Constituent Assembly Of India -Volume IX

Dated: September 16, 1949

"That in amendment No. 1 above, in clause (4) of the proposed new article 15A, for the words 'three months' the words 'one month' or 'two months' be substituted."

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. President: The question is:

"That in amendment No. 1 of List I (Eighth Week), for clause (1) of the proposed new article 15A, the following be substituted:-

'(1) Every person arresting another in due course of law shall, at the time of the arrest or as soon as practicable thereafter, inform that person the reasons or grounds for such arrest, nor shall he be denied the right to consult a legal practitioner of his own choice."' The amendment was negatived.

Mr. President: The question is:

'That in amendment No. 1 of List I (Eighth Week), in clause (1) of the proposed new article 15A, after the words 'as soon as may be' the words 'being not later than fifteen days' be inserted.'

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. President: The question is:

"That in amendment No. 1 of List I (Eighth Week), sub-clause (b) of clause (3) of the proposed new article 15A be deleted."

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. President: The question is :

"That in amendment No. 1 of List I (Eighth Week), the proviso to clause (3) of the Proposed new article 15A be deleted."

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. President: The question is:

"That in amendment No. 1 of List I (Eighth Week), in Sub-clause (a) of the proviso to clause (3) of the proposed new article 15A, after the words 'a High Court has' the words 'after hearing the person detained' be inserted." The amendment was negatived.

Mr. President: The question is :

"That in amendment No. 1 of List I (Eighth Week), in sub-clause (a) of the proviso to clause (3) of the proposed new article 15A. after the words 'such detention' the words 'but so that the person shall in no event be detained for more than six months be added."

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. President: The question is

"That in amendment No. 1 of List I (Eighth Week), the following proviso be added to clause (4) of the proposed new article 15A :-

'Provided that if the earning member of a family is so detained his direct dependents shall be paid maintenance allowance."'

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. President: The question is:

"That in amendment No. 1 of List I (Eighth Week), in clause (1) of the proposed new article 15A, for the words 'as soon as may be' the words 'before the expiration of seven days following his arrest' be substituted."

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. President: The question is:

"That in amendment No. 1 of List I (Eighth Week), in clause (2) of the proposed new article 15A, for the words 'as soon as may be' the words within twenty-four hours' be substituted."

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. President: The question is:

"That in amendment No. 1 of List I (Eighth Week), in clause (2) of the proposed new article 15A, after the word 'magistrate', wherever it occurs. the words 'of the First Class be inserted."

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. President: The question is:

"That in amendment No. 1 of List I (Eighth Week). for clause (2) of the proposed new article 15A. the following be substituted:-

'(2) Every person who is arrested shall be produced before the nearest magistrate within twenty-four hours and no such person shall be detained in custody longer than twenty-four hours without the authority of a magistrate."

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. President: The question is

"That in amendment No. 1 of List I (Eighth Week). in clause (2) of the proposed new article 15A, after the word 'magistrate' occurring at the end, the words 'who shall afford such person an opportunity of being heard' be added."

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. President: The question is:

"That in amendment No. 1 of List I (Eighth Week), after clause (2) of the proposed new article 15A. the following new clause be added:-

'(2a) No detained person shall be subjected to physical or mental ill-treatment."

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. President: The question is:

"That in amendment No. 1 of List I (Eighth Week), clause (3) of the proposed new article 15A be deleted."

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. President: The, question is:

"That in amendment No. 1 of List I (Eighth Week), in sub-clause (b) of the operative part of clause (3) of the proposed new article 15A. after the word 'law' the words 'of the Union' be inserted.'

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. President: The question is

"That in amendment No.1 of List I (Eighth Week), in sub-clause (a) of the proviso to clause (3) of the proposed new article 15A, the words 'or are qualified to be appointed as' be deleted."

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. President: The question is:

"That in amendment No. 1 of List I (Eighth Week). at the end of clause (3) of the proposed new article 15A, the following new proviso be added :-

'Provided that in the case of any such person so recommended for detention as stated in sub-clause (a) of clause (3). the total period of his detention shall not extend beyond nine months provided the Advisory Board has in its possession direct and ample evidence that such person is a source of continuous danger to the State and the Society.'

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. President: The question is:

"That in amendment No. 1 of List I (Eighth Week), after clause (4) of the proposed new article 15A, the following new clause be added:-

(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in this article, the powers conferred on the Supreme Court and the High Courts under article 25 and article 202 of this Constitution as respects the detention of persons under this article-shall not be suspended or abrogated or extinguished'." The amendment was negatived. I think these are all the amendments which we moved yesterday. Dr. Ambedkar has moved certain amendments today and I would put them to vote now.

Mr. President: The question is:

"That in clause (1) of article 15A, after the word 'consult' the words 'and be defended by' be inserted."

The amendment was adopted.

Mr. President: 'The question is:

"That in clause (3) of article 15A, for the words 'Nothing in this article' the words, brackets and figures 'Nothing in clauses (1) and (2) of the article' be substituted."

The amendment was adopted.

Mr. President: The question is:

"That after clause (3) of article 15A. the following clauses be inserted:-

'(3a) Where an order is made in respect of any person under sub-clause (b) of clause (3) of this article the authority making an order shall as soon as may be communicate to him the grounds on which the order has been made and afford him the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order.

(3b) Nothing in clause (3a) of this article shall require the authority making any order under sub-clause (b) of clause (3) of this article to disclose the facts which such authority considers to be against the public interest to disclose'."

The amendment was adopted.

Mr. President: The question is :

"That at the end of clause (4) of article 15A, the following be added:-

"and Parliament may also prescribed by law the procedure to be followed by an Advisory Board in an enquiry under clause (a) of the proviso to clause (3) of this article'."

The amendment was adopted.

Mr. President: The question is:

"That proposed Article 15A, as amended, stand part of the Constitution."

The motion was adopted.

Article 15A, as amended, was. added to the Constitution.

Mr. President: I am sorry I forgot to put Dr. Bakhshi Tek Chand's amendment to vote. Of course it was not necessary. It is covered by Dr. Ambedkar's amendments.

*Article 209 A

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Sir, I move:

"That after article 209, between Chapters VII and IX of Part VI the following be inserted:-

"Chapter VIII Subordinate Courts. 209A Appointment of District Judges. (1) Appointments of persons to be, and the posting and promotion of, district judges in any State shall be made by the Governor of the State in consultation with the High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to such State. (2) A person not already in the service of the Union or of the State shall only be eligible to be appointed as district judge if he has been for not less than seven years an advocate or a pleader and is recommended by the High Court for appointment.

209B. Recruitment of other than district judges to the Judicial service. Appointments of persons other than district judges to the judicial service of a State shall be made by the Governor in accordance with rules made by him in this behalf after consultation with the State Public Service Commission and with the High Court.

209C. Control over Subordinate Courts. The control over district courts and courts subordinate thereto including the Posting and promotion of, and the grant of leave. to. persons belonging to the judicial service of a State and holding any post inferior to the post of district judge shall be vested in the High Court but nothing in this article shall be construed as taking away from any such person the right of appeal which he, may have under the law regulating the conditions of his service or as authorising the High Court to deal with him otherwise than in accordance with the conditions of his service Prescribed under such law.

209D. Interpretation. (1) In this Chapter-

(a) the expression "district judge" includes judge of a city civil court, additional district judge, joint district judge, assistant district judge, chief judge of a small cause court, Chief Presidency magistrate, additional chief Presidency magistrate, sessions judge, additional sessions judge and assistant sessions judge;

(b) the expression "judicial service" means a service consisting exclusively of persons intended to fill the post of district judge and other civil judicial posts inferior to the post of district judge.

209F. Application of the provisions of this Chapter to certain classes of Magistrates. The Governor may by public notification direct that the foregoing provisions of this Chapter and any rules made thereunder shall with effect from such date as may be fixed by him in this behalf apply in relation to any class or classes of magistrates in the State as they apply in relation to persons appointed to the judicial service of the State subject to such exceptions and modifications as may be specified in the notification'."

Sir, the object of these provisions is two-fold : first of all, to make provision for the appointment of district judges and subordinate judges and their qualifications. The second object is to place the whole of the civil judiciary under the control of the High Court. The only thing which has been excepted from the general provisions contained in article 209-A, 209-B and 209-C is with regard to the magistracy, which is dealt with in article 209-E. The Drafting Committee would have been very happy if it was in a position to recommend to the House that immediately on the commencement of the Constitution, provisions with regard to the appointment and control of the Civil Judiciary by the High Court were also made applicable to the magistracy. But it has been realised, and it must be realised that the magistracy is intimately connected with the general system of administration. We hope that the proposals which are now being entertained by some of the provinces to separate the judiciary from the Executive will be accepted by the other provinces so that the provisions of article 209-E would be made applicable to the magistrates in the same way as we propose to make them applicable to the civil judiciary. But some time must be permitted to claps for the effectuation of the proposals for the Separation of the judiciary and the executive. It has been felt that the best thing is to leave this matter to the Governor to do by public notification as soon as the appropriate changes for the separation of the judiciary and the executive are carried through in any of the province. This is all I think I need say. There is nothing revolutionary in this. Even in the Act of 1935, appointment and control of the civil judiciary' was vested in the High Court. We are merely continuing the 'Same in the present draft.

Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena: I have got an amendment which is an alternative to this. It is number 166 in the consolidated listof amendments.

Mr. President: I will take it up after these amendments. Amendment No. 21 : Mr. Kuldhar Chaliha.Shri Kuldhar Chaliha :(Assam: General) : Mr. President Sir, I beg to move:

"That in amendment No. 20 above, in clause (2) of the proposed new article 209A, after the words 'seven years' and 'pleader' the words 'enrolled as' and 'of the High Court of the State or States exercising jurisdiction' be inserted respectively."

Sir, the object of this amendments is that unless a lawyer has practised in the same province in which he is going to be appointed as a Judge, it will be very difficult for him to appreciate the customs, manners and the practices of the country. We have in our country strange results from the appointment of I.C.S. officers in the beginning of British administration. So also in cases when officers from outside the province were brought in. I am not limiting thereby the enrolment of advocates from any province. They may come an practise. Only I am saying that he should have resided in the province for a period of seven years. The results from the appointment of persons from outside the province were like this. In our part of the country, there is a custom for the New , Year day for young men to go and dance 'and sing and go on a maying and sky-larking for some time, and then stage manage on the bank of a river or a stream that she has been kidnapped or taken by force. The parents brought criminal complaints that their girls had been kidnapped and the persons were sentenced very heavily by the Judges who did not know the elementary condition of life there. Some time later, the Government had to issue circulars that in such cases, the matter should be allowed to be compromised. Probably, in other provinces also, this would be taken as a very serious offence and the persons would be given four to seven years rigorous imprisonment. In our country for such cases a preliminary enquiry has to be made and a chance has to be given for compromise. In 99 per cent. of the cases, compromises were effected after giving some solatium to the parents. In the same way, as regards marriages, we have a very simple custom of tying the nuptial knot and blessings by the people present in the village completes a marriage. The People who come from Bengal and other provinces or Europeans, who have read the Hindu Law and other things, put into force the strict laws of those countries and the result was the nullification of marriages. This may happen in Orissa or Bihar. People may not know the customs in Ranchi and other places and they may commit mistakes. I have not prevented any man from coming from any other province and practising in the High Court of the province. The only thing I insist is that they should live there for seven years so that they may be acquainted with the customs in the country, to become eligible for appointment as district judges.

The interpretation clause has complicated the matter as it includes not only district judges. but also additional district Judges and assistant sessions Judges. They will have to deal with matters which are absolutely local. Therefore, if an advocate or lawyer has not practised in the High Court of the province where they are going to be appointed as judges, there will be failure of justice. My amendment is a very simple one and there will be no harm done if the Drafting Committee sees its way to accept this amendment.

Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava: Sir, I beg to move:

"That in amendment No. 20 above, in the proposed new article 209E. after the word 'may' where it occurs for the first time. the words 'at any time' be inserted."

Mr. President: You are not moving No. 22.

Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava: I am not moving 22; I am moving 23 and 24. Sir, I beg to move

"That in amendment No. 20 above at the end of tile proposed new article 209-E, the following proviso be added:

'Provided that the Governor or the Ruler as the case may be shall--

(i) in the case of States mentioned in Part I of the first Schedule after the lapse of three years from the commencement of this Constitution if the Legislature of the State passes a resolution recommending the making of such direction, or if no such resolution is passed after the lapse of ten years from the commencement of this Constitution; and

(ii) in the case of States mentioned in Part III of the First Schedule after the lapse of seven years from the commencement of this Constitution, if the Legislature of the State passes are solution recommending the making of such direction and if no such resolution is passed, after the lapse of ten years from the commencement of this Constitution, by public notification make such directions'."

While reading, I am very sorry, Sir, I have discovered a mistake in para.

(i) of amendment No. 24, The word 'ten' should be 'five' years. So far as I remember, I gave 'five' in my original. It may be by a slip of the pen I may have giver, the word 'ten'. What I intended was 'five'. I do not know if 'five' or 'ten' was given in the original. I would beg of you to amend it to 'Five'.

Mr. President: Very well.

Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava : Sir, in regard to this amendment, the result would be that so far as article 209E is concerned, it will remain with the sweet will of the Governor whether he makes the direction contemplated in article 209E. I should like to bind the Governor or Ruler of the State that. if the legislatures of the States mentioned in Part I of the First Schedule make a recommendation within three years, the Governor shall be bound to-give effect to that recommendation and in case they do not do so, then, the Governor will be bound after the lapse of five )?cars to make the direction contemplated in article 209E. Similarly, in the case of States mentioned in Part III of the First Schedule, after the lapse of seven years, if the legislature does not make a recommendation, then, the ruler will be bound to make the direction after the lapse of ten years. During the first seven years, it rests with the legislature to make a recommendation for this direction to be implemented.

Now Sir, this question of the separation of the judiciary from the executive is a very very old one. It has been the main plank of the resolutions of the Indian National Congress in the days of foreign domination. Now, when we have attained freedom, the people of the country expected that this reform which was over-due, shall be implemented as soon as possible. While we passed some directive principles, we also included a recommendation of this nature. Now when we read article 209E every person is bound to consider that at some time or other the Governor will make this directive. Now 209E is in the nature of a pious wish. Dr. Ambedkar when he introduced this said there is nothing revolutionary about this Chapter. I think lie was quite right; but unfortunately there is nothing even evolutionary about it because we wanted that with the advent of Swaraj, the Judiciary will be independent of the Executive control and the people will get Justice; but if it is not to be as soon ,is it is possible, I would rather like that the realities of the situation were appraised rightly and the period that I have prescribed was to be the ultimate period during which this reform should have been implemented.

What happens at present is known to all members of this House. At present the Magistrates are under the control of the District Magistrates who are also the Chief Officers of the Police, in the Districts. Therefore, the Magistrates do not work with that independence and impartiality which we should expect if we want even-handed justice to be meted out to the people. The District Magistrate in whom all powers are centered, if he wants to pull up the Magistrates, can call them to his own Court. The promotions of the Magistrates depend upon the recommendation of the People and if the police makes a report against him it will affect his promotion

Mr. President: Is it necessary to go over those grounds? There is nobody here who says that there should be no separation. The question is only of convenience and time.

Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava: Confining myself to this aspect only, I will only submit that I know that there are certain parts of India in which, as the words imply, the rule of, the law is being established only now and in regard to those cases, I have fixed the limit of ten years. Otherwise in Bombay, Madras and U.P. and certain other parts of the provinces even now this reform can be implemented. Therefore I have given the period of three years in regard to parts mentioned in Part' I and ultimately five years, and seven years and ten years to other States mentioned in Part II. My humble submission is if we do- not accept even this amendment then it means 209-E will for ever remain a pious wish as it will be a Directive Principle. There is no point in having this prospect dangling before our eyes as will-o'-the wisp which is never to be implemented. When we passed the Directive Principles I remember there was a row in the House-some people wanted it to be immediately effective and others said that the time is not ripe. Therefore to have a golden mean between the two I am suggesting these stages and this period. I would be very happy if Dr. Ambedkar accepted this amendment of mine.

Mr. President: 117-Member not in the House Pandit Kunzru.

Pandit Hirday Nath Kunzru: Mr. President, I move:

"That in amendment No. 20 of List I (Eighth Week). in clause (1) of the proposed new article 209A, the words 'and the posting and promotion of' be omitted."

I also move with your permission :

"That in amendment No. 20 of List I (Eighth Week) in the proposed new article 209C, after the words 'grant of leave to' the words 'district judges in any State and' be inserted."

The object of my amendments is to allow High Courts to be responsible for the transfer and promotion of District judges in the same manner as they will be for the transfer and promotion of Subordinate Judges and other Subordinate Judicial officers. My amendments do not touch the question of appointment. The Governor will appoint District Judges in consultation with the High Court. All that I desire is that District Judges after their appointment by the Governor should be under the control of the High Court. I have for my amendment the authority of no less a person than the Chairman of the Drafting Committee-my honourable Friend Dr. Ambedkar. The language of articles 209A and 209C ....

Shri T. T. Krishnamachar : They are all tentative. Do not throw your words on this here again.

Pandit Hirday Nath Kunzru: I am entitled to quote from or refer to the articles of which my honourable Friend Dr. Ambedkar gave notice in the last session and they are printed on the last but one page of Volume I of the Printed amendments. If I say anything that is incorrect, my honourable Friend Dr. Ambedkar will certainly be able to refute me but I do not see why I should Dot refer to an amendment given notice of by him that appears to me to be quite sound. Dr. Ambedkar has not told us why he has departed from the phraseology of his earlier amendments. They provided that while the appointment of District Judges should be under the control of the Governor, their promotion and transfer should be under the control of the High Court. Now, in my opinion it is necessary that the High Court should have control over all those officers who are concerned with the judicial administration. District Judges are judicial officers. There is no reason, therefore, why control in respect of their transferand promotion should not be made over to the High Court. I think that if High Courts are made responsible for this, the judicial administration will improve. We have found repeatedly in the past, that the absence of control by the High Courts over the posting and the promotion of District judges has weakened their authority and weakened also the judicial administration. The District Judges feeling that the High Court had no control over them, generally looked up to the executive. I do not mean to say that no District Judge paid any regard to the provisions of the law, or that the District Judges as a rule decided cases in accordance with the convenience of the executive. But any lawyer that we might consult would, I think, tell us that demands had been repeatedly made by associations representing various parties that District Judges should be placed under the control of the High Court. They had gone so far as to ask that their appointment too should rest with the High Court. I have not gone so far. My amendment is a conservative one. All that it seeks to achieve is that District judges should be transferred and promoted by the High Court in the same way as subordinate judge would be.

The question of promotion may seem to raise some difficulty. It may be thought that it means only promotion from District Judge to High Court Judge, but it does not mean this. We have already provided for the appointment of judges of the High Court in the section dealing with the power of appointment of the judges of the High Court. The word "promotion" here can only refer to the promotion of District Judges before they are made High Court Judges. Judges are promoted now from one grade to another, and if the grades continue to be as they are at present, the High Court will be able to promote the judges as the Executive Government does now. It does not seem to me, therefore, that the use of the word "promotion" will create any difficulty.

I have already said, Sir, that my amendments do not seek to make High Courts responsible for the appointment of District Judges. I could have done this; I could have put forward an amendment asking that the High Courts should have this power too. In Ceylon, Section 55 of the Constitution provides:

". . that the appointment. transfer, dismissal and disciplinary control of all judicial officers should be vested in the Judicial Service Commission."

The Judicial Service Commission will consist of the Chief Justice, a judge of the Court and one other person who is or has been a judge of the Supreme Court. But as I have said, my amendment does not seek to introduce in the Constitution the provision that exist in the Ceylon Constitution. It leaves the appointment of District Judges in the hands of the Government and their dismissal is to be regulated in accordance with such rules as may exist. My amendment, therefore, is a very moderate one and does not create any difficulty at all. On the contrary, it will strengthen the judicial administration by enabling the High Court to have control, to a large extent, over all those officers that will be engaged in the performance of judicial duties.

Shri R. K. Sidhva (C. P. & Berar: General): Sir, could you kindly call me again? I had been out on some office business when my name was called; but I have to move an amendment which is important.

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Absence cannot be an excuse.

Mr. President: I am afraid it is too late now.

Shri R. K. Sidhva: it is rather an important amendment, as I want to show. In the event of difference of opinion between the High Court Judges and......

Mr. President: And in showing that, you will have to speak of course. How will you show that, without speaking ?

Shri R. K. Sidhva: Sir. I will take only two minutes.

Mr. President: Very well. But please do not take more than two minutes.

Shri R. K. Sidhva: Mr. President, Sir, I am very thankful to you for kindly permitting me to move my amendment. I had gone out on some office work, and not on private business. I beg to move

"That in amendment No. 20 of List I ( Eighth Week), at the end of clause (1) of the proposed new article 209A, the following be added:-

"where there is a difference of opinion regarding an appointment between tile Governor or Ruler of the State and the High Court, the opinion of the former shall prevail.

My amendment is self-explanatory. It has been suggested that opinions are to be gathered from three agencies, government's opinion, comprising of the full Cabinet or the Home Minister the Governor and the High Courts Judges. If the Governor and the Government agree, and if the High Court Judges do not agree, then my amendment says that the Government's and the Governor's opinion should prevail. Sir, this is only fair, because the High Court Judges should not be given all the power. The opinion of the Government and the Governor should prevail. With these words I commend my amendment for acceptance.

Mr. President: Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena had given notice of a number of amendments to the original article as it is printed in Printed List Vol. 1, where Dr. Ambedkar had proposed some new articles as 209A, 209B and 209C. And Prof. Saksena had given notice of amendments to these articles. But now that these articles have not been moved, the question of substitution anything" for them does not arise.

Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena: Sir, you had allowed such amendments in the past.

Mr. President: But you had notice of this substitution motion, as other Members had, and they have given notice to this new article now before the House. You could have given notice of your amendments also. Wherever there was a question which was, germane, and where there was not sufficient notice of the amendment proposed, I allowed old amendments to be taken. But in this case the Member had sufficient notice of the amendment which was moved by Dr. Ambedkar.

Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena: So many amendments have been allowed to be moved to amendments which were not moved.

Mr. President: They could be fitted in and so they may have been allowed. But there has been sufficient time in this case and other Members have given notice of amendments to the amendment moved by Dr. Ambedkar. So I do not think I will allow it. But if you want to speak about it, you can.

Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena: Yes, I would like to speak, Sir. What I wanted to be substituted for this article has already been expressed in my amendment No. 106 contained in the old list. So far as the present draft is concerned, Dr. Ambedkar has himself confessed that the Magistracy will not be under the High Court. I am very glad for the frankness with which be admitted in regard to 15A that he wanted "due process of law" but he has not been able to get what he wanted. Similarly, he has confessed that he wanted the judiciary to be entirely under the High Court, but he has not been able to have it. He is giving us some compromise against his wishes for satisfying the Home Ministry. I realize the difficulty, but as we are making the Constitution for the future generations, we should at least have it on record that we are not in agreement with the views of the Home Ministry, whether it be at the Centre or in the Provinces. Articles 15 and 15A are a complete denial of liberty of person. They are the darkest Part of the Constitution. Under article 209E which Dr. Ambedkar has proposed. we are negativing the principle which hasalready been accepted under the Directive Principles, namely, that the judiciary shall be separate from the executive. I feel that although we have put it there, we do not really mean to implement it In the original article, three years time-limit was put and during the discussion, the Prime Minister said that it would be done earlier than three years. But even the ten years limit proposed by Mr. Bhargava is not being accepted.

I feel therefore that the, Drafting Committee has not been able to get the Home Ministries to agree to a separation of the judiciary from the executive. The present provisions are a complete denial of the civil liberties of the person. I had in my amendment suggested that the Supreme Court and the Chief Justice should be the ultimate guardian of the liberties of the subjects and all the High Courts and subordinate judges should be ultimately amenable to their control. But the article as now framed is really a reproduction of all that was contained in the Government of India Act and there is in fact no separation of the judiciary from the executive. If this provision is put in, I fear that there will be no such separation unless there is an amendment of the whole Constitution, because after these provisions in the Constitution I am sure no province will care to go in for separation of the executive and the judiciary. The amendment moved by Mr. Bhargava says that this separation should be done at least in some provinces quickly and in the some after three, five or ten years. Even that has not been accepted. That shows that all provincial Home Ministries do not want such separation. If that is also the view of the independent Central Government of India, I am afraid that liberty of the person will not be guaranteed and we shall still continue to be' under the old system of Government which has so far prevailed. We-are probably still living in the past. I hope that Dr. Ambedkar will see the wisdom of accepting the amendment of Mr. Bhargava and at least let those provinces which are advanced to have this separation of judiciary from the executive effected much quicker.

Shri Brajeshwar Prasad: Sir, I risk to oppose the amendment moved by my Friend Mr. Sidhva. I am definitely of opinion that where there is a conflict between the High Court and the Government, the opinion of the High Court should prevail.

Secondly, I am opposed to the words "in consultation with the High Court" I definitely hold the view that appointments, postings and promotions must be removed from the purview of the provincial governments. I know of cases where High Court Judges have been removed and transferred because certain members of the Congress who hold high influence in the Governments did not pull on with some judges. The High Courts did enter into controversy with the provincial governments and the High Courts were frustrated. Therefore, I am definitely of the view that this measure is not in conformity with the needs of the situation. The need is that the provincial administration must be purified, must be free from corruption, must be free from nepotism. In article 209D the words "in accordance with the rules made by him in this behalf after consultation with the State Public Service Commission and with the High Courts" are not clear. My knowledge of English is poor. I cannot see whether the words "after consultation with the State Public Service Commission" govern the word "rules" or the word "appointments", whether the Governor has to frame the rules in consultation with the High Court and the Public Service Commission or the appointments are to be made in consultation with the State Public, Service Commission and the High Court. I am of opinion that rules should be made in consultation with the Public Service Commission and the High Courts and appointments also made in consultation with the Public Service Commission and the High Courts.

Shri R. K. Sidhva: May I know whether my Friend does not trust his own Government and his own Governor ?Shri Brajeshwar Prasad: I have no faith in provincial autonomy. This is my general proposition which I have clearly expressed on the floor of this House times without number. I need not go into the reasons once again.

Dr. P. S. Deshmukh: (C. P. & Berar: General) : I am glad you realize that.

Shri Brajeshwar Prasad: The realization will also come to you at a later stage. I want that all classes of Magistrates should be outside the purview of the Council of Ministers as regards appointment, posting and promotion. It ought to be laid down in clear and explicit terms that this reform should be implemented within two years from the date of the commencement of this Constitution. This article does not lay down in clear and explicit terms when these reforms will come into operation. I am referring to article 209E.

There is another restriction attached to this article. The words used have been "subject to such exceptions and modifications as may be specified in the notification." Sir, the plea of administrative difficulties is merely designed to cover the lust for political power and patronage. I do not want that this restriction should find a place in the article. I hold these views because there is a necessity for purifying the provincial administration. It will secure also the liberty of the individual. It will strengthen the foundations of the State and it will generate a feeling of loyalty towards all Governments in-India if the reforms, as I have suggested, are incorporated.

Shri P. S. Nataraja Pillai (Travancore State) : It is only to clear a doubt I stand here, Sir. I would like to ask whether it is intended by this article to exclude Schedule 3 States from the provisions of article 209A or is it that they are to be included ?

Shri R. K. Sidhva: My amendment says so

Shri P. S. Nataraja Pillai: In article 209A, B and E, the wording used is 'Governor of the State" and the word 'Ruler' is omitted. But in one of the amendments moved by Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava, I think, he suggested that all these articles will apply also to Schedule 3 State. I would like to clear the doubt whether this is intended to apply to Schedule 3 States as well and if so, the necessary changes may be made.

I would like also to support the amendment moved by Mr. Chaliha, as far as the subordinate judiciary is concerned. If I may say so, for my State, the land tenure laws, the special customs prevalent there even in money transactions and the laws in force make it necessary that the recruitment should be limited to lawyers who practise in those High Courts that exercise jurisdiction in that area. If the words as used here are adopted, the lawyers practising in any High Court may be eligible for recruitment to any High Court. Unless you limit the recruiting of lawyers of High Courts of those areas to those District Courts, it will create difficulties. I want that suggestion to be considered.

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: With regard to the observations of the last speaker, I should like to say that this chapter will be part of the Provincial Constitution, and we will try to weave this language into that part relating to States in Part III by special adaptation at a later stage.

There are two amendments--one by Mr. Chaliha and the other by Pandit Kunzru-which call for some explanation.

With regard to the amendment moved by Mr. Chaliha, I am sorry to say I cannot accept it, for two reasons : one is that we do not want to introduce any kind of provincialism by law as he wishes to do by his amendment. Secondly, the adoption of his amendment might create difficulties for the province itselfbecause it may not be possible to find a pleader who might technically have the qualifications but in substance may not be fitted to be appointed to the High Court, and I think it is much better to leave the ground perfectly open to the authority to make such appointment provided the incumbent has the qualification. I therefore cannot accept that amendment.

The amendment of my Friend, Pandit Kunzru, raises in my judgment a very small point and that point is this : whether the posting and promotion of the District Judges should be with the Governor, that is to say, the government of the day, or should be transferred to 209C to the High Court? Now the provision as contained in the Government of India Act, 1935 was this that the appointment, posting and promotion of the District Judge was entirely in the hands of the Governor. The High Court had no place in the appointment, posting and promotion of the District Judge. My Friend Mr. Kunzru, will see that we have considerably modified that provision of the Government of India Act, because we have added the condition namely, that in the matter of posting, appointment and promotion of the District Judges, the High Courts shall be consulted. Therefore the only point of difference is this: whether the High Court should have exclusive jurisdiction which we propose to give in the matter of posting, promotion and leave etc. of the Subordinate Judicial Service other than the District Judge, or, whether the High Court should have jurisdiction in these matters over all subordinate Judges including the District Judge. It seems to me that the compromise we have made is eminently suitable. The only difference ultimately will be that in the case of Subordinate Judges any notification with regard to posting, promotion and grant of leave will issue from the High Court, while in the case of the District Judge any such notification will be issued from the Secretariat. Fundamentally and substantially, there is no difference at all. The District Judge will have the protection of the High Court because the consultation is made obligatory and I think that ought to satisfy the exigencies of the situation.

Mr. President: The question is:

"That in amendment No. 20 above. in clause (2) of the proposed new article 209A. after the words 'seven years' and 'pleader' the words 'enrolled as' and 'of the High Court of the State or States exercising jurisdiction' be inserted respectively."

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. President: The question is:

"That in amendment No. 20 above, in the proposed new article 209E, after the word may' where it occurs for the first time. the words 'at any time' be inserted."

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. President: The question is:

"That in amendment No. 20 above, at the end of the Proposed new article 209E. the following proviso be added

'Provided that the Governor or the Ruler as the case may be shall-

(i) in the case of States mentioned in Part I of the First Schedule after the lapse of three years from the commencement of this Constitution if the Legislature of the State passes a resolution recommending the making of such direction. or if no such resolution is passed after the lapse of ten years from the commencement of this Constitution, and

(ii) in the case of States mentioned in Part III of the First Schedule after the lapse of seven years from the commencement of this Constitution. if the Legislature of the State passes a resolution recommending the making of such direction and if no such resolution is passed, after the lapse of ten years from the commencement of this Constitution. by Public notification make much directions'."

The amendment *as negatived.

Mr. President: The question is:

"That in amendment No. 20 of List I (Eighth Week), at the end of clause (1) of the proposed new article 209A, the following be added :-

'where there is a difference of opinion regarding an appointment between the Governor or Ruler of the State and the High Court, the opinion of the former shall prevail'."

The, amendment was negatived.

Mr. President: There are two amendments by Pandit Kunzru, Nos. 132 and 133. The question is :

"That in amendment No. 20 of List I (,Eighth Week), in clause (1) of the proposed new article 209A, the words 'and the posting and promotion of' be omitted."

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. President: The question is:

"That in amendment No. 20 of List (Eighth Week), in the proposed new article 209C, after the words 'grant of leave to' the words 'district judges in any State and' be inserted."

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. President: The question is:

"That proposed articles 209A, 209B, 209C, 209D and 209E stand Constitution."

The motion was adopted. Articles 209A, 209B, 209C, 209D and 209E were added to the Constitution.

*Article 215

Mr. President: It is suggested that we take up Article 215.

Shri Brajeshwar Prasad: Sir, I move:

"That for amendments Nos. 2732 to 2737 of the List of Amendments, the following be substituted:-

'That for article 215, the following be substituted:

"215. (1) Any territory specified in Part IV of the First Schedule and any other territory comprised within the territory of India but not specified in that Schedule shall be administered by the President in his discretion either directly or acting through a Chief Commissioner or other authority to be appointed by him.

(2) The Chief Commissioner or other authority to be appointed by the President in his discretion shall be the delegate of the President who shall have the Power in his discretion to resume or modify such powers as he himself had conferred.

(3) The President shall have the power to take any part of the Union of India under his immediate authority and management by placing it in Part IV of the First Schedule.

(4) No Act of Parliament shall apply to any territory in Part IV of the First Schedule unless the President in his discretion by public notification so directs and the President in giving such a direction with respect to any Act may direct that the Act shall in its application to the territories in Part IV of the First Schedule. or to any specified part thereof, have effect subject to such exceptions or modifications as' be thinks fit.

(5) The President may in his discretion make regulations for the Peace, order and good government of any such territory and any regulations so made may repeal or amend any Act of the Parliament or any existing law which is for the time being applicable to such territory and, when promulgated by the President, shall have the same force and effect as an Act of Parliament........

Sir, I move without offering any comments.

Shri T. T. Krishnamachar : Sir, I have only one matter to place before you. House and through the House to be transmitted to the appropriate authorities.This article refers to those areas Which will be enumerated in Part IV of Schedule I and which would be directly under the administration of the Central Covernment: I would like one particular area which is not included in the Draft Constitution under Part IV of Schedule I to be included in that area. The particular area I have in mind is one that was provisionally included in Schedule V under Madras and by virtue of the amendment that the House has now accepted to Schedule V it is left to the President to enumerate what are the areas to be covered by Schedule V. I refer to those islands called Laccadive Islands, including Minicoy and Amindivi which form a cluster of islands on the western side of India in the Arabian Sea. Those islands are supposed to be scheduled areas and the administration is vested in the Government of Madras.

In suggesting that the Centre should take over these islands under its own care I would at once disclaim any idea of casting any reflection on the administration of these islands by the Government of Madras. The fact really is that the islands are tar away from the Madras Coast and the provincial government has hardly got the equipment necessary to look after the administration.-of an area like this, because they have not got any naval vessels or a private merchantile fleet either. What is being done at the present moment is, I understand, that a sub-collector visits these islands once a year along with a medical officer and that is about all the connection that the Government of Madras has with these islands. I have no desire here to emphasise the strategic value of these islands. They may or may not have such a value. But it seems perfectly obvious that the idea was a relic of the past by which the administration of these islands was vested in a provincial government which is a somewhat onerous responsibility for this administration and should no longer continue to be so. I do think that whatever value these islands might have for the future of the Union as such, it is a responsibility that must be taken over by the Centre and the administration of these islands must be looked after by the Centre in the same way as they would be looking after the administration of other areas covered by article 215, which find mention in Part IV of Schedule VII.

I hope these remarks of mine will be transmitted to the appropriate quarter by the Secretariat of the Constituent Assembly and when we come to consider Schedule I, Part IV appropriate amendments will be made on the suggestion of the Ministry concerned.

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: I have nothing-to say, Sir. Sardar Hukam Singh : Sir, I have no amendment to move. I have one objection to clause (2) of this article, to which I want to draw the attention of the President of the Drafting Committee. The phraseology looks to me as derogatory to the sovereignty of the Parliament and I would request him, if possible to change the words:

"The President may make regulations for the peace and good government of any such territory and any regulation so made may repeal or amend any law made by Parliament."

I take objection to the provision that the President may amend any law made by Parliament, which we say is sovereign. Our purpose will be served if we say that regulation will provide that any Act of Parliament would not be applicable to such territory or it shall be applicable to the territory with any modifications.

I only want to bring this to the notice of the Chairman of the Drafting Committee.

Mr. President: Sardar Hukam Singh has made certain suggestions with regard to paragraph 2. He says that it is derogatory to the authority of Parliament to say that the President will repeal or amend any law made by Parliament and that the words should be so modified as to indicate that the power of Parliament is not in any way subordinated.The Honourable Dr. B.R . Ambedkar : That is so. It is a kind of adaptation. In regard to the autonomous districts of Assam the Governor of Assam has similar power to adapt the laws made by Parliament when he thinks fit so to do. The whole law made by Parliament cannot be applied to certain peculiarly constituted territories unless they are adapted.

Sardar Hukam Singh: Is that a sufficient answer, Sir ? My suggestion was that it is derogatory to the sovereignty of Parliament to say that the President would repeal an Act passed by Parliament.

Mr. President: The suggestion is about a word and not about the power?

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: The President is part of Parliament. There is no difficulty at all.

Mr. President: I will now put the amendment of Shri Brajeshwar Prasad to vote.

The question is : "That for amendments Nos. 2732 to 2737 of the List of Amendments, the following be substituted:-

'That for article 215, the following be substituted':-

"215. (1) Any territory specified in Part IV of the First Schedule and any other territory comprised within the territory of India but not specified in that 'Schedule shall be administered by the President in his discretion either directly or acting through a Chief Commissioner or other authority to be appointed by him.

(2)The Chief- Commissioner or other authority to be appointed by the President in his discretion shall be the delegate of the President who shall have the power in his discretion to resume or modify such powers as he himself had conferred.

(3)The President shall have the power to take any part of the Union of India under his immediate authority and management by placing it in Part IV of the First Schedule.

(4)No Act of Parliament shall apply to any territory in Part TV of the First Schedule unless the President in his discretion by public notification so directs and the President in giving such a direction with respect to any Act may direct that the Act shall in its application to the territories in Part IV of the First Schedule, or to any specified part thereof, have effect subject to such exceptions or modifications as he thinks fit.

(5)The President may in his discretion make regulations for the peace. order and good government of any such territory and any regulators so made may repeal or amend any Act of the Parliament or any existing law which is for the time being applicable to such territory and, when promulgated by the President, shall have the same force and effect as an Act of Parliament........

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. President: The question is:

"That article 215 stand part of the Constitution."

The motion was adopted. Article 215 was added to the Constitution.

Article 303

Mr. President: Article 303. We can now take up the definition article 303.

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Mr. President, I move:

"That sub-clause (c) of clause (1) of article 303 be omitted.'

Mr. President: I was just going to enquire whether we should not proceed with this article in the same way as we did with the Lists in Schedule VII and pass item by item.

I shall take the items as they appear in the draft. Amendment No. 3211 in the List of Amendments, Vol. II, may be moved.

Shri H. V. Kamath: It is verbal amendment. I leave it to the Drafting Committee.

(Amendments Nos. 3212 and 3213 were not moved.)

Mr. President: The question is:

"That sub-clause (a) of clause (1) stand part of article 303."

The motion was adopted.

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: As regards (b), I would just like to make one point. We are proposing to drop from the Constitution two Parts which we had originally proposed in which certain communities had been enumerated as Scheduled Castes and certain communities as Scheduled Tribes. We thought that was cumbering the Constitution too much and that this could be left to be done by the President by order. That is our present proposal. It seems to me that, in that event, it will be necessary to transfer the definition clauses of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes to some other part of the Constitution and make provision for them in a specific article itself, saying that the President shall define who are the Scheduled Castes and who are the Scheduled Tribes. Now it seems to me that the question has been raised with regard to articles 296 and 299 which have been held over. It may be that the definition of 'Anglo-Indian' and 'Indian Chritian' which is referred to in (b) and (c) may have to be reconsidered along with that proposition. I request you to hold them over for the present.

Shri V. I. Munsiwami Pillai (Madras: General) : The whole thing regarding the Scheduled Castes, etc. may be held over.

Mr. President: I take it that the House agrees to hold over the consideration of items (b) and (c).

[Sub-clauses (b) and (c ) were held over.]

Mr. President: There are no amendments to item (d).

The question is:

"That sub-clause (d) be adopted."

The motion was adopted.

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Sir, I move:

"That sub-clause (e) of clause (1) of article 303 be deleted."

Mr. President: There is no Chief Judge now. There used to be subordinate High Courts which were called Chief Courts and they used to have Chief Judges. The question is

"That sub-clause (e) of clause (1) of article 303 be deleted."

The amendment was adopted. Sub-clause (e) of clause (1) was deleted from article 303. (Amendment No. 3219 was not moved.)

Mr. President: Then (f), There is no amendment to this.

"That sub-clause (f) of clause (1) stand part of article 303."

The motion was adopted.

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Sir, I move:

" That for sub-clause (g) of clause (1) of article 303 the following sub-clause be substituted, namely:

'(g) 'corresponding Province'. 'corresponding Indian State' or 'corresponding State' means in cases of doubt such Province, Indian State or State as may be determined by the President to be the corresponding Province, the corresponding Indian State or the corresponding State, a,,; the case may be, for the particular purpose in question;'

We have only included Indian States.

Shri H. V. Knmath : Are we still going to retain the distinction between 'State' and 'Indian State'?

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: The distinction is this. A State now means a constituent part of the Union. An Indian State means a State which is outside the Union but under the paramountcy or control of the Union.

Shri R. K. Sidhva: Is the Cutch State which is now administered by the Centre an 'Indian State'? So also Bhopal?

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: An Indian State is defined at a later stage.

Mr. President: There is a definition of an Indian State given later on in amendment No. 140.

Shri T. T. Krishnamachar : There seems to be some confusion in the minds of Members. The terms "corresponding province" and "corresponding Indian State" these are terms pertaining to the period before the commencement of the Constitution. The term "corresponding State" comes into existence after the commencement of the Constitution. The difference between the two is only this. I hope there will now be no confusion on this matter.

Mr. President: The question is:

"That for sub-clause (g) of clause (1) of article 303 the following sub-clause be substituted, namely:-

'(g) "corresponding Province". "corresponding Indian State", or "corresponding State" means in cases of doubt such Province, Indian State or State as may be determined by the President to be the corresponding Province, the corresponding Indian State or the corresponding State, as the case may be, for the particular purpose in question;"' The amendment was adopted.

Mr. President: The question is:

"That sub-clause (g) of clause (1), as amended, stand part of article 303."

The motion was adopted.

Mr. President: Then (h). There is no amendment to this.

The question is:

That sub-clause (h) of clause (1) stand part of article 303."

The motion was adopted.The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Sir, I move:

"That in sub-clause (i) of clause (1) of article 303, the words 'but does not include any Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom or any Order in Council made under any such Act' be omitted."

Such Acts as the Merchant Shipping Act might have to be retained until Parliament otherwise provides.

Shri H. V. Kamath: With regard to this (i), there is evidently a slight lacuna. It speaks of laws and bye-laws. But only 'rule' is mentioned. Why not 'bye-rule' as well ?

The Honourable Shri K. Santhanam: I have got an amendment to this. If it has been considered by the Drafting Committee and found to be unnecessary, I do not want to move it. The point that I want to bring to the notice of the Drafting Committee is that there are areas like Baroda which have been merged with other provinces. Now, in the case of Baroda, what will be the interpretation of the word "existing law" ? Will it mean only the laws which are in existence in the province of Bombay or will they include also the laws passed by the Baroda Government or Legislature before integration, because as things are, according to- the present term, it might include the laws passed by the previous Baroda Legislature or Government, even though they may have been superseded by the present Bombay laws. If that point is made clear, I do not want to press my amendment. Otherwise, I would want my amendment to be considered by the Drafting Committee.

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Whether a law is in force or not would depend upon various considerations. First of all, the merger itself may have provided that certain laws shall not be in operation. It may be that the Bombay Government after that territory has been merged, may retain the laws for that particular territory known as Baroda, or its own legislation might abrogate it. Therefore any existing law means the law that is in force at the date of the commencement of the Constitution.

The Honourable Shri K. Santhanam: I do not press my amendment.

Mr. President: The question is:

"That in sub-clause (i) of clause (1) of article 303, the words 'but does not include any Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom or any Order in Council made under any such Act' be omitted."

The amendment was adopted.

Mr. President: The question is:

"That sub-clause (i) of clause (1). as amended. stand part of article 303."

The motion was adopted.

Mr President: There is no amendment to this. The question

"That sub-clause (j) of clause (1) stand part of article 303."

The motion was adopted.

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Sir, I move:

"That after sub-clause (i) of clause (1) of article 303, the following sub-clause be inserted :-

(jj) 'foreign State' means any State other than India but does not include a State notified in this behalf by the President'.

"The Honourable Shri K. Santhanam: Would Dr. Ambedkar kindly explain what is meant by the latter portion of this sub-clause (jj) ? Will he give an illustration of that?

Shri T. T. Krishnamachar : If it is so desired the President might exclude certain States from the category of foreign States. Although it might be premature to say so, it may be according to this scheme under which would be subjected any such arrangement that the new commonwealth relationship might entail. The idea is that the Indian Government of this future could exclude such States from the conception of the foreign State, the President will have the authority to do so. The honourable Member might be aware of the peculiar position of Eire vis-a-vis Britain and also vis-a-vis India. Actually though there is nothing really on the statute book or anything covered by a treaty, we do not treat Eire exactly as a foreign State.

The Honourable Shri K. Santhanam : Sir, the definitions that we are making have got legal significance. Either a State is a foreign State or it is not. If it is not a foreign State, it is governed by the provisions of this Constitution and the laws made under the provisions of this Constitution. The example given by my honourable Friend, Mr. T. T. Krishnamachari does not come in either. We cannot by saying that 'Britain is not a foreign State possibly bring it under this Constitution or the laws thereunder. It is a question of convention apart from legal definitions. Therefore, I do not think we should have the words "but does not include a State notified in this behalf by the President." We have already given power to Parliament to include other territories in the territories of India. It should not be left open to the President by some notification to say that some State which does not come under the territory of India by parliamentary legislation is part of India. Technically, the meaning of saying "by notification of the President" that it is not a foreign State, is that it will be part of the Indian State. Unless you give some definition for a State which is neither foreign nor within India, I think this may lead to all kinds of confusion, if not difficulty. I do not think it is very advisable to have this sub-clause (jj) at all. It is wholly unnecessary and we should not try o bring matters of convention into matters of definition. I do not think we are going to suffer at all by not having this (jj).

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Sir, the position is this : If one were to stop with the word "India", it means what a Foreign State ordinarily means. Every; State is foreign to another State. That is quite clear from the first part of the definition. Therefore, there can be no quarrel with that part of the definition. In fact that definition may not be necessary even, but in view of the fact that we have used the words "Foreign State" in some part of our Constitution and in view of the fact that it may be necessary for certain purposes to declare that a Foreign State. although it is a Foreign State in the terminological sense of the word is not a Foreign State for certain purposes, it is necessary to have this definition and to give the power to the President to declare that for certain purposes a State of that kind will not be a Foreign State. The case of Malaya, I understand, is very much in point. Therefore, it really means that for certain purposes the President may declare that although a State Is a Foreign State in the sense that it is outside India, for certain purposes will not be treated as a Foreign State. It is for that purpose that this definition is sought to be introduced.

The Honourable Shri K. Santhanam: This sub-clause does not authorise the President to notify for certain purposes. It gives a definition.

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: That will, of course be remembered duly by the President when he issues the notification.Mr. President. The question is:

"That after sub-clause (j) of clause (1) of article 303. the following sub-clause be inserted:

'(jj) 'foreign State' means any State other than India but does not include a State notified in this behalf by the President."

The amendment was adopted.

Many honourable Members: What about the, programme?

Mr President : I might inform the House that there are certain provisions of the Constitution which have to be dealt with and as soon as we finish those, we have to deal with one Bill which has already been introduced. When all this work is finished, we shall adjourn and it depends upon the House how long it will take to finish the business. I can mention the articles if you Re. Articles Nos. 99, 184, 303, 304, 305, Schedule VIII, Schedule IX, Article 1, New Schedule IIIA, Schedule IV, new article 264A. Then there is a motion of which notice has been given by Mr. Munshi regarding the Hindi version of the Draft Constitution, and lastly there is Dr. Ambedkar's Bill. This is what we have to get through in this session.

Pandit Govind Malaviya (United Provinces: General) ; May I know, Sir, if it is settled that we are going to have another session of the Assembly in early October?

Mr. President: We are going to have another session in October.

Pandit Govind Malaviya: When we are going to have another session so soon, could we not put all this off till then'?

Mr. President: I have found that there has been a tendency when approaching the close of this session to shove everything to the next session; till yesterday I thought we would be able to deal with all the transitory provisions, but I was informed that we could not take them and we should shove them off to the next session. Today I am told that we could not dispose of the preamble and we should shove it off. Now you propose that all the rest of the work should be shoved off. It will not be possible because.......

Pandit Govind Malaviya: Sir, I say so for this reason. Originally it was thought that this session would be a snort session say, for a fortnight. We have now gone on for seven weeks If we are going to meet early in October again, probably it will not matter very much if we put off these items till then. But, it you think that we must complete some of this work which you have mentioned, then may I suggest, Sir, that, possibly, we could have both morning and evening sessions today and tomorrow and finish by then whatever work we can, and then we may adjourn.

Many honourable Members: Yes, Yes.

Mr. President: The difficulty is this that we have got certain holidays to take into consideration. We have to take the convenience of the Legislative Assembly, which is to meet in November, and we have to pass the remaining articles of the Constitution for the Second Reading and then the whole Constitution in the Third Reading, and in between the completion of the Second Reading and the Third Reading, the Drafting Committee will naturally require some time which cannot be less than, say, three weeks or so, for putting things in order and getting them ready for the Members for the Third Reading. Therefore, all this difficulty arises because we have some sort of a time--limit on the other side and we have to fit in all these as far as possible. Therefore, I am trying to finish as much of the work as possible in this session so that in the October session we may not have more left than Is absolutely necessary. Even as it is, what is left for the October session is this. We havea Chapter with regard to the States, which we have not yet dealt with, that is to say, about the Indian States, merger and all that. So, a new Chapter or amendments to some of the articles which have been proposed in-the Draft Constitution will have to be done. That will take, I think, some little time. Then we shall have to deal with transitory provisions which have not been taken up today because I understand there is some difficulty with regard to that. There are two articles relating to minorities, articles 296 and 299 which we have left over. Then there is Schedule I that is regarding the territories. That may not be very difficult. Then, there, is Scheduled II dealing with salaries and emoluments : I do not know-it may evoke some amendments. 'That would take some time. Schedule III-B is a list of the constituencies for the Council of States. Then, there are two articles which are of a substantial nature, article 283-A relating to protection to services which has been held over and article 280-A relating to financial emergency. Apart from these, there are two more or less formal articles relating to commencement and repeal.

Shri R. K. Sidhva: These will not take more than a week or ten days.

Mr. President: I am not allotting more than ten days for these. If we start on the 10th we would go up to the 20th. Diwali begins on the 21st. The work we have to do, we must finish before the Diwali session finishes. If we have to sit for ten days, we shall have to begin about the 6th or so.

Shri R. K. Sidhva: Cannot we sit this afternoon and tomorrow and finish as much as possible?

Mr. President: I am told that there are some articles of which the draft has not yet been finalised.

Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava: We can have two sittings tomorrow.

Mr. President: Tomorrow we will have two sittings.

Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava: And one sitting on Sunday.

Mr. President: I have no objection. If honourable Members agree, I do not mind. Or we can sit on Monday. Just as you like.

Shri V. T. Krishnamachari: I suggest we sit on Sunday and finish on Sunday.

Mr. President: I have no objection. Is it the wish of the House that we sit on Sunday. Several Honourable Members: Yes.

Mr. President: We shall sit on Sunday.

Shri R. K. Sidhva: Is it a condition that all work should be finished on Sunday or we carry over the rest?

Mr, President: That condition cannot be fulfilled by me. That must be fulfilled by you. The House stands adjourned till nine of the clock tomorrow.

The Assembly then adjourned till Nine of the Clock on Saturday, the 17th September 1949.