Dated: May 30, 1949
The Constituent Assembly of India met in the Constitution Hall, New Delhi, at Eight of the Clock, Mr. President (The Honourable Dr. Rajendra Prasad) in the Chair.
INDIA ACT, 1946 (AMENDMENT) BILL
The Honourable Dr. Syama Prasad Mookerjee (West Bengal : General) : Sir, I beg to move:
"That the Bill to amend the India (Central Government of Legislature) Act, 1946, be taken into consideration by the Assembly at once."
Sir, this Bill seeks to amend the India (Central Government and Legislature) Act of 1946 which was passed by the British Parliament on the 26th March 1946. The Object of this amendment is two-fold. First, it seeks to place cotton, (including ginned and raw cotton and cotton seeds) as one of the commodities which may be centrally controlled. In the second place, it seeks to define coal beyond any doubt and to lay down that coal includes coke and other derivatives of coal.
I shall deal with the second point first. Coal has been under Central control for the last few years and also coke and other derivatives of coal. Recently there have been one or two judicial decisions which have laid down that technically, coke does not come within the definition of coal. The matter was referred to the Law Ministry and we have been advised that it will be safer to amend the Act, give it a retrospective interpretation, and provide beyond all doubt that coal includes coke and all derivatives of coal.
So far as cotton is concerned, when the Defence of India Rules were in operation cotton was a Centrally controlled commodity. Later on as the House will recall, all the powers which were vested by the Central Government and the Central Legislature under the Defence of India Rules lapsed. A special amendment of the Government of India Act was made in March 1946, which I am here now asking your permission to amend further, giving certain powers to the Government of India for a limited period to legislate, if necessary, in respect of certain commodities.
Now these commodities normally fall within the provincial sphere. They were put in the Concurrent List. In other words, if the Central Legislature thought it wise that these commodities should be controlled centrally, that could be done for a period not exceeding five years. The list of such controlled commodities as the House will recall includes eight items : foodstuffs, cotton and woollen textiles, paper, petroleum and petroleum products, spare parts of mechanically propelled vehicles, coal, iron and steel and mica. Now at one stage it was thought that raw cotton also was included within the description of cotton and woollen textiles. But later on it was pointed out that cotton and woollen textiles meant cotton textiles and woolen textiles. If it meant cotton and woollen textiles, then cotton textile would go out of the purview of such a definition : which of course would become an absurd thing. Cotton, therefore, as the law at present stands, is a commodity which can be dealt with in the provincial sphere and in that sphere alone. Last year, after textile control had been re-imposed, it was the unanimous opinion of the provinces and other parties involved that cotton also had be controlled. We had no legal power to do it. We therefore drafted a Cotton Control Order and asked the provinces to pass legislative measures in pursuance of such control order. Some provinces did so and some provinces delayed. Then the States also came into the field and it took us quite a considerable time before we could persuade all the States to adopt a similar measure. Later on when it came to giving executive directions for enforcing such control order, a lot of complications arose because the Central Government had not the legal power to pass legislation or to take executive action. The matter was referred to the Provincial Governments and the Provincial Governments now all agree that it will be desirable to put cotton as one of the centrally controlled commodities. Of course, whether cotton will continue to be controlled or not, will depend on various factors which may change from time to time.
My main object today is to ask for an amendment of this Parliamentary Act which this House alone can amend and not the Central Legislature, so that, if the Central Legislature so desires, cotton may become a controlled commodity. After this Bill has been passed into law, then another Bill will have to be passed by the Central Legislature in order to include cotton as one of the commodities in the Essential Supplies Act, which already governs the eight commodities in the Essential Supplies Act, which already governs the eight commodities I have mentioned already. This is a simple and noncontroversial measure which has not evoked any amendment from any Member of the House. I hope the motion will be accepted without discussion.
Mr. President: The question : is
"That the Bill to amend the India (Central Government and Legislature, Act 1946, he taken into consideration by the Assembly at once."
The motion was adopted.
Mr. President: There is no amendment. So I will put the clause to the vote of the House.
The question is:
"That clause 1 to 4 stand part of the Bill."
The motion was adopted.
Clause 1 to 4 were added to the Bill
Mr. President: The question is :
"That the Preamble and the Title stand part of the Bill."
The motion was adopted.
The Preamble and Title were added to the Bill.
The Honourable Dr. Syama Prasad Mookerjee : Sir, I move that the Bill, as settled by the Assembly, be passed.
Mr. President: The question is.
"That the Bill, as settled by the Assembly, be passed."
The motion was adopted.
DRAFT CONSTITUTION-(Contd.)
* Article 124
Mr. President: The House will now take up the consideration of the Draft Constitution-article 124.
There is an amendment (No. 1947) of Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad to the heading of this Chapter.
As it relates to the heading, we can pass it over.
I see that there is an amendment to add a New Part by Shri Gopal Narain No. 1973.
(The amendment was not moved.)
Now Amendment No. 25 of List I for the Third Week may be moved.
Shri T.T. Krishnamachari (Madras : General) : Mr. President, Sir, I move :
"That with reference to amendment No. 1975 of the List of Amendments, in Chapter V, for the word 'Auditor-General' wherever it occurs, (including the heading) the words "Comptroller and Auditor-General" be substituted."
The reason for this amendment is fairly simple. The function which the Draft Constitution imposes on the Auditor-General is nor merely audit but also control over the expenses of Government. Undoubtedly the term 'Auditor-General' has been all along used in the 1935 Act to include both these functions. But as it is quite possible the we might empower Parliament to enlarge the scope of the work of the Auditor-General, it was thought fit that the nomenclature of the Auditor-General, it was thought fit that the nomenclature of the Auditor-General should be such as to cover all the duties the devolve on him by virtue of the powers conferred on him by the Draft Constitution. The issue is fairly simply. It is merely a matter of a name which covers and duties now carried on by the Auditor-General and will be carried on by him in future. I hope the House will find no difficulty in accepting this amendment.
Mr. President: Then there is amendment No. 130, also of Shri T.T. Krishnamachari.
Shri T.T. Krishnamachari: There is another amendment to 1975.
Mr. President: You have given notice of amendment No. 130
Shri T.T. Krishnamachari: It is merely expanding the scope of amendment No. 1975. Either No. 1975 may be moved now or I will move my more comprehensive amendment.
Mr. President: Mr. B. Das may move amendment No. 1975.
Shri B. Das (Orissa : General): Sir, I move:
"That in clause (1) of article 124 after the word 'President' the words 'by warrant under his hand and seal' be inserted."
Sir, this amendment I have given because the Auditor-General, like the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, is to be appointed by the President and therefore it is essential that the words "by warrant under his hand and seal" should be introduced.
Mr. President: Amendment No. 130 may now be moved.
Shri T.T. Krishnamachari: Mr. President, Sir, I move :
"That with reference to amendment No. 1975 of the List of Amendments, after clause (1) of article 124, the following new clause be inserted :-
`(1-a) Every person appointed to be the Comptroller and Auditor-General of India shall, before he enters upon his office, make and subscribe before the president or some person appointed in that behalf by him an affirmation or oath according to the form set out for the purpose in the Third Schedule.'"
Sir, this is more or less consequential to the amendment moved by my honourable Friend Mr. B.Das. The Office is now being ennobled by the appointment being made by warrant under the hand and seal of the President, As actually this procedure is followed only in the case of such appointments where the officer concerned has also to take an oath, it is felt that the lacuna may be remedied by the addition of the clause now proposed.
Mr. President: Amendment No. 1976 is not moved, as the House has already disposed of the principle underlying this amendment in connection with some other appointments in the Union.
Amendment No. 1977 is disallowed as of a drafting nature.
(Amendment No. 1978 and 1979 were not moved.)
Amendment No. 1980 is covered by another amendment moved by Shri T. T. Krishnamachari.
Then there are the two amendments to clause (4). One is 25-A of List
T.T. Krishnamachari : This is now superseded by No. 131 of List II
Sir, I move:
"That for amendment No 25-A of List 1 of Amendments to Amendments, dated the 28th May 1949, the following be substituted :-
'That with reference to amendment No. 1980 of the List of Amendments, for clause (4) of article 124, the following clause be substituted :-
(4) Subject to the provisions of any law made by Parliament, the conditions of service of members of the staff of the Comptroller and Auditor-General shall be such as may be prescribed by rules made by the Comptroller and Auditor-General :
Provided that the rules made under this clause shall, so far as they relate to salaries allowances, leave or pensions, require the approval of the President.'"
Sir, this is in substitution of clause (4) of article 124 and amplifies the idea contained therein. It also provides that the Auditor-General shall not merely consult the President but shall obtain his approval in regard to the fixing of the salaries, allowances and pensions payable to or in respect of members of his staff. All these hinge on the executive discretion of the authorities concerned, as they might affect the principle of parity with the other services under the Government of India. This is non-controversial and is merely an improvement on the present draft. I hope the House will accept it. Sir, I move.
(Amendments Nos. 25-B and 1981 were not moved.)
Shri T.T. Krishnamachari: Mr. President, Sir, I move:
"That with reference to amendment No. 1981 of the List of Amendments, for clause (5) of article 124, the following clause be substituted :-
(5) The administrative expenses of the office of the Comptroller and Auditor-General, including all salaries, allowances and pensions payable to or in respect of the Comptroller and Auditor-General and members of his staff, shall be charged upon the revenues of India.'"
Sir, the principle is exactly the same as in clause (5) of article 124, and the variation merely is that it covers the administrative expenses of the
Note:- Matter is not clear. certain expenses like contingencies, traveling expenses, etc., so that it really makes the picture complete. Nothing new has been put in. Sir, I move.
(Amendment No. 1982 was not moved.)
Mr. President: Now, the original article and the amendments moved are before the House for discussion.
Shri R.K. Sidhva (C.P. & Berar : General) : Mr. President, Sir, I have got only a very few remarks to make in connection with this article and the amendments moved thereto. The Post of the Auditor-General is so very important that I will give it the first place so far as the financial provisions of this Constitution are concerned. The Auditor-General should be always independent of either the legislature of the executive. He is the watch-dog of our finance his position must be made so strong that he cannot be influences by anyone, howsoever great by may be. From that point of view I am very glad that certain amendments have been moved whereby the position of the Auditor-General has been made very strong. To that extent I welcome the amendments and also the article as duly amended. I also do not want that the Auditor-General should be responsible to the legislature, but I find that the amendment just now moved by my Friend, Mr. Krishnamachari, says:
"(5) The administrative expenses of the official of the Comptroller and Auditor-General, including all salaries, allowances and pensions payable to or in respect of the Comptroller and Auditor-General and members of his staff, shall be charged upon the revenues of India."
I take strong exception to this amendment by which the expenses of the Auditor-General and his office are made chargeable on the revenues of India. The system of charging certain things to revenue existed under the 1935 Act under extraordinary circumstances, when the Secretary of State rules this country. Now, we are ruling our country; we have done always with the British rule. As I said, the Auditor-General should be placed above the influence of anybody, but Parliament should not be deprived of its right to consider the question of his and his office's salaries and allowances. When we have a legislature responsible to the country, I fail to understand why this old system to charging certain items to revenue should continue. This would mean that the House will have no right of voting on these subjects. We shall no doubt have the right of discussing it, but this alone will not do. Under the new Constitution, we should do away with the system of charging anything to revenue. I therefore desire that this part of the article should be deleted. While as I said entirely agree that the Auditor-General should be made absolutely independent, I take very strong objection to this amendment which has been moved by Mr. Krishnamachari.
Shri B.Das : Sir, I do feel happy at the way this article 124 has been amended. I have been a member of the old Parliament for twenty-three years under the foreign rule, when the Secretary of State used to appoint the Auditor-General. Later during the war the Finance Member of the Government of India began to dictate terms to the Auditor-General. He was told that he was not to report against anything which did not agree with the whims and whimsicalities of the Finance Department. The Auditor-General was debarred from reporting any irregularities against the European officials of the time. After twenty-three years of hard suffering which some of us went through, we have thrown out the British rule. Therefore, it is necessary for the maintenance of the integrity of the Government of India and high moral principles of the integrity of the Government of India in public expenditure that the Auditor-General should be placed in the status wherein we have placed the members of the Federal Public Service Commission and also the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of India. It is a happy day that the Drafting Committee thought fit and changed the draft by these two amendments, which have been moved by my honourable Friend, Mr. T.T. Krishnamachari.
I am surprised that my honourable Friend, Mr. Sidhva, did not agree on the matter of "charged" expenditure. Mr. Sidhva perhaps had forgotten under the British rule by order of the Secretary of State more than 75 per cent, of the revenues of India were non-voted. Under the new dispensation there are certain functions of the Government which must remain "charged". Then he forgot that in the demands for Budget grants which have to be passed in the Parliament the interest on borrowed money is a charged expenditure. There are certain other items which are charged. The expenditure of the Governor-General now and later, of the President, is charged to Governor-General's extravagance or the extravagance of the Auditor-General or the Supreme Court. We have already placed on the charged list especially the Supreme Court. Why should we fight shy in placing the Auditor-General on the charged list, so that he knows the supply sanctioned by Parliament? the amendment which my honourable Friend, Mr. T.T. Krishnamachari has moved says:-
"Provided that the rules made under this clause shall, so fare as they relate to salaries, allowances, leave or pensions, require the approval of the President".
Our chosen Cabinet elected by the very Parliament is there. Then the President who functions as the mouth-piece of the Cabinet will see.................
Shri R. K. Sidhva: Then make everything chargeable.
Shri B.Das : You will have to accept the "charged expenditure". There are other items which should not be interfered with by Ministries, because every Ministry today always exceeds its sanctioned expenditure and resists any Budget control and any financial control. Surely, my honourable Friend, Mr. Sidhva knows that 118 crores worth of supplementary estimated came on the 31st of March 1949 for sanction by Parliament. So, if the Auditor-General and he staff are not placed at a certain high level, it will be very difficult for them to discharge the responsibility that the Constitution Act impose on the Auditor-General or, similarly on the Federal Public Service Commission or on the Supreme Court Judges. Therefore, certain items of expenditure should remain "charged", as also the interest charges, so that the executive need not interfere. Of course, Parliament can interfere by raising debates and discussions and nobody will deny that right to my honourable Friend Mr. Sidhva. I have great pleasure in supporting the amended article 124.
Shri Biswanath Das (Orissa General) : Sir, the amendment proposed by my honourable Friend, Mr. T.T. Krishnamachari represent the compromise between two opposite points of view. Before I proceed to justify the amendment moved by my honourable Friend, it is better that I place before honourable Members a picture of the activities of the Auditor-General and the Controller.
It would be wrong to say that any power, prestige or responsibility of the Legislature has been limited or restricted by the proposals brought forth by the amendment proposed by my honourable Friend. We have to realize that it is the Legislature that is competent to pass laws. The interpretation of law is being left to the judiciary. Sir, it is the Assembly that sanctions money to be spent by the executive and the executive is the proper authority to spend monies as are sanctioned by the Legislature. Who is the authority that is to audit whether the money sanctioned by the Legislature has been spent properly? To discharge this onerous responsibility, a new authority has been created under the law by the Legislature and that authority is no other than the Auditor-General. Having thus defined the functions of the executive and the Auditor-General in a definite and specified manner, the question arises as to how is the Auditor-General to function. Sir, I will just now refer to amendment 25-A to article 124 which has been moved just a few minutes ago, which lays down that all appointments to the staff of the Comptroller and Auditor-General shall be made by him or such person as he may direct. This gives power to the Auditor-General to re-appoint the existing staff. Then we come to (4a) which give him power to appoint additional staff that may be required for the purpose. Regarding this, I am again invite the attention of honourable Members to the proviso which specifically restricts the powers of the Auditor-General even by the Head of the executive, namely the President of Indian Republic. I will read it for the benefit of the Members of the House.
"Provided that the rules made under this clause shall so far as they relate to salaries, allowances, leave or pensions, require the approval of the President."
Even, I for myself would have desired to wipe of this proviso because it mars the independent action, and independence to the extent of the Auditor-General by putting him in a position where he has to depend on the executive for getting approved to rules that relate to salaries, allowances or leave. To this extend the Auditor-General, instead of being independent of the executive, is made dependent on the executive. Therefore, my honourable Friend, Mr. Sidhva will please see that the amendment proposed by Mr. T.T. Krishnamachari represent merely a compromise. You have reserved to yourself the approval of the President, the Head of the executive, which means approval of the Cabinet, and which means the authority of the Cabinet, and which means the authority of the Legislature behind the Cabinet to the rules framed regarding salaries, allowances, leave or pensions Therefore, nothing more is called for. The proposed charged amount is some thing different, absolutely different from that which has been provided under the Government of India Act of 1935. The British Parliament have made provisions anticipating that there may be conflict between the legislatures, and the executive with the Governor-General, but here there is absolutely no conflict contemplated. I will again invite the attention of honourable Members to article 125 which reads : "The Auditor-General shall perform such duties and exercise such powers in relation to the accounts to the Government of India and of the Government of any State as are or may be prescribed by or under any law made by Parliament." On the other hand it will be seen that the Auditor-General and Comptroller is absolutely left to the mercy of the legislature Provision for a charged amount has been made only to avoid a clash and deadlock in future in the operation of the responsibilities of the Central Executive and the Auditor-General. Therefore, the provision is a sane one, is a necessary one, is a very desirable one and represent not one view, but merely a compromise view of the two conflicting sets of views.
With these words, I support Mr. Krishnamachari's amendments.
Mr. President: I do not think further comment is necessary on this.
The Honourable Dr. B.R. Ambedkar :(Bombay : General) : Mr. President, I cannot say that I am very happy about the position which the Draft Constitution, including the amendments which have been moved to the articles relating to the Auditor-General in this House, assigns to him. Personally speaking for myself, I am of opinion the this dignitary of officer is probably the most important officer in the Constitution of India. He is the one man who is going to see that the expenses voted by Parliament are not exceeded, or varied from what has been laid down by Parliament in what is called the Appropriation Act. If this functionary is to carry out the cuties-and his duties, I submit, are far more important than the duties even of the judiciary appointment of officers and servants of the Supreme Court. I see both from the -he should have been certainly as independent as the Judiciary. But, comparing the articles about the Supreme Court and the articles relating to the Auditor-General, I cannot help saying that we have not giving him the same independence which we have given to the Judiciary, although I personally, feel that he ought to have far greater independence than the Judiciary itself.
One difference, if I may point out, between the position which we have assigned to the Judiciary and which we propose to assign to the Auditor-General is this. It is only during the course of the last week that I moved an amendment to the original article 122 vesting in the Supreme Court the power of original draft as well as from the amendments that are moved that the Auditor-General is not to have any such power. The absence of such a power means that the staff of the Auditor-General shall be appointed by the Executive. Being appointed by the Executive, the Staff shall be subject to the Executive for disciplinary action. I have not the slightest doubt in my mind that if an officer does not possess the power of disciplinary control over his immediate subordinates, his administration is going to be thoroughly demoralised. From the point of view, I should have thought that it would have been proper in the interest of the people that such a power should have been give to the Auditor-General. But, sentiment seems to be opposed to investing the Auditor-General with such a power. For the moment, I feel that nothing more can be done than to remain content with the sentiment such as it is today. This is my general view.
Coming to the amendments, I accept the amendments moved by Mr. T.T. Krishnamachari and one amendment moved by Mr. B. Das, No. 1975. These amendments certainly to a large extent improve the position of the Auditor-General which has been assigned to him in the Draft Constitution or in the various amendments. But, I find that even with the article as amended by these amendments. Mr. Sidhwa seems to have a complaint. If I understood him properly, his complaint was that the expenses of the Auditor-General should not be made a charge on the Consolidated Fund, but that they should be treated as ordinary supplies and services which should be voted upon by Parliament. His position was that there is no good reason why Parliament should be deprived of its right to discuss the charges and the administrative expenses of the Auditor-General. I think my honourable Friend Mr. Sidhva has completely misunderstood what is meant by charging certain expenses on the revenues of India. If my honourable Friend Mr. Sidhva will turn to article 93, which deals with this matter, he will find that although certain expenses may be charged upon the revenues of India the mere fact that that has been done does not deprive Parliament of the right to discuss those charges. The right to discuss is there. The only thing is that the right to vote is not given. It is a non-votable item. The reason why it is made non-votable is a very good reason because just as we do not want the Executive to interfere too much in the necessities as determined by the Auditor-General with regard to his own requirements, we do not want a lot of legislators who might have been discontented or some reason or other or because they may have some kind of a fad for economy, to interfere with the good and efficient administration of the Auditor-General. That is why this provision has been made. My Friend Mr. Sidhva will also realise that this provision is not in any way extraordinary. It is really on a par with the provision we have made with regard to the Supreme Court. I therefore think that there is no good ground for accepting the criticism that has been made by Mr. Sidhva on this point.
Sir, I move that the article as amended be adopted. I accept the amendments Nos. 25 in List I, 1975 of Mr. Das, 130 of Mr. T.T. Krishnamachari, 131 of Mr. T.T. Krishnamachari and 25-C of List I also by Mr. Krishnamachari.
Mr. President: I will now put the amendment to vote.
The question is :
"That with reference to amendment No. 1975 of the List of Amendment, in Chapter V, of Part V for the word 'Auditor-General' wherever it occurs, (including the heading) the words 'Comptroller and Auditor-General' be substituted."
The amendment was adopted.
Mr. President: The question is :
"That in clause (1) of article 124 after the word 'President' the words 'by warrant under his hand and seal' be inserted."
The amendment was adopted.
Mr. President: The question is:
"That with reference to amendment No. 1975 of the List of Amendments, after clause (1) of article 124, the following new clause be inserted :-
`(1a) Every person appointed to be the Comptroller and Auditor-General of India shall, before he enters upon his office, make and subscribe before the President or some person appointed in that behalf by him an affirmation or oath according to the form set out for the purpose in the Third Schedule.'"
The amendment was adopted.
Mr. President: The question is :
"That for amendment No. 25-A of List-I (Third Week) of Amendments to Amendments, dated the 28th May 1949, the following be substituted:-
"That with reference to amendment No. 1980 of the List of Amendments, for clause (4) of article 124, the following clause be substituted:-
`(4) Subject to the provisions of any law made by Parliament, the conditions of service of members of the staff of the Comptroller and Auditor-General shall be such as may be prescribed by rules made by the Comptroller and Auditor-General:
Provided that the rules made under this clause shall, so far as they relate to salaries, allowances, leave or pensions, require the approval of the President.'"
The amendment was adopted.
Mr. President: The question is :
"That with reference to amendment No. 1981 of the List of Amendments, for clause (5) of article 124, the following clause be substituted :-
`(5) The administrative expenses of the office of the Comptroller and Auditor-General, including all salaries, allowances and pensions payable to or in respect or the Comptroller and Auditor-General and members of his staff, shall be charged upon the revenues of India.'"
The amendment was adopted.
Mr. President: The question is:
"That article 124, as amended, stand part of the Constitution.
The motion was adopted.
Article 124, as amended, was added, to the Constitution.
*New Article 124-A
Mr. President: Article 124-A notice of which has been given by Professor Shah.
Prof. K.T. Shah (Bihar : General) : Sir, I beg to move :
"That the following new article be added :-
`124-A. The Auditor-General shall be appointed from among persons qualified as Register Accountants or holding any other equivalent qualifications recognised as such, and having not less than ten years' practice as such Auditors.'"
Sir, this is very important because the practice has been all along, ever since the Finance Department has been Department has been organised, to have the Auditor-General appointed from the members of the Civil Service. The members of the Civil Service have a particular type of education, and develop a particular outlook which does not necessarily have specific reference to the duties and functions of an Auditor-General. If we wish the duties of the Auditor-General to be carried out with efficiency and completeness that is necessary for the proper audit of our accounts, I think it is important to lay down qualifications which will provide for practical experience and technical knowledge in the person appointed as Auditor-General. The system of Government accounting is on the basis of actual cash receipts and disbursements closing on a giving date but in view of the large commercial undertakings that the State is beginning to be committed to and in view also of the variety of dealings that the State has to enter with businessmen, contractors and so on, I think it is important that the audit of accounts should be by those who are familiar with the business practices and as such are able to give efficient service. I have laid down qualification of a Registered Accountant as the minimum, though actually according to the latest legislation these will be described as Charted Accountants having certain years' practice. The important point however is that they must have technical qualifications and also practical experience of auditing accounts. The promotion from service of transfer from the ordinary public service, whether called Indian Administrative of Indian Civil Service is I think, not suitable for purposes of this highly specialised appointment. Just as in regard to the judicial appointments we have required special training and experience and not mere membership of the service, so here too I suggest that it would be important if we lay down in the Constitution certain qualifications requiring the necessary technical training and practical qualifications. The actual amendment is in this respect a modes tone requiring not more than ten years' practical experience but in practice the appointment, if the amendment is accepted, would be from amongst top men. The income from practice of such men is under present conditions very high, perhaps far higher than the State would be able to pay but at the same time the status, dignity, respect and importance that would necessarily be attached to such office would make it attractive even to men of that eminence, just as judicial office is also attracting the legal practitioners with the highest income. I accordingly commend this motion to the House.
Mr. President: Does anyone wish to say anything?
Shri T.T. Krishnamachari: Mr. President, Sir, I must say that Professor Shah's amendment is an original one and quite in conformity with ideas prevalent in the commercial world but I am afraid it is out of tune completely with existing practice in the matter of the appointment of the Auditor-General in this country and elsewhere. Actually the man who is an Auditor-General is not an accountant per se. He has a number of other duties to perform and in so functioning he has got to have a knowledge of the entire administration and I think the present method of appointment of Auditors-General in India is perhaps the best. We had some very good Auditors-General who were administrators and who had been in the Finance Department and who have functioned as Accountants-General in various places and who had held other important responsible positions, so that it is not merely a question of arithmetic or accounting knowledge that is necessary but a comprehensive knowledge of the entire administration. From that point of view I think the House will readily concede that the view taken by Professor Shah, however plausible, is extremely narrow. A person who has got the qualification of only Registered Accountant and nothing else, which will probably be the case if you rule our administrative experience, will not suit as an Auditor-General. Having some experience of Registered Accountants myself I do not think it is a type of work that is impossible for anybody else who has got a comprehensive knowledge of administration and accounting to get to know. All the knowledge of a Registered Accountant is certainly known to a person who holds the position of an Auditor-General in the Government of India or Accountant-General and I see no reason why I should support Mr. Shah's view and ask the House to accept his amendment which if anything will upset the arrangement that now exists and will make it very difficult for the future Government to choose an appropriate person to function as Auditor-General. Sir, I oppose the amendment.
Shri Lakshmi Narain Sahu (Orissa : General) : * [Mr. President, I support the amendment moved by Prof. K. T. Shah on this ground that if a man working as an Auditor-General does not know the work of auditing how can be appointed as an Auditor-General does not know the work of auditing how can he be appointed as an Auditor-General. We have passed the Charted Accountants Bill. According to it, only that man shall be a registered Accountant who has carried out audit work for at least ten years, otherwise not. And those who have been doing the Government audit work for ten years or more (sie) will perhaps be left out; but those who are G.D.A.'s will have to work for one year to work for one year to become registered accountant. We have placed so many limitations over them only with a view that our audit work may be carried out efficiently. Hence the man, who would be our topmost auditor, must have some degree and standard of auditing. I cannot understand how he can be appointed if he does not possess any degree. I, therefore, support the amendment of Prof. K.T. Shah and feel that it should be accepted.]
Mr. President: I do not think there is anybody else wishing to speak on the motion. I shall now put it to vote.
The question is:
"That the following new article be added :-
'124-A. The Auditor General shall be appointed from among person qualified as Registered Accountants or holding any other equivalent qualifications recognised as such and having not less than tea years' practice as such Auditors.'"
The amendment was negatived.
*Article 125
Mr. President: Then we come to article 125, to which there is amendment No, 1984, standing in the name of Pandit Hirday Nath Kunzru.
Pandit Hirday Nath Kunzru (United Provinces : General) : Mr. President, I ask for your permission to omit all reference to local authorities in my amendment. If you permit me to do so, my amendment will read as follows:-
"That in article 125, for the words 'and of the Government of any State', the words 'the Government of any State or any other authority' be substituted."
"That in article 125, for the words 'and of the Government of any State', the words 'the Government of any State or any other authority' be substituted."
The object of my amendment is to provide that Parliament should have the power to confer additional duties on the Comptroller and Auditor-General. We are creating corporations now, and we have already created the Damodar Valley Corporation. We shall, doubtless, create more such corporations in future. So far as I remember, the Damodar Valley Corporation Act, while it allows the
*[] Translation of Hindustani speech.
Corporation to get its accounts audited by auditors appointed by it, also permits Government to impose any duties on the Auditor-General in that connection that it likes. I want, Sir, that this position should be maintained, particularly as the number of such corporations is going to increase. The Indian Railway Enquiry Committee have recommended the establishment of a Railway Authority for the management of the Railway. If it comes into existence, this Authority will control property worth six or seven hundred crores, and expenditure running into about two hundred crores. Since all the property under the autonomous corporations will belong to the Government, it is necessary that Parliament should have the power, should it so desire, to assure itself of the soundness of the financial position of the authorities created by it, by asking the Auditor-General to perform such duties in connection with the examination of their accountants, as it thinks proper. IT may not be necessary for Parliament to do so. But it should have the power to direct the Auditor-General to examine the accounts of the corporations created by it. The State has invested, or will invest crores upon crores of rupees in these corporations. Now, this does not mean any distrust of these corporations. I do not wish to cast any reflection on the honesty of the members of these corporations or the auditors appointed by them; but as a general principle, I want that the power of the Auditor-General should be capable of expansion so that Parliament may have an independent authority at its disposal in order to satisfy itself of the soundness of the management of the authorities created by it.
I hope, Sir, that this amendment, which is in accordance with what has been done already in connection with the Damodar Valley Corporation Act, will be accepted by the House.
(Amendments No. 25-D And No. 1985 were not moved.)
Mr. President: Amendment No. 1986, by Dr. Ambedkar.
The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Mr. President, Sir, I move :
"That for the Explanation to article 125, the following Explanation be substituted :-
`Explanation.-In this article, the expression `law made by Parliament' includes any law, ordinance, order, bye-law, rule or regulation' passed or made before the commencement of this Constitution and for the time being in force in the territory of India.'"
The House probably will remember that the functions of the Auditor-General are regulated not by law made by Parliament, but by Ordinance, order, bye-law, rule or regulation, etc., made by the Government-General, under the powers conferred upon him by the Government of India Act, 1935. Consequently, in order to keep alive the ordinances, orders, by-laws, rules and regulations made by the Governor-General, it is necessary to amplify the explanation so as to include these orders also.
Shri R.K. Sidhva: Mr. President, Sir, this article related to the duties and powers which will be prescribed by Parliament for the Auditor-General. Now, Sir, we have just passed an article conferring independent powers, to a great extent, on the Auditor-General. Now, this article leaves it to Parliament to make laws in connection with many other matters. While I welcome the independence of the Auditor-General-and I entirely agree with what Dr. 'Ambedkar said, and I give him credit for adding the word "Comptroller" to the Auditor-General, so that he may have all the powers as far as audits are concerned,-I fail to understand why for certain other important powers, Parliament has been asked to make laws. To give one illustration. At present, the Auditor-General has no right to pass a bill beyond the Budget grant. There is a law to that effect made by the Executive. Despite that, if a Ministry exceeds the budget grant and the Auditor-General brings it to the notice of the Minister concerned, the latter asks the Auditor-General to pass the bill, because the Minister believes that he enjoys the confidence of the House and if the item is brought as a supplementary grant before the Assembly it would be granted. At present despite the rule the Auditor-General is helpless. He simply puts the rubber stamp of audit objection and at the instance of the Minister concerned passes the bill. So the object of the rule made by the executive is frustrated by the Auditor-General over-riding the rule, because he also feels that the Minister enjoys the confidence of the House and therefore he feels why should he object to the item. Sir, if the Minister feels that because he enjoys the confidence of the House he could make the Auditor-General pass the bill, it would be a mockery of democracy. It will not be a government of the people, for the people and by the people. Because the minister enjoys the confidence of the people it does not mean that he should flout the decision of Parliament. That is a very important point and I want it to be put into the Constitution that the Auditor-General shall not pass any amount which is beyond the budget grant. As I said the other day, from my experience, 130 crores of rupees, not a small amount, was passed as a supplementary grant on the 31st day of March and the House passed it helplessly; though every Member was opposed to it, they did not want to embarrass the Ministry. If such a provision was in the Constitution nobody would have dared, nor the Auditor-General, nor the Minister, nor the House to flout the Constitution Laws may be flouted, rules or regulations may be flouted but the Constitution cannot be flouted. I therefore expect my Friend Dr. Ambedkar to consider the matter and give the Auditor-General the fullest power and not allow anybody to interfere with him. If you allow 130 crores to be passed on the ground of emergency (Rs. 130 crores is one third of the total amount of the budget). it would be very regrettable and undesirable.
I entirely agree with the amendment of my Friend Mr. Kunzru. I would go further and state not only local authorities but local bodies should also be included. From my experience of twenty-seven years I can state that the control over the accounts of local bodies is absolutely a failure. If any local body wants the assistance of the Auditor-General and his staff, it should be allowed. The local bodies are in a rotten state. and the loan of a staff by the Auditor-General, would improve matters.
With these words I hope that Dr. Ambedkar will consider the first point I have suggested.
Dr. P.S. Deshmukh (C.P. & Berar : General) : Sir, the amendment move by Mr. Kunzru wants to provide for the Auditor-General's powers to cover not only the accounts of the Governments but also of several independent corporations and other bodies. So far as the article is concerned there is a provision by way of an explanation which makes it possible for the parliament to give authority to the Auditor-General over any particular organisation or body and make suitable provisions in the laws of Parliament promulgated from time to time. The Explanation has now been amended by an amendment proposed by Dr. Ambedkar and by this amended explanation not only any existing laws but also ordinances, bye-laws, rules and regulations passed before the commencement and for the time being in force are included.
Besides this we have the following words "as are or may prescribed by or under any law made by Parliament", and they occur in the main body of the article. In view of this I do not think the amendment that has been proposed is necessary. After all the purpose is that not only the Government's accounts but the accounts of all these important bodies that will come into being from time to time shall be under proper audit and that aim will be fulfilled by the
Note:- Matter is not readable. be up to the Parliament to see whether the authority of the Auditor-General is necessary and to make adequate provision for the same. Therefore it is not necessary to include in this article local bodies and all other miscellaneous corporations and organisations. I therefore submit that since the article has adequate provision for this purpose there is no need to accept the amendment moved by Pandit Kunzru.
Mr. Friend Mr. Sidhva drew the attention of the House of the importance of the office of the Auditor-General and wanted a provision that at any times the Auditor-General shall not permit any expenditure over and above budget provisions. I think that provision is also unnecessary. We have had the experience of last year when the budget estimates were not respected to the extent they should be. That was however an exceptional happening and I do not think any democratic parliament will permit its recurrence. In any case the rule that no government or organisation or executive shall exceed the amount of expenditure provided in the budget is a well-understood one and it is not necessary to make provision regarding it in the Constitution. It is a most fundamental rule that the budget provision shall be respected and no expenditure in excess of the budget provision shall be made. I do not think it is necessary to include it in the Constitution. If at any time this salutary and fundamental principle is disregarded or violated by the executive the Parliament should be alert enough to punish it adequately.
The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Sir, with regard to the amendment of my friend Mr. Kunzru I am prepared to accept it provided he is prepared to drop the words "or any local"........
Pandit Hirday Nath Kunzru: I have dropped them.
The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Because local audit is a matter which is within the control of the Provincial Governments. But the addition of the words "other authority" I think may be necessary or even useful. As he has himself said the policy of the Government of India today is to create a great many corporations to manage undertakings which it is not possible to manage departmentally and consequently it is necessary that the Government of India should make some provision for the audit of these corporations. That being so I think it is desirable to vest the Central Government with power to allow the Auditor-General to audit even the account of all such authorities. Subject to the modification I have suggested I am prepared to accept the amendment.
With regard to the point made by my Friend Mr. Sidhva the many of these rules with regard to the duties of the Auditor-General are made by the executive and therefore, since by the amendment which I have suggested we are continuing to give these powers the same operation which they had before, we are practically investing the Executive with the authority to prescribe the duties of the Auditor-General. Obviously, there is an incongruity in the position, in that an officer who is supposed to control the Executive Government with regard to the administration of the finance should have his duties prescribed by rules laid by the Executive. Now, the only reply that I can give to my honourable Friend, Mr. Sidhva, is this that these provisions have been taken bodily to a large extent from the provisions contained in section 151 of the present Government of India Act, 1935, which deal with the custody of public money, and section 166 which deals with the rules made by the Governor-General with regard to the duties of the Auditor-General. Under the scheme of the Act the rules were required to be made by the Governor-General in the exercise of what is called his individual judgment, that is to say, he would not be required to take the advice of his Ministry in making these rules. To that extent the rules made by the Governor-General prescribing the duties of the Auditor-General would undoubtedly be independent of the Executive. Today we are not vesting the President with any such power of independent judgment so that if any modification in these rules were to be made by the President he would undoubtedly be acting no the advice of the Ministry of the day, that is to say, the Executive. I admit that to that extent there is a certain amount of anomaly, but I do hope that my honourable Friend, Mr. Sidhva, who, I hope, will continue to function as a Member when the new Parliament is constituted, will take on himself the earliest opportunity of urging Parliament to change the position and to convert the rules into laws made by Parliament.
Mr. President: The question is :
"That in article 125, for the words 'and of the Government of any State', the words 'the Government of any State', the words 'the Government of any State or any other authority' be substituted."
The amendment was adopted.
Mr. President: The question is :
"That for the Explanation to article 125, the following Explanation be substituted :-
'Explanation.-In this article, the expression 'law made by Parliament' includes any law, ordinance, order, by-law, rule or regulation passed or made before the commencement of this Constitution and for the time being in force in the territory of India.'"
The amendment was adopted.
Mr. President: The question is :
"That article 125, as amended, stand part of the Constitution."
The motion was adopted.
Article 125, as amended, was added to the Constitution.
* Article 126
Mr. President: Article 126.
(Amendment No. 1987 was not moved.)
Mr. President: The question is:
"That article 126 stand part of the Constitution."
The motion was adopted.
Article 126 was added to the Constitution.
* Article 127
Mr. President: Article 127.
The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Sir, I move :
"That in article 127, for the word 'Parliament' the words 'each House of Parliament' be substituted."
It is only a formal amendment.
Mr. President: The question is :
"That in article 127, for the word 'Parliament' the words 'each House of Parliament' be substituted."
The amendment was adopted.
Mr. President: The question is :
"That article 127, as amended, stand part of the Constitution."
The motion was adopted.
Article 127, as amended, was added to the Constitution.
* New Article 127-A
Mr. President: Then there is notice of an amendment for adding a new article, article 127-A-that is amendment No. 1989 by Professor Shah.
Prof K. T. Shah : Sir, the principle of this having been rejected by the House earlier, I do not want to move it.
* Article 128
Mr. President: Article 128.
Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad has given notice of an amendment regarding the heading of the Chapter; that we shall leave out now.
Amendment No. 1991 is a negative one and cannot be moved.
1992 is of a drafting nature, I think.
Shri T. T. Krishnamachari: Sir, the word "State" has been current right through; so the amendment need not be accepted.
(Amendment Nos. 1993 and 1994 were not moved.)
Mr. President: So, there is no amendment to article 128.
The question is:
"That article 128 stand part of the Constitution."
The motion was adopted.
Article 128 was added to the Constitution.
*Article 129
Mr. President: There are a number of amendments. To begin with, there is an amendment by Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad relating to the heading of the Chapter. We shall leave it over.
(Amendments Nos. 1996 and 1997 were not moved.)
Shri Lakshmi Narain Sahu : *[Mr. President, I move:
"that the following be added at the end of article 129:-
of whom there shall be a least one from each of the States of Part I of the First Schedules.'"
*[] Translation of Hindustani speech.
I mean to say that there should be one Governor from each of the States. It means that, in all the provinces constituted by us, each should have one of its men as Governor. Unless it is done the self-respect of each and every province could not be maintained. Therefore, I would like to introduce that every province should have at least one man as Governor. If the election is held it will take place there, otherwise he would be selected out of the panel. If he is not appointed as a Governor in his own province he can be appointed as such in some other province.
I come from Orissa and I find that in the present Central administration we have no representation, in the service. All provinces are there in foreign service, but we have no share in it as yet. This makes us limited to such an extent that our province cannot make any progress. I, therefore, want that sufficient attention should be paid to this.
Shri R. K. Sidhva: May I know whether the Mover wants that the Governor should be from that very province?
Mr. President: I understand what he means is this. There shall be one Governor from each State, though he may be posted to another province.
The next amendment stands in the name of Pandit Lakshmi Kanta Maitra. He is not moving it. So only one amendment has been moved to this article.
Shri Brajeshwar Prasad (Bihar: General): Mr. President, I do not know how far it will be permissible for me to express the views I hold dear to my heart. I feel that there is no necessity for a Governor in any province of India. The Commissioner of a Division may be brought under the administrative superintendence, direction and control of the Centre. Vest more powers in the hands of the Divisional Commissioners. I feel that the existence of a legislature, a Ministry, and a Governor is harmful in the interest of all the provinces.
Sir, nobody knows more than you, how Provisional administrations are being run these days. I understand that what I am saying runs counter to the accepted principles of provincial autonomy, federalism and democracy. I plead for a change of attitude. When we accepted provincial autonomy, we were under British rule. We then raised the slogan in order to oust British Power from India. We knew well that the British people were not prepared to give any concession or power at the Centre. The provinces were the weakest link in the chain. Even there they did not vest full autonomy. They had reserved powers in their own hands. Now the times have changed. Provincial autonomy means distrust of the Centre. This distrust was justified at that time because at the Centre there was foreign rule. Now we have got freedom. How is it possible or desirable or necessary now to vest powers in the hands of the Provinces and appoint a Governor who has got practically no power? He is a mere puppet. If so, why should we have these Governors?
One thing more, Sir, before I conclude. Now it is well recognised that the doctrine of separation of power has been exploded. This doctrine has got not only relevance to the question of separation of judiciary from the legislature and the executive, it has got a vital bearing upon the whole question of federalism. It means separation of powers. If the doctrine of separation of powers has been exploded, then the whole federal structure crashes, crumbles and goes down. I feel that by not hurrying through the Constitution since 1946, we have stood to gain. Now it has been stated that we must hurry up, because we have taken too much time. By taking too much time in passing the Constitution, we have managed to do certain thing which we would have been unable to do if we had passed the Constitution in 1946 or 1947. Firstly, the States have been integrated. This would not have been possible if we had passed the Constitution in 1947. Such Constitutional changes it is not easy to make.
The Constituent Assembly has the power to change or make any new law, Sardar Patel has been able to integrate the Indian States, from new States, dissolve certain units and merge the State with different provinces. Secondly, if we had passed the Constitution in 1947, the provision for the reservation of seats for the different minorities in India would have been incorporated in it. By waiting, we have achieved what in 1947 appeared to be impossible.
Sir, I feel that the whole Chapter, Part VI of the Constitution should not be hurried through. We are quite content with the present Government of India Act. We have got the power to amend it to suit our changing needs and conditions. Today within five minutes the Honourable Dr. Mookerjee was able to get a Bill passed here. If it had been in a different House, it would have probably taken a few hours to pass it. I do not see any reason why we are in such a great hurry to pass the Constitution. Probably we look more to international opinion and to the opinion of our Anglo-American friends, to the opinion of the capitalist press and to the opinion of those who have no sympathy with our national aspirations and hopes. I hope more emphasis is laid upon the existing conditions in India. What is today required is that there should be rapid i improvement in the economic condition of the poor people and in the removal of illiteracy. Instead of doing these things we are trying to impose a new Constitution on the people and waste public money on elections. I, Sir, oppose article 129.
Dr. P. S. Deshmukh: Sir, I rise to support the point of view just placed before the House by my honourable Friend. It is known to many Members of the House that it was with this intention that I had given notice of a resolution. In that resolution I wanted that the basis of our Constitution should be altered from semi-unionistic and semi-federalistic to a proper unitary system. It was with that end in view that I had given notice of a resolution by which I wanted that the present condition of world politics made it imperative that India should be a well-knit, homogeneous and powerful nation so that she may play a prominent and decisive part for the maintenance of world peace. I then in my resolution stated the various causes that led me to that conclusion. Some people will say : 'Why was this not pressed when we were drafting the Constitution? Fortunately or unfortunately the present administration has made apparent the pitfalls and the dangers of the present basis of the Constitution far more than anybody could have or did anticipate or imagine. Actual experience has shown that the present Constitution has many dangers ahead and I think it will be for the good of India if we could avoid those dangers and take a somewhat revolutionary decision to do away with the present basis of the Constitution. And where was the present basis of the Constitution laid? It was not laid in Delhi. It was not laid anywhere in India. It was laid in Britain and it was intended to meet a far different situation than the one with which we are faced at the present day. The draft Constitution is a mere reproduction of the Government of India Act of 1935. The ever-increasing demands of Mr. Jinnah, separate electorates, reservations & weight ages, the existence of tiny little States spread over the whole length breadth of India, that was the problem that we were trying to meet and to solve by meeting several times in London in Round Table Conferences and it was for meeting the political exigencies of that situation in India that the framework of the Constitution which we are trying to copy at present was really shaped and hammered. I think that this Constitution and the principles underlying it are entirely foreign to the genius of our people and I have been all along urging that we must search our hearts and find out a political solution for the administration of our country in a way which will be more suited to the genius of people of this country. We do not now have the abstacle of the States in our way. We do not have the intransigence of the Muslim League in our way. Under these circumstances why should we do not take the only logical step and decide upon a unitary type of constitution by which we will have the fullest co-operation of our people, by which we will be able to harness the energies and intelligence of the Indian people as a whole and by which we will be able to build the Indian nation far more quicker and at the expense of much less energy than would be the case if we retain the fundamental of this Constitution?
The main point, Sir, which I have urged in this Resolution is the apparent instability of the Ministries in the States, Unions and in the provinces. We read everyday in the papers, almost every morning, of some conflict or other between the various provinces and of lack of co-operation with the Centre. We have had the instance of the Agricultural Minister complaining bitterly, when we are meeting as the Legislative Assembly, that he was not receiving the co-operation of the provinces in regard to the rehabilitation of the refugees. There are also questions about the systems and methods of provincial taxation. Only this morning's paper told us about the incidence of the sales tax imposed by the various provinces. I am told on reliable authority that whatever article comes to the C.P. is charged sales tax in the province of Bombay because it has necessarily to go through that province, and the same article is again charged with a sales tax in the C.P. also. Apart from this, Sir, there are many financial issues over which we will talk for days and days before we can come to any decision. We get proposals from the provinces which are diametrically opposed one to the other. There is perpetual demands for greater subsidies from the Centre.
Then there is the question of linguistic provinces. We know that the whole country at the present time is agitated over this issue. We have had one or two Committees appointed to go into the question but unfortunately instead of making an improvement in the situation, the situation is worsening to be sorrow of many thinking people. Now, so long as we want provinces to be maintained, we cannot but grant linguistic provinces. We might with difficulty, after using all the influence that our leaders command, be able to stave off or postpone this issue of linguistic provinces for a short time but certainly and surely linguistic provinces will be there and even if my Friend, Mr. Munshi, does not want Bombay to be included in Samyukta Maharashtra, he will never be able to prevent it. So, my solution for all these difficulties,0and the greatest difficulty of them the demand for the creation of linguistic provinces over which people's minds are exercised to such an alarming extend,-is to take away the autonomy of the provinces. When once you do this, all quarrels and jealousies will disappear. The quarrels are there and the jealousies are there only because the provinces are there. When there is only one government at the Centre, there is only one legislature, one Ministry and one law, all these quarrels and jealousies will disappear and it would also be possible then do harmonise all these demands and claims in such a way that no difficulties will remain. So from all these points of view, I would very much request the honourable Members of this House to search their hearts and see if the unitary system is not the only logical, suitable and practicable system of government for this country. After all, federalism is consistent only with the desire of the people to have union and not unity. But in India everybody desires unity, not only union. That being the general feeling of people, I do not think it will be wise on our part to brush aside my resolution by saying that it is too late to adopt any fundamental change in our Constitution. When once the principle is accepted, the whole Constitution will become very simple. The whole Constitution can be hammered out with complete satisfaction to all within about two or three weeks. Even if we are not able to do so, there will not be any difficulty because so long as the unitary system is there, you will have all the subject with the Centre and there will not be any necessity for discussing what should be concurrent, what should be provincial and what should be Central. I want all honourable Members to think seriously and say whether this is not for the good of India, for India emerging as a strong nation and not having to go through all the dangers and ultimately coming to the same thing. If we do not accept this proposal now, it will come fifteen years hence I have not a shadow of doubt about it. Then it will be rather too late. By that time there will be so much time lost; so many quarrels, enmities and antagonisms may arise in the whole of India that although you will come back to the unitary system but it will be too late. All these fruitless sacrifices and tribulations, will all be saved if you adopt the system now. Therefore I would urge all honourable Members of this House to give more thought to this proposal and see if it is not possible for them to accept it. It is not too late to mend even today.