Constituent Assembly Of India - Volume VII
Dated: November 04, 1948
The Constituent Assembly of India met in the Constitution Hall, New Delhi, at Eleven of the clock, Mr.President (The Honourable Dr. Rajendra Prasad) in the Chair.
PRESENTATION OF CREDENTIALS AND SIGNING THE REGISTER.
The following Members presented their credentials and signed the Register:
TAKING - THE PLEDGE
The following Member, took the pledge. Shri Syamanandan Sahaya.
HOMAGE TO THE FATHER OF THE NATION
Mr. President: Honourable Members, before we take up the items on the Order Paper, I bid you to rise in your places to pay our tribute of homage and reverence to the Father of the Nation who breathed life into our dead flesh and bones, who lifted us out of darkness of despondency and despair to the light and sunshine of hope and achievement and who led us from slavery to freedom. May his spirit continue to guide us. May his life and teaching be the torchlight to take us further on to our goal.
(All the Members stood up in silence.)
CONDOLENCE ON THE DEATHS OF QUAID-E-AZAM MOHAMMED ALI JINNAH, SHRI D. P. KHAITAN AND SHRI D. S. GURUNG
Mr. President: I ask you, Members, to stand in your places to pay our tribute of respect to Quaid-e-AzamMohammed Ali Jinnah, who by his grim determination and steadfast devotion was able to carve out and found Pakistan and whose passing away at this moment is an irreparable loss to all. We send our heartfelt sympathies to our brethren across the frontier.
(The Members stood up in silence.)
Mr. President: Two Members have died since the Constituent Assembly met in its constitution - making function. They are Shri Debi Prasad Khaitan and Shri DamberSingh Gurung from Darjeeling. They represented their constituencies very faithfully and were of considerable help in our deliberations. I ask you to rise in your places to show our respect to their memory.
(The Members stood up in silence.)
AMENDMENTS TO CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY RULES 5-A & 5-B
Mr. President: We shall now proceed to take up the items on the Order Paper. The first item is a motion by Mr.Govinda Menon and also by Shrimati Durgabai, of which notice has been given. I would ask Shrimati Durgabai to move it.
Shrimati G. Durgabai (Madras : General): Sir, I beg to move:
That the provisions mentioned in the Constituent Assembly Notification No. CA/43/Ser/48-I, dated the 2nd August 1948, be made part of the Constituent Assembly Rules,as shown in the amendments below, with effect from the 2nd August, 1948:-
(i) Rules 5-A and 5-B-
For Rules 5-A and 5-B substitute the following Rule:-
(ii) In Rule 51-
For clause (b) of Rule 51 substitute the following clause:
(iii) In the Schedule-
For paragraphs 3, 4, 5 and 6, substitute the following paragraphs:
"3.(1) When the representation allotted to the States, individual or grouped in the Assembly, or the grouping of the States for the purpose of such representation is altered by an order made under paragraph 2, or by an amendment of the Annexure to this Schedule, the President may, by order -
(2) Any member who has been re-assigned to a State or States by an order made under clause (a) of sub- paragraph (1) and whose seat has not been declared vacant under clause (b) of that sub-paragraph shall as from the date of the order be deemed to be a duly chosen representative of such State or States.
(3) A member whose seat is declared vacant by an order made under clause (b) of sub-paragraph (1) shall, if it is so specified in the order, continue to hold office as member of the Assembly until his successor has been duly elected and has taken his seat in the Assembly.
Sir, before I commend my motion to the House for its acceptance, I wish to say a few words of explanation as to why and how these amendments to the rules have become necessary.
Sir, Rules 5-A and 5-B of the Constituent Assembly Rules lay down the procedure for filling a casual vacancy in the office of a member representing an Indian State or more than one Indian State and the Schedule to the Rules prescribes the allocation of seats in the various States or groups of States and the manner of choosing the States representatives and also the method of appointing conveners for purposes of conducting election. These Rules 5-A and 5-Bwere based on conclusions reached by the two Negotiating Committees set up by the Chamber of Princes and also by The ConstituEnt Assembly.
Sir, since then, as it is common knowledge, many changes of a far-reaching character have taken place and these changes have taken place both in the constitutional as well as in the administrative set up of these states. For example, certain States have formed themselves into Unions and certain others have merged into neighbouring provinces and still certain others have been constituted into Centrally Administered Areas.
Sir, these changes in their turn affected radically in the case of some the existing scheme of representation in the Constituent Assembly. Consequently, it became necessary to re-group these several States and to re-allocate seats among them and also change the conveners for the purpose of conducting elections and also make necessary changes in the rules of the Constituent Assembly. All these matters were considered at a meeting of the Honourable the President and of the Honourable the Minister of States and also the Rajpramukhs and the Premiers of the Union and the States concerned and also the Premiers of various provinces affected by these changes and also of the officials of the Secretariat of the Constituent Assembly and of the States Ministry; and the decisions reached at that Conference are now embodied in these provisions which are now sought to be incorporated in the Constituent Assembly Rules.
Now, Sir, the most important feature of these changes in the provisions is that in the case of newly formed group or Union of the States - Cutch andJunagadh, which have been given separate representation in the Assembly - all the vacancies in the seats are to be filled by election by the elected members of the Legislatures of the States or where such legislatures do not exist, by any other Electoral College which is set up for that purpose.
Under the old Rules some of them could be filled by nomination. Sir, as you have already noted the various changes, I do not think that I need elaborate these points. I commend my motion to the House for its acceptance. Sir, I move.
Mr. President: I have received notice of certain amendments to this motion. Mr. Kamath.
Shri H. V. Kamath: (C. P. & Berar: General): Mr.President, Sir, I move:
That is to say, if the amendment is accepted, it will read thus: Now it reads, "When the representation allotted to the States, individual or grouped in the Assembly". In the place of this, it will read, "When the representation allotted in the Assembly to the States, individual or grouped....." I do not think I need speak much on this amendment. It is self evident and the meaning that is sought to be conveyed by the paragraph is as represented in my amendment. Certainly, the States individual or grouped as they are, is not for Assembly purposes. Therefore, it should be "representation allotted in the Assembly to the States, individual or grouped." This is the first amendment.
Sir, the second amendment runs thus:
This is purely, if I may say so, a linguistic amendment. I think it refers to the state of affairs arising after a seat has been declared vacant. The wording "when a seat has been declared vacant" is more correct and more accurate.
I therefore commend these amendments of mine for the acceptance of the House.
Sir, I wish to speak on the motion. May I speak?
Mr. President: Yes.
Shri H. V. Kamath: Sir, I seek some clarification on certain points that have arisen from the motion moved by my honourable friend Shrimati Durgabai. Sir, the potential strength of this Assembly is 324. I am given to understand that the actual strength today is 303. Twenty one members who are to represent Hyderabad, Kashmir and Bhopal are not present with us. Even as regards the remaining 303, the papers yesterday brought us the news that the Patiala andEast Punjab States Union have not elected their representatives to this Assembly. I do not know why these States or Union of States or groups of States should continue to be unrepresented in this last and most important session of the Constituent Assembly. As regards Hyderabad which now forms one of the States specified in Part I of the Annexure, it takes top rank among the States. I do not see why we should not call upon the Ruler of Hyderabad or to elect and nominate as the case may be in accordance with the provisions of this resolution, and send representatives to take their place in this Session as early as possible. In view of the recent events that have taken place, a happy denouement - I hope the House is in agreement with me that we have had a happy termination of the Hyderabad episode - we wish to welcome our friends, our colleagues from Hyderabad as soon as possible in this Assembly. As regards Bhopal, I do not know what difficulties stand in the way, what stumbling block there is in the way, what obstacle has to be surmounted, so far as the participation of Bhopal in this Assembly is concerned. I would plead with you and I would request that the Bhopal authorities should also be called upon at once to send their members to this Assembly with the least possible delay.
Then, Sir, the report which appeared in the press yesterday as regards Patiala and East Punjab States Union was not very clear. It alleged all sorts of things against the administration and against the Ruler; but, whatever it may be, I think it is high time that this Union of Patiala and East Punjab States should be called upon to send their representatives to this last session of the Constituent Assembly.
There is another point which I would like to draw your attention to. In the Rules that have been framed by us during the previous sessions. We have stated-I refer to Rule5 sub-rule (2)-"Upon the occurrence of a vacancy, the President shall ordinarily make a request in writing to the Speaker of the Provincial Legislative Assembly concerned, or as the case may be, to the President of the Coorg Legislative Council, for the election of a person, for the purpose of filling the vacancy as soon as may reasonably be practicable." Here, now that in some of the States mentioned in Part I of the Annexure-I am sorry I cannot say off hand which States have got elected legislature functioning-take for instance, Mysore; it is a big State and it has already sent its representatives to this Assembly-so far as such States are concerned, I see no reason why in future, instead of the Ruler, the Speaker or President of the Assembly should not be requested to fill the vacancies that may arise. It may be argued against this that the Rule as it stands, 5-A provides for the Ruler being the authority in this case. But, as we are amending the Rules, why not amend certain provisions of these Rules so as to make them more in conformity with democratic practice and democratic traditions? Therefore, I would ask my honourable friend Shrimati Durga Bai to explain why, in the case of those states where we have got Assemblies functioning, the Speaker or the President should not be the authority instead of the Ruler. On this point, I would ask some more light from the mover of the motion.
Sir, before I resume my seat, I commend my two amendments to this motion for the acceptance of the House. Thank you, Sir.
Mr. President: Mr. Sidhwa.
Shri R. K. Sidhwa (C. P. & Berar: General): Mr.President, Sir, my amendment was-
The object of my amendment was that while we have done away with the nomination system in our Constitution, it would not be fair to allow the States, particularly the Rulers to nominate the 50 per cent. I therefore, with that object in view and just in conformity with our decision for abolishing the nominations, suggested the abolishment of this also. I however understand that an arrangement has been arrived at between the Rulers and the people of the State and the States people have agreed to this arrangement being continued and I am also told that although this is there,the representatives are all elected by the people themselves. If that is so as I understand it is so, I do not propose to move this amendment.
Mr. President: Do you move the amendment or not?
Shri R. K. Sidhwa: I do not move it, Sir.
Mr. President: All the amendments of which I have notice, so far as this motion is concerned, have been moved.I have received a complaint from one Member that the agenda and amendments have been circulated here and he did not get them before and so he has not been able to give notice of amendments and he wants that the discussion be adjourned. I understand from the Secretariat that the agenda and other papers were circulated some days ago but they were sent to the addresses that were then known to the office and it is possible that the Members during the course of transit have not been able to get the papers that were sent to them and by way of caution a second copy has been supplied here today. It is not as if the agenda and the papers have not been circulated. Only the second copies have been given today. I do not think there is any ground for adjourning the discussion of this motion particularly because after all it is more or less a motion of a formal nature, because we have already acted upon these Rules and they are not likely to be acted upon in the future when this session of the Assembly is over.
Shri Mohanlal Gautam (United Provinces: General): *[ I have no objection in complying with your order. But I submit that the information supplied to you by the office is incorrect. Many of the Members have not received copies of the agenda. Not I alone but two or three of my colleagues also who are present here have not received it.I am in greater difficulty as my telephone has also been disconnected even though they had already taken from me the subscription for the whole year. Twice I have referred this matter to the Deputy Minister for Communications but telephone connection has not yet been restored. When I came here I telephoned from another place to the Deputy Secretary, Constituent Assembly, and informed him that no copy of the agenda had been received by me and the telephone connection also had not been restored. This is the situation of the Members and I would like to make my protest against it. Had it been so with me alone, you could have adoptedthis course. But there are many Members present here whoo have not received the agenda. The Deputy Minister Shri Khurshed Lal is also one of them. He also denies having received a copy of the agenda. I don’t know how it was circulated but even he complains of not having received it. Twice I complained to him that my telephone connection had not been restored even though the subscription money had been realised by them for the whole year. You have reduced us Members to this miserable plight. As for the agenda, I am not the only Member to complain about it. Many Members have not received it. There are important items on the agenda and as a protest I demand the postponement of its consideration.]
Mr. President: *[Copies of the agenda were sent to the Members by the office. Whether it did reach the Members or not is a matter for Shri Khurshed Lal to answer. It is also his responsibility to see whether telephone connections have been provided or not. I do not think that there is any important reason to adjourn the House. If any Member wants to speak on this matter he may do so.]
Mr. Hussain Imam (Bihar : Muslim): *[ I would lilke to suggest that you are empowered to admit the amendments which are, even now, received from Honourable Menbers. That would leave no room for grumbling.]
Mr. President: *[ As I have not received any amendment as yet, the question does not arise.]
Shri Shyamanandan Sahaya (Bihar : General): *[ Mr. President, I request that these amendments which have been moved should be considered if they need consideration. But first of all a chance should be given to the mover…]
Mr. President: *[ Had I received any amendment I would have allowed it to be moved in the House. But no amendment has been received. Now, you want that this discussion should be postponed so that there might be an opportunity to move an amendment. But as yet I have no amnedment before me.]
Shri Shyamanandan Sahaya: *[ Mr. President, in this connection, it is submitted that your orders are binding on all. If the copy of the agenda is lost in transit the purpose of sending it--, and it is that the Members may go through it and may form their opinion—is defeated. Consequently if it could not reach the Member or if there is any delay or error in its despatch from the Assembly office, and thereby if any Member did not receive the agenda, then in my opinion it requires consideration whether the resolution may be taken up for consideration on that day or not. I want to draw your attention to this fact.]
Mr. President: *[I do not think it necessary at this stage, for such questions are not before us as require prolonged discussions and postponement of the debate to some other day and stoppage of our proceedings today.]
Dr. P.S.Deshmukh (C.P. & Berar : General): Mr. President, Sir, I do not have to make the complaint that some of the honourable members of this House have made, although I must say that I did not get the agenda before yesterday, and that is the reason why it was not possible for me--my sssstenographer not having arrived--to send in my amendment to the various Rules. It is quite clear that the Rules are pretty lengthy and therefore the amendments are also likely to be of a similar nature. I hope therefore that you will kindly pardon my not having sent in my amnedments and the few amendments that I propose would be considered by the Honourable Mover of the Motion.The first amnedment I would suggest is-
I personally think it is better English in that way. My second amnedment is-
should be possible for you Sir, to direct the authorities specified in the corresponding entry in column 3 of the Annexure. I do not think it is in consonance with the dignity of the office you hold or the position of this Constituent Assembly that it should be necessary to request a petty State or the Authority existing therein to hold the elections. We, as Members of the Constituent Assembly are summoned by you. I would therefore suggest the adoption of the above amendment. Similar words are used in the second proviso. There also the word ‘request’ has been used. Thatalso should be changed to ‘direct’. There is also one more amendment I would suggest so far as the second proviso is concerned. I suggest that- "The proviso as it stands be substituted by the following, viz. ‘Provided further that in directing to proceed to fill a vacancy by election under this Rule the President may also direct that the election be completed by a certain date’." The change is to replace the words "making a request to fill" by the words "directing to proceed to fill". The word "request" is changed into "direct", and the concluding words-‘within such time as may be specified by him’-are proposed to be changed by the words "by a certain date". The wording in paragraph (3) on page two may read better if it were put as follows: "When the representation allotted to any States, jointly or individually, in the Assembly or the grouping of the States for the purpose of such representation is altered by an order made under paragraph 2, or by an amendment of the Annexure to this Schedule, the President may by order--…" The alteration would be to change the word "the" into "any", and to omit the words "individual or grouped in the Assembly", by merely saying "jointly or individually". This amendment of mine is very similar to the one moved by Mr. Kamath. I think he was somewhat hesitant in suggesting a wholesale alteration of the clause. That is why the suggestion he has made, although he has the same intention, does not express it so correctly as the suggestion made by me., and if possible to accept them.
Shri Biswanath Das (Orissa : General): Sir, I have just given notice of an amendment. Before moving it I would like to explain the position as it is today. In part I to the Annexure, Mayurbhanj State has been mentioned with one representatives and the Returning Officer is the Ruler of Mayurbhanj. But it has been decided by the States ministry that the State of Mayurbhanj can not stand singly by itself and it has been agreed that it shall merge into the province of Orissa, along with the twenty-threeother States that have already merged.
Mr. President:Has the Mayurbhanj State already merged or is it a proposal?
Shri Biswanath Das: I believe they have signed a certain agreement and they are going to hand over the State to the Government of India and that an Administrator has been already appointed and that he is going to take charge of the State. Under these circumstances, I believe there is no justification for treating Mayurbhanj State as a separate identity, and again to recognize the Ruler of Mayurbhanj State as the Retuning Officer. I do not know, and I can not say whether the Government of India have actually intimated to the Government of Orissa that Mayurbhanj State is to merge in Orissa. But this much I can assure you, and through you the Honourable Members of the Constituent Assembly that this is expressed view of the Government of India that it shall be merged into the province of Orissa. Therefore, there is absolutely no purpose in bringing in something which will undo what has been already done and decided by the States Ministry with the full concurrence of the State of Mayubhanj, the people and also the province of Orissa.
Therefore, Sir, I beg to move an amendment, which is (I have given notice of it just now.):
I further move:
This is the complete amendment that I place before the Honourable Members of the Constituent Assembly and think that it is necessity.
If you propose to give separate representation and a separate identity to Mayurbhanj, that means you propose to perpetuate the independent existence of smaller States, a policy which has been refuted and not accepted by the States Ministry and the Government of India. Therefore, my amendment is just to give effect to the very idea which has been accepted, adumbrated and followed in principle and in practice by the States Ministry and the Government of India.
Mr. President: I may point out to Members that as the States are concerned, the question has been in a state of flux. There have been so many changes going on from day to day that it has been difficult to keep pace with them. The proposal is based upon the recommendation of the States Ministry, and the proposal was reached at a conferenceat which not only the Prime Ministers of all the provinces concerned but also of the Sates concerned and Rajpramukhs were present, and there were representatives of the States Ministry as also of the Constituent Assembly, and these proposals are in conformity with recommendations of that Conference. If there has been any change since then, we have no notice of that change. Besides, there will be no difficulty in altering any of the rules subsequently if a change has taken place. So I would suggest to Shri Biswanath Das that he need not apprehend that there is any question of perpetuating smaller States. At the moment we are proceeding upon facts that we know and we are recognizing those facts takes place, and we are informed of that change, we shall change the rules accordingly. So I would suggest to him not to press his amendment at this stage. We can take up the matter as soon as the States Ministry is in a position to tell us that this ought to be changed.
Shri Biswanath Das: An officer of the States Ministry is here. These are the salient facts. I do not dispute the facts that I have placed before him.
Mr. President:I do not dispute his facts. I only say that I have received no intimation from the States Ministry to that effect and therefore we are proceeding upon what we have from the States Ministry. As soon as we have information, there will be no difficulty in changing the rules. That can be done at any sitting.
Shri Biswanath Das: You are going to take charge of the State. The newspapers published that the Constituent Assembly has given separate representation to the State I assure you that there will be tremendous trouble to be faced not by me or the people of Orissa but by the very administrator that is going to be appointed by the Government of India. Under these circumstances I appeal to you, knowing as you do the difficulties of the situation and as a person having an intimateknowledge of the areas and the people concerned, not to tread on dangerous ground. I do not want to press my amendment. I have only brought this matter to your notice as also to the notice of the Constituent Assembly.
Mr. President: I think the newspapers will not only publish the fact that Mayurbhanj has been given separate representation but also the statements which I Have made and you have made. Along with these statements the information itself will have no effect of the kind that you apprehend and I would therefore suggest to the honourable Member not to press his amendment.
Shri Ram Sahai [United States of Gwalior, Indore, Malwa (Madhya Bharat)]: *[ Mr. President, I would like to know if an amendment which is contrary to the principles accepted by the Negotiating Committee can be moved to the amendment now before us. For example, 50 per cent. Is fixed in it. Is it possible to move an amendment that instead of 50 per cent. All the members should be elected or that they should be nominated by the Raj Pramukhs or that the members must be elected on the basis of the electoral rolls that had been prepared before in the States? I would like to know whether an amendment can be moved which goes beyond the principlesaccepted by the Negotiating Committee.
Mr. President: I think we have to be very curious in dealing with the States. We are proceeding on the basis of the agreements entered into with the States and here we should not say or do anything which may have the effect of going back upon any agreement which has been made with the States. All these amendments are based upon agreements which have been made between the States Ministry and the States concerned. The House will remember that originally there was one set of agreements but that has become out of date and therefore we have a second set of agreements. All these amendments are based upon these agreements and I would therefore suggest that nothing should be done to go back upon any of the agreements that have been entered into.
I would ask Mr. Sidhwa not to press his amendment….
Several Honourable Members: He has not moved it.
Shri S. Nagappa (Madras: General ): Sir, I beg leave of the House to move the amendment of which I have given notice just now. I am in agreement with the original motion but as regards the AnnexurePart I, third Column (viz. Authority for the purpose of the choosing of representatives in the Constituent Assembly) I propose to move an amendment to the "word" Ruler of Hyderabad, Mysore, Kashmir and so on. I would like to say that the rulers today do not have the real ruling power, as it has been transferred to the people of the State, especially since August 15th 1947. So, Sir, I think the ruler of any State should not be made the authority for the purpose of choosing representatives in the Constituent Assembly, as he has not got the authority to choose. What is the good of calling someone an authority who really has not got that authority? To me it does not look to be in order. I shall be thankful if the Honourable the Mover accepts my amendment:
"That for the word ‘Ruler’ in column 3 of annexure Part I the word ‘people’ be substituted."
If you find that this is not in order then for instance, the Speaker of any Assembly, which has been elected by the people of that State, occupies a more important place than that of the Ruler. No doubt the Ruler is there as a nominal figurehead but the real person who rules is either the prime Minister or the Legislative Assembly, wherever there is one. So, Sir, I would request that the Honourable the Mover would accept this simple amendment. I have proposed a simple amendment and I need not explain it further. I hope the House will be good enough to accept it.
Mr. President: I might point out that the Honourable member’s amendment is wholly misconceived. It is not as if the Ruler is going to nominate the representatives. The Rules have to be addressed for the purpose of getting the representatives elected by the bodies who have the right to elect them. The Ruler does not come in in any other way.
Shri S. Nagappa:That is exactly my point. You are addressing the Ruler but the Ruler has not got any authority to elect. What is the good of asking a person who does not possess the power? The actual power is not with the Ruler but with the people of the State. So the representatives should be elected by the people of the State either the Speaker of the Assembly wherever there is an Assembly functioning or the Prime Minister or the Raj Pramukh who has been duly elected. They will be the proper authority. Even for the sake of form it should not be there.
Mr. President:I have pointed out the position to the Honourable Member but if he wants to press his amendment……
Shri S. Nagappa: There is no question of pressing the amendment. I have understood , Sir, your point. You have been kind enough to enlighten me that the ruler is only a figurehead and is meant for the purpose of addressing someone. But what I say is, what is the good of addressing a Ruler who has not got the authority and who has transferred his authority to the people of the State?
Mr. President:Every order of the Government of India also goes in the name of the Governor-General, although it is the Ministers who pass the orders. The position is exactly similar.
Shri S. Nagappa: Sir, I accept your advice and I leave it to you.
Shrimati G. Durgabai: Mr. President, I do not think I have much to say by way of replying to the points raised by several Honourable Members of the House and I am thankful to you, Sir, that you had taken upon yourself the task of explaining some of the points raised by the Honourable Members. I would not refer to the points raised by Shri Biswanath Das and Shri Nagappa, because the Honourable Presidenthas sufficiently dealt with those points.
With regard to the amendment moved by Dr. P.S. Deshmukh, I think the existing expression, ‘make a request in writing’ is more happily worded than that suggested by him and is also very courteous, I do not think there is need for a change. His other amendment also I can not accept for the same reason.
With regard to the point raised by Mr. Kamath in his amendments, I may say that I appreciate it and have great pleasure in accepting his amendments. They are really verbal amendments and I accept them.
He has raised the question of Hyderabad and Kashmir in his connection. I do not think it is for me to say anything on the points he has raised about those States; but I feel that those points are irrelevant to the motion I have moved here. I commend my motion to the House for its acceptance.
Shri H.V.Kamath: Mr. President, I have not moved any amendment and therefore the question of irrelevancy does not arise, I only wanted to know whether Hyderabad, Bhopal and Kashmir would send their representatives to the Assembly. I only wanted some light and clarification on the point.
Mr. President:I shall put the amendment to vote. The amendment of Mr. Kamath runs thus:
This has been accepted by the Mover.
The amendment was adopted.
Mr. President:The other amendment of Mr. Kamath, viz., "That in sub-para. (3) of the proposed paragraph 3 of the Schedule, for the words ‘is declared vacant’ the words ‘has been declared vacant’ be substituted" is now for the vote of the House. This has also been accepted by the Mover.
The amendment was adopted.
Mr. President:Then there are the amendments of Dr. Deshmukh. So far as the wording of one of them at any rate is concerned, it has been already accepted when Mr. Kamath’s amendment was accepted The other amendment is only a question of taste whether we should make a direction or a request. As Dr. Deshmukh has not withdrawn it, I shall put it to vote. The amendment is:
The amendment was negatived.
Mr. President:I shall now put the amendment of Dr. Deshmukh to Clause 3(i) of the Schedule to vote.
The amendment was negatived.
The amendment of Mr. Biswanath Das was, by leave of the Assembly withdrawn.
Shri S. Nagappa’s amendment was, by leave of the Assembly withdrawn.
Mr. President:The motion, as amended, is for the vote of the House.
Shri H. V. Kamath: Would you please tell us whether Hyderabad and Kashmir would send their representatives to this Assembly?
Mr. President: I am not in a position to give any information on that point. The Government, if they liked, would have given you the information by now.
The motion as amended, is for the vote of the House.
The motion, as amended, was adopted.
Mr. President: Shrimati Durgabai may now move her second motion.
AMENDMENT TO THE ANNEXTURE TO THE SCHEDULE
Shrimathi G. Durgabai:Mr. President I beg to move the following motion:
Annexure to the Schedule-
For the Annexure to the Schedule substitute the following Annexure:-
Shri H.V. Kamath: Mr. President, the amendment I have given notice of is an extremely simple one and a purely verbal one intended to add the definite article ‘the’.
I would invite your attention and the attention of the House to the name by which my province is known in official documents and records. In our Draft Constitution, of which we have all got copies in Schedule I, Part I, page 159 where the list of the various provinces has been given, and you will find my province described as the Central Provinces and Berar.
Mr. President : I do not want you to adduce arguments in support of this amendment.
Shri H.V. Kamath: I moved the amendment and commend it for the acceptance of the House.
Mr. President:Do you accept that?
Shrimati G. Durgabai: I accept that.
Mr. President: The amendment is that the word "the" be added before the words "Central Provinces and Berar".
The amendment was adopted.
Mr. President : The motion, as amended, is now put to vote.
The motion, as amended, was adopted.
Addition of New Rule-38-V
Shrimati G. Durgabai: Sir, I beg to move that the following to the Constituent Assembly Rules be taken into consideration: After rule 38-U insert the following- "38-V. When a Bill referred to inRule 38-A is passed by the Assembly, the President shall authenticate the same by affixing his signature thereto. When the Bill is so authenticated it shall become an Act and shall be published in the Gazette of India." Sir, before I commend my motion for the acceptance of the House, I consider it my duty to offer a few words of explanation as to why this amendment has become necessary. Sir, I am sure that Honourable Members are aware that during the last session of the Constituent Assembly when it met on the 27th January, certain amendments were proposed and accepted by this House to the rules of the Constituent Assembly, and one of those amendments was to introduce a new rule 38-V laying down the procedure for passing of the Bills referred to in Rule 38-A. Sir, that proposed rule 38-V raised a good deal of controversy and objections were raised by some Honourable Members on the ground that a Bill passed by the Constituent Assembly for amending the Indian Independence Act or the Government of India Act 1935 as adopted by that Act should not be subject to the ascend of the Governor-General since such a procedure might detract from the sovereign character of the Assembly.Another objection was raised on the ground that, if that rule was adopted, the consequence would follow that the Governor-General might give or withhold his ascent even to a Bill seeking to amend the existing constitution. Another objection was raised on the ground that there should not be any difference between the procedure to be adopted for passing the draft Constitution and for passing a Bill seeking to amend the existing Act. These objections were discussed and after prolonged discussion, the suggestion made by Mr. Kamath to refer the proposed rule back to the Draft Committee for re-examination in the light of the objections raised, was accepted. This suggestion was accepted by the House and the rule was referred back to the Drafting Committee. The Drafting Committee has considered this rule and their fresh proposal is before the House. Sir, this new rule dispenses with the ascent of the Governor-General to any Bill passed by the Constituent Assembly under Rule 38-A. The original rule reads thus: "When a Billreferred to in Rule 30-A is passed by the Assembly, a copy thereof signed by the President shall be submitted to the Governor-General for his ascent. When the Bill is ascented to by the Governor-General, it shall become an Act and shall be published in the Gazette of India". I think Members have understood the significance of the change proposed and that I need not elaborate this point. I commend my motion for the acceptance of the House.
Mr. President: Mr. Kamath has tabled an amendment to this to substitute the words "has been" for the word "is".
Shri H. V. Kamath: Mr. President, Sir, I move: