-tax tribunal must be dissolved at once. We have got the Income-tax tribunal which is the final authority.

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Are they relevant to this discussion? How does the Income-tax tribunal come here?

Shri B. Das: In this article it is stated:-

"The Supreme Court may, in its discretion, grant special leave to appeal from any judgemant, decree, determination, sentence or order in any cause or matter passed or made by any court or tribunal in the territory of India."

I only wish to be assured by you that the 'tribunal' does not mean the Income-tax tribunal'.

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: You said other personnel also. So far as my memory goes, this has been amended to make provision for income-tax cases also to be taken up in the Supreme Court. I know that it has been amended.

Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava: Sir, in my humble opinion.clause (2) seems to be very wide and unnecessary. It reads as follows:

"Nothing in clause (1) of this article shall apply to any judgment, determination, sentence or order passed or made by any court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the Armed Forces."

So far as offences relating to the military personnel and military offences are concerned, they may be immune from the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court; but there are many laws relating to the Amend Forces which countenance the judgments etc. by courts constituted under those Acts and the accused in those cases arc the civil an population or military personnel accused of civil offences. In regard to say, the Cantonment Act or in regard to the Territorial Forces Act, there arc some offences in which the members of the civil population arc accused and there is no reason whatsoever why such sentences should not be subject to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. I therefore think that this clause is too widely worded and needs amendment.

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Mr. President Sir, in view of the observations made by my honourable Friend, Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena, it has become Incumbent upon me to say something in relation to the proposed article moved by my honourable Friend, Mr. T. T. Krishnamachari. It is quite true that on the occasion when we considered article 112 and the amendment moved by my honourable Friend, Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena. I did say that under article 112 there would be jurisdiction in the Supreme Court to entertain an appeal against any order made by a Court-martial. Theoretically that proposition is style correct and there is no doubt about if in my mind. but what I forgot to say is this: That according to the rulings of our High Courts as well as the rulings of the British courts including those of the Privy Council, it has been a well recognized principle that civil courts, although they have jurisdiction under the statute. will not exercise that jurisdiction in order to disturb any finding or decision given or order made by the Court-martial. I do not wish to go into the reason why the civil courts of superior authority, which notwithstanding the fact that they have this jurisdiction have said that they will not exercise that jurisdiction but the fact is there and I should have thought that if our courts in India follow the same decision which has been given by British courts-the House of Lords, the King's Bench Division as well as the Privy Council and if I may say so also the decision given by our Federal Court in two or three cases which were adjudicated upon by them-there would be no necessity for clause (2); but unfortunately the Defence Ministry feels that such an important matter ought not be left in a condition of doubt and that there should be a statutory provision declaring that none of the superior civil courts whether it is a High Court or the Supreme Court shall exercise such jurisdiction as against a court or tribunal constituted under any law relating to the Armed Forces.

This question is not merely a theoretical question but is a question of great practical moment because it involves the discipline of the Armed Forces. If there is anything with regard to the armed forces, it is the necessity of maintaining discipline. The Defence Ministry feel that if a member of the armed forces can look up either to the Supreme Court or to the High Court for redress against any decision which has been taken by a court or tribunal constituted for the purpose of maintaining discipline in the armed forces, discipline would vanish. I must say that that is an argument against which there is no reply, That is why clause (2) has been added in article 112 by this particular amendment, and a similar provision is made in the provisions relating to the powers of superintendence of the High Courts. That is my justification why it is now proposed to put in clause (2) of article 112.

I should, however, like to say this that clause (2) does not altogether take away the powers of the Supreme Court or the High Court. The law does not leave a member of the armed forces entirely to the mercy of the tribunal constituted under the particular law. For, notwithstanding clause (2) of article 112, it would still be open to the Supreme Court or to the High Court to exercise jurisdiction, if the court martial has exceeded the jurisdiction which has been given to it or the power conferred upon it by the law relating to armed forces. It will be open to the Supreme Court as well as to the High Court to examine the question whether the exercise of jurisdiction is within the ambit of the law which creates and constitutes this court or tribunal. Secondly, if the court-martial were to give a finding without any evidence, then, again, it will be open to the Supreme Court as well as the High Court to entertain an appeal in order to find out whether there is evidence. Of course, it would not be open to the High Court or the Supreme Court to consider whether there has been enough evidence. That is a matter which is outside the jurisdiction of either of these Courts. Whether there is evidence or not, that is a matter which they could entertain. Similarly, if I may say so, it would be open for a member of the armed forces to appeal to the courts for the purpose of issuing prerogative writs in order to examine whether the proceedings of the court martial against him are carried on under any particular law made by Parliament or whether they were arbitrary in character. Therefore, in my opinion, this article, having regard to the difficulties raised by the Defence Ministry, is a necessary article. It really does not do anything more but give a statutory recognition to a rule that is already prevalent and which is recognised by all superior courts.

I am told that some people feel some difficulty with regard to the law relating to the armed forces. It is said that there are many persons in the armed forces who are really not what are called men of the line, men behind the line. It seems to me quite impossible to make distinction between persons who are actually bearing arms and others who are enrolled under the Army Act, because the necessity of discipline in the armed forces is as great as the necessity of maintaining discipline among those who are not included among the armed forces.

My honourable Friend Mr. Sidhva raised the question that sometimes when a member of the armed forces commits a certain crime, kills somebody by rash driving or any such act, he is generally tried by court-martial, and there is nothing done so as to bring him to book before the ordinary courts of criminal law. Well, I do riot know; but I have no doubt in my mind that so far as a member of the armed forces is concerned, be is subject to double jurisdiction. He is no doubt subject to the jurisdiction of the court which is created under the military law. At the same time, he is not exempt from the ordinary law of the land. If a man, for instance , commits an offence which is an offence under the Indian Penal Code and also under the Army Act, he will be liable to prosecuted under both the Acts. If a member of the army has escaped Any such prosecution, it is because people have not pursued the matter. The general theory of the law is that because a man becomes a member of the armed forces. he does not cease to be liable to the ordinary law of the land. He continues to be liable, but in addition to that liability, he takes a further liability under the Act under which he is enrolled.

Shri Mahavir Tyagi: Can he have two punishments for one crime?

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Oh, yes.

Shri R. K. Sidhva: Why not make it clear?

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: It is quite clear. Section 2 of the Indian Penal Code says: "Every person". "Every person" means high or low, armed or unarmed.

Mr. President: Mr. T. T. Krishnamachari, would you like to say anything after this?

Shri T. T. Krishnamachari: No, Sir.

Mr. President: I shall put the amendments to vote.

The question is:

"That in amendment No. 421 of List XVIII (Second Week), clause (2) of the proposed article 112 be deleted."

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. President: I shall put article 112 as proposed in amendment No. 421.

"The question is:

"That with reference to amendment No. 364 of List XV (Second Week), for article 112, the following article be substituted:-

'112.Special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court (1) Special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court may, in its discretion, grant special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order in any cause or matter passed or made by any court or tribunal in the territory of India. (2)Nothing in clause (1) of this article shall apply to any judgment, determination, sentence or order passed or made by any court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the Armed Forces.' The motion was adopted. Article 112, as amended, was added to the Constitution.

Article 203

Mr. President: The question is:

"That to article 203, the following clause be added, namely:-

'(4) Nothing in this article shall be deemed to extend the powers of superintendence of a High Court over any court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the Armed Forces.'

The amendment was adopted.

Article 122

Shri T. T. Krishnamachari: Mr. President, Sir, I move.

"That in article 122A, after the words 'In this Chapter', the words and figures land in Chapter VII of Part VI of this Constitution' be inserted."

This deals with a very simple matter. Article 122A deals with interpretation of the Constitution in so far as the Supreme Court is concerned. What is now sought to be done is that this clause in so far as it refers to interpretation of the constitution in reference to any substantial question of law shall apply to the Chapter relating to High Courts as well. It is a lacuna that was not noticed at the time this article was passed and is not a matter which really involves any substantial change. It is only filling up a lacuna which exists.

Mr. President: The question is

"That in article 122A, after the words 'In this Chapter, the words and figures 'and in Chapter VII of Part VI of this Constitution' be inserted."

The amendment was adopted.

Article 130

Mr. President: We proceed to article 130.

Shri T. T. Krishnamachari: Sir, I move.

"That in clause (1) of article 130, for the words may be exercised by him', the words ,shall be exercised by him either directly or through officers subordinate to him, be substituted."

Sir, the House to day passed after some discussion a similar-amendment in respect of article 42 which relates to the President. We have been seeking to import the same wording in respect of the executive powers of the Governor.

Mr. President: There was an amendment by Mr. Kamath to the other article. Probably there is similar amendment to this. is it necessary to have a discussion on this ?

Shri H. V. Kamath: My views, are that they are simply repeating the mistake I do not move my amendment.

Mr. President: The question is

"That in clause (1) of article 130, for the words 'may be exercised by him, the words shall beexercised by him either directly or through officers, subordinate to him" be substituted".

The amendment was adopted.

Article 169 Mr. President: We take up article 169.

Shri T. T. Krishnamachari: Sir, I move

"That for clause (3) of article 169, the following clause be substituted

'(3) In other respects, privileges, immunities and powers of a House of the Legislature of a State and of the members and the committees of a House of such Legislature shall be such as may from time to time be defined by the Legislature by law, and until so defined, shall be those of the House of Commons of the Parliament of the United Kingdom and of its members and committees at the commencement of this Constitution. '"

This follows the line of similar amendment moved to clause (3) of article 85 and the House has accepted it and this merely seeks to put in the same set of provisions in respect of powers of the Houses of Legislature, the powers and privileges and immunities of members of the Committees of Houses of Legislatures.

Mr. President: We have just passed a similar provision with regard to Parliament. This relates to the Legislatures of the States.

The question is:

"That for clause (3) of article 162, the following clause be substituted:-

'(3) in other respects, privileges, immunities, and powers of a House of the Legislature of a State and of the members and the committees of a House of such Legislature shall be such as may from time to time be defined by the Legislature by law, and until so defined, shall be those of the House of Commons of the Parliament of the United Kingdom and of its members and committees at the commencement of this Constitution. ' " The amendment was adopted. Article 213-A

Mr. President We go to article 213-A.

Shri T. T. Krishnamachari: I move

"That in clause (1) of article 213A for the words 'for the purpose of this Constitution' the words 'for all or any of the purposes of this Constitution' be substituted-"

This amendment relates to High Courts in State in Part II of the First Schedule and the words are merely an amplification of the original phraseology and there can be no objection to such amplification. I am advised that this is necessary by our legal advisers and that is why this amendment is being moved.

The Honourable Shri K. Santhanam: I am afraid we are going in for too many superfluous amendments.

Mr. President: Does anyone wish to say anything ?

Mr. Santhanam thinks it is unnecessary and so does Pandit Bhargava. Mr. Krishnamachari, do you wish to say anything ?

Shri T. T. Krishnamachari: In this matter I am afraid we have to be guided by our Advisers.

The Honourable Shri K. Santhanam: Even if they have committed any mistake in the original draft, unless it is indispensable no amendment should be brought before us now.

Shri. T. T. Krishnamachari: I am afraid we have committed another mistake in another article if I should accept the argument of my honourable Friend Mr. Santhanam. We have committed the mistake in 303 clause (1) item (II) sub-item (2). It says in the definition :-

"any other court in the territory of India which may be declared by Parliament by law to be a High Court for all or any of the purposes of this Constitution."

If we have a definition of the High Court using these words, however, unnecessary it might appeal to some honourable Members of this House, I thought that it is best to bring it into line with the definition which will really be the governing factor in the interpretation of the article of this House.

An Honourable Member : If these are absolutely necessary, they can be brought in the Third Reading.

Mr. President: I do not think there is any real opposition to this but some Members consider it unnecessary.

The question is:

"That in clause (1) of article 213-A for the words 'for the purposes of this Constitution', the words 'for all or any of the purposes of this Constitution' be substituted."

The amendment was adopted.

Article 215-A

Mr. President: We go to 215-A.

Shri T. T. Krishnamachari: I move.

"That article 215A be deleted."

This article refers to the Scheduled and Tribal Areas. It reads thus

"In this Constitution the expression 'scheduled areas' means the areas specified in Parts I to VII of the Table appended to paragraph 18 of the Fifth Schedule in relation to the States to which those parts respectively relate subject to any order made under sub-paragraph (2) of that paragraph."

Then again there is definition of tribal areas.

Sir, the House has passed the Fifth and Sixth Schedule which completely cover all that is contained in these two clauses of article 215A. It is therefore considered unnecessary,

Mr. President.: The question is

"That article 215A be deleted."

The amendment was adopted.

Shri T. T. Krishnamachari: There is one item to be dealt with before going to the Preamble.

Maulana Hasrat Mohani (United Provinces : Muslim) : Sir, I object to putting here the Preamble at this fag-end of the day.

Shri T. T. Krishnamachari: We have not moved the Preamble. I suggest that article 13 be held over till tomorrow.

Shri R. K. Sidhva: Sir, you have not put 445.

Mr. President: That is not in today's agenda. I think this covers all the articles, except article 13, which are in today's agenda. It is suggested that we might take up article 13 tomorrow as some Members have given notice of amendments and would like to have a little more time for consideration. Mr. Sidhva did you refer to 302AA ? It is coming up tomorrow. Shall we take up the Preamble tomorrow?

Honourable Members: Tomorrow.

Mr. President: The paper which has been circulated today also has some other articles. All this we shall have to dispose of tomorrow including the Preamble.

The Honourable Shri K. Santhanam: The Drafting Committee may consider whether any of them are indispensable; otherwise they may come in the Third Reading as consequential amendments. We need not spend much time on consequential amendments.

Mr. President: There is not much there with regard to amendments to clauses which have been passed. The others are substantial propositions. Of ,course the Drafting Committee will naturally consider whether it is worth while pressing those amendments.

Shri.R. K. Sidhva : Do we understand that tomorrow by evening we end the session ?

Mr. President: It all,depends upon you. The Drafting Committee is not apart from you. It includes everybody in the House.

Then we shall adjourn now till, what time tomorrow ? When do we meet tomorrow?

The Honourable Members: Nine o'clock, tomorrow morning.

Mr. President: Very well, if that is the wish of the House, I have no objection. We may meet at 9 o'clock so that we may have four hours to finish all this.

The House stands adjourned till nine o'clock tomorrow morning.

The Assembly then adjourned till Nine of the Clock on Monday. the 17th October 1949.