{"id":271033,"date":"1947-07-24T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1947-07-23T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/constituent-assembly-debates-on-24-july-1947-3"},"modified":"2018-03-24T21:32:34","modified_gmt":"2018-03-24T16:02:34","slug":"constituent-assembly-debates-on-24-july-1947-3","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/constituent-assembly-debates-on-24-july-1947-3","title":{"rendered":"Constituent Assembly Debates On 24 July, 1947"},"content":{"rendered":"
Constituent Assembly Debates<\/div>\n
Constituent Assembly Debates On 24 July, 1947<\/div>\n
  \n\n \n\n  CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY OF INDIA VOLUME-IV \n\n Thursday, the 24th July 1947\n \n\n\nThe Constituent Assembly of India met in the Constitution Hall at Ten of the \nClock on Thursday, the 24th July, 1947, Mr. President (The Honourable Dr. \nRajendra Prasad) in the Chair.\n\n \n\n\nPRESENTATION OF CREDENTIALS AND SIGNING OF THE REGISTER\n\n \n\n\nMr. President: I understand that there is one member who has not signed the \nRoll. Will he please do so now?\n\n \n\n\nThe following member signed his name in the Register:\n\n \n\n\nKunwar Shamsher Jang. (Residuary States Gp.)\n\n \n\n\nELECTION OF MEMBERS TO STEERING COMMITTEE\n\n \n\n\nMr. President: There is a motion in the name of Mr. Satyanarayan Sinha \nregarding election of some members to the Steering Committee. Will he please \nmove it?\n\n \n\n\nMr. SatYanarayan Sinha (Bihar: General): Mr. President, Sir, the motion which \nstands in my name reads as follows:\n\n \n\n\n\"Resolved that this Assembly do proceed to elect, in the manner required \nunder rule 40(5) of the Constituent Assembly Rules, two members to be members \nat the Steering Committee.\"\n\n \n\n\nTwo of the Honourable Members of this House, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad and Mr. \nMane, have resigned from this Constituent Assembly and therefore under the \nRules of Procedure they cease to be members of the Steering Committee to which \nthey were elected by this House. I therefore propose that their vacancy \nshould. be filled. The manner in which the election will be held will be \ndetermined by the President.\n\n \n\n\nMr. President : Does any one wish to say anything on this Resolution?\n\n \n\n\nHonourable Members: No.\n\n \n\n\nThe motion was adopted.\n\n \n\n\nMr. President. Nominations for the two vacancies in the Steering Committee \nwill be received up to 1 Pm. tomorrow and elections, if necessary, will be \nheld at 4 P.M. on the 26th in the Under Secretary's Room, No. 25, on the \nGround Floor, Council House. The election will be by the system of \nproportional representation by the single transferable vote.\n\n \n\n\nREPORT ON THE UNION CONSTITUTION-Contd.\n\n \n\n\nMr. President: We shall now proceed with the discussion of Clause 1 of Part IV \nof the Union Constitution.\n\n \n\n\nShri Sri Prakasa (United Provinces: General): What about my motion which is on \nthe agenda for this morning?\n\n \n\n\nMr. President: I think it is for tomorrow.\n\n \n\n\nShri Sri Prakasa: I am sorry.\n\n \n\n\nThe Honourable Sir N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar (Madras: General): There is one \namendment which has not been moved.\n\n \n\n\nMr. President: There are several amendments which have not yet been moved. I \nshall be coming to them.\n\n \n\n\nShri K. Santhanam (Madras: General): I rise on a point of order. I understand \nthe Constituent Assembly Office has not circulated amendments which have been \ngiven notice of three or four days ago because you had fixed a time-limit for \namendments before that date. But you have ruled that when any amendments are \ngiven notice of at least one day in advance of the date on which the motion is \nmade, we will be allowed to move the amendments. Otherwise, the whole \ndiscussion will become useless because when we are proceeding certain \namendments become necessary. For instance, I gave notice of an amendment on \nMonday. It was the result of discussion between friends and it was \nnecessitated by imperfect drafting. It has not been circulated at all. When I \nenquired, I heard that all these amendments are simply filed in the office and \nnothing. is done. I think it will put us to a great deal of hardship if things \nare done like this. I hope you will give a ruling on the subject.\n\n \n\n\nMr. President: I have given sufficient time for amendments to be put in by \nmembers and we can see from the list of amendments already circulated that we \nhave, got a very large number of amendments to the various clause. I am told \nthat even after the expiry of the time-limit which-I placed, quite a large \nnumber of amendments have come in. If the House so desires I shall have no \noption but to circulate them too, but then it becomes difficult to keep pace \nwith these amendments which go on, comming in without end and interruption. So \nwe must stick to the time limit by which amendments should be put in.\n\n \n\n\nAn Honourable\n\n \n\n\nMember: The time-limit is automatically fixed by the time taken up here.\n\n \n\n\nMr. President: It means then that all the amendments will have to be, \ncirculated as they come in,\n\n \n\n\nShri M. Ananthasayanam Ayyangar (Madras: General): That is the practice in \nevery legislature. With very great respect, Sir, I say that your ruling is \nagainst Rule No. 32. Rule 32, Sub-Clause (3), says that except as permitted by \nthe Chairman, notice, of an amendment must be given at least one clear day \nbefore the motion. In the Assembly every clause is moved and as the discussion \nproceeds, and when amendments suggest themselves to the Members, we give \nnotice of them 24 hours in advance. of the actual discussion. That is all that \nwe have to do. I submit, Sir, that it cannot be fixed that the time should be \ntwo days in advance. It will be reducing the whole thing to a formal and dead \naffair. If there is not sufficient staff in the office to deal with the \namendments, the office has to be enlarged and not our rights curtailed.\n\n \n\n\nMr. President : I should like to be enlightened on this point by some one who \nhas experience of legislatures. I want to know what is the procedure followed \ngenerally Mr. Purshottamdas Tandon might perhaps enlighten me. A large number \nof amendments keep on coming from day to day what is the usual procedure of \ndealing with them?\n\n \n\n\nThe Honourable Shri Purshottamdas Tandon (United Provinces, General): Sir, the \nusual practice is for amendments to be tabled as the consideration of a bill \nproceeds, but every amendment has to be handed over to the office some time \nbefore the particular clause to which it relates Is taken up for consideration \nFor instance, if you are taking up a clause, today and the rule requires that \n48 hours, notice must be given of anamendment, the amendment to be moved must \nhave been sent to the office 48 hours before the time at which it is to be \nconsidered today. That is all. It is not necessary that all the amendments \nshould be delivered to the office before the consideration of the Bill is \ntaken up.\n\n \n\n\nMr. President: Then we shall follow that procedure and all amendments of which \nnotice is given in time under Rule 32 will be circulated.\n\n \n\n\nDr. P. S. Deshmukh (C.P. & Berar: General): Sir, in that case, can I move \nmy amendment to Clause 1 of which notice was given on Monday?\n\n \n\n\nMr. President: So far as Clause 1 is concerned, it was moved several days ago \nand amendments given notice of after the clause was moved cannot be taken into \nconsideration. We shall now proceed with the other amendments. Shri \nChandrasekharaiya moved both his amendments yesterday. Does Mr. A. K. Ghosh \nwish to move his amendment No. 96?\n\n \n\n\nMr. A. K Ghosh (Bihar: General): No.\n\n \n\n\nMr. President: Sir N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar has an amendment.\n\n \n\n\nThe Honourable Sir N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar: Sir, my amendment seeks only a \nslight verbal change, that in the last sentence of sub-clause (2) of Clause 1, \nfor the words \"the votes of the Unit Legislatures\" shall be \nsubstituted by the words \"the votes of the members of the Unit \nLegislatures\". The amendment hardly requires any explanation.\n\n \n\n\nMr. President: Another amendment is by Mr. J. N. Vyas.\n\n \n\n\n(The amendment was not moved.)\n\n \n\n\nI take it there is no other amendment to Clause 1. If any Member has got any \nother amendment to is clause which I have left out, he will please take this \nopportunity of moving it, and not complain later that he did not get an \nopportunity to do so.\n\n \n\n\nAs there Is no other amendment, we shall now proceed to discuss the clause and \nthe amendments which have been moved.\n\n \n\n\nSyed Kazi Karimuddin (C.P. and Berar: Muslim): Mr. President, Sir, sub-clause \n(2) of Clause 1 says:\n\n \n\n\n\"The election shall be by an electoral college consisting of- (a)the \nmembers of both Houses of Parliament of the Federation, and (b)the members of \nthe Legislatures of all the Units or, where A Legislature is bicameral, the \nmembers of the Lower House thereof.\"\n\n \n\n\nAll the amendments which were moved to have the election of the President on \nadult suffrage have been withdrawn; but I want to bring borne to the House why\n\n \n\n\nthis election should be made on the basis- of adult suffrage.\n\n \n\n\nThe decision on this point mainly rests on the point of view whether the \nexecutive should be non-parliamentiary or parliamentary. I have been of the \nview that in India, looking to the conflicting political parties diverse \nideologies and many diverse factors, for the maintenance of peace and \ntranquillity and for the effective representation of all parties in the \nCabinet. it is necessary that, there should be a non-parliamentary executive. \nThe only reason that has been advanced why adult suffrage should not be \nintroduced is that a huge machinery will have to be set up for dealing with \nthe elections and the energies of the nation will be consumed in holding these \nelections. But that is absolutely no reason. In a country like America, the \nelection of the President is held on adult suffrage and my submission is that \nif every fifth or every fourth year the election of the President is held, and \nheld on the basis of adult suffrage, it win educate the masses. Momentous \neconomic problems of great magnitude will be brought to the forefront. The \nmasses will be educated if the election of the President is held on an \nall-India basis. Under the present sub-clause 2 of Clause 1, the President \nwill be a puppet of the majority party and the persons, who have fought the \nelections partly on provincial basis and partly on the all-India. basis will \nelect the President for the whole Union.\n\n \n\n\nYesterday, while discussing the powers of the President, we felt that very \nwide powers had been given to him. He will be entitled even to suspend any \npart or the whole of the Constitution of a province. A President who will be \nafraid of the majority party and be elected by the electorate under sub-clause \n2, will not, my submission is, be a man who will represent the entire nation \non an all-India economic basis or on all-India issues. I have one more \ndifficulty and that is very important. In order to suit the States, we have \nagreed that the members of the States' Legislatures shall be members of the \nLower House of the Union. It is a patent fact and is known to everybody that \nthere is no popular rule in the States, and the members of the Legislatures in \nthe States probably will be those who have been nominated by the States or who \nwill not be the real representatives of the people. By electing a President by \nsuch representatives who will form one-third of the voters practically, the \nPresident will not be representing the people of the States but those who are \nnominated by the States Rulers. Under these circumstances, it can never be \nsaid that the President will be the true representative of the people of the \nStates. Under these circumstances I earnestly appeal to the House that if you \nwant democratic rule, if you want that the President shall be the true \nrepresentative of the people who vote on adult suffrage, under the electoral \ncollege mentioned in sub-clause 2 to Clause 1, as regards the States \nparticularly, he can never be reprsentative of the people of the land. \nTherefore I oppose this amendment.\n\n \n\n\nMr. Mahomed Sherif (Mysore State): Sir, I am of the opinion that the President \nof the Union should be elected on the basis of adult franchise. It would be in \nthe fitnes of things that the person who would be at the helm of affairs and \nto whom so many powers would be given and so many responsibilities, should be \none who must be elected on this basis. Every voter who is qualified to vote \nshould have the satisfaction that in the election of the person who should \ngovern the country, he should have a voice. It was argued that if this method \nis to be followed, it would intelligence of the people is not very high; that \nthis method will not work satisfactorily, and that corruption, bribery, and so \nmany vitiating factors will operate. It seems to me, Sir, that these \ndifficulties will be more than ,offset by the advantages accruing therefrom. \nThe election will be a great education by itself. It will lead the people to \nfurther their political insight which they have got and it will be \nadvantageous in\n\n \n\n\nmore than one way.\n\n \n\n\nIn these circumstances I would suggest that the President should be elected on \nthe basis of adult suffrage. As I said such an election would have the seal of \napproval from the point of view of the voters. With these remarks I oppose \nthis motion.\n\n \n\n\nMr. Tajamul Husain (Bihar: Muslim): Sir, sub-clause (1) of Clause 1 of Part IV \nlays down that the head of the State shall be called President and that any \nperson or citizen of the Republic who has attained the age of 35 can be \nelected as President of the Republic. Am amendment has been moved, Sir to the \neffect that the election of the President should be held in rotation, that is \nto say', that for one term of office the Presidents shall be elected from the \nnorth of India and for another term of office from the south of India. The \nreason advanced by the Honourable the Mover is that the people of South India \nare total different from those of Northern India. I submit, Sir, that is a \nvery dangerous principle to adopt. If you want to accept this principle that \nthere should be a reservation of seats for the election of the President, \nevery province may claim that in turn the President should be elected from a \nparticular province.\n\n \n\n\nI will give you an example. The people of Western Bengal may very ,well claim \nthat they are a different people from the rest of India.\n\n \n\n\nAn Honourable Member: No, no.\n\n \n\n\nMr. Tajamul Husain: I am glad that there is a voice saying no, no. And there \nshould be no difference between one province and another. Therefore I submit, \nSir, that the office of the President being the highest in the realm and he \nbeing the biggest dignitary of the Republic, we should have the best man. It \ndoes not matter from where he comes. It is quite possible that when the \nelection is being held a Bihari, or a Christian, or a Jain, or a Parsee may \nhappen to be the best man at that time. He may be ejected President. \nTherefore, I have come here to oppose this amendment.\n\n \n\n\nParagraph (b) of sub-clause (2) of Clause 1 of Part IV lays down that the \nUpper House of a province where there are, two Houses, should not have he \nright of choosing the Prsident of the Republic. An amendment has-, been moved \nby Rai Bahadur Syamanandan Sahaya of Bihar that that right should be, given to \nthe Upper House as well You will find that under sub-clause (a) both the \nHouses of the Central Legislature have been given the right of electing the \nPresident of the Union. There is no difference between the Upper House of the \nCentral Legislature and the Upper House of a Provincial Legislature. Both have \ngot special representation. If you do away with the Upper House then that is a \ndifferent matter. I might support-you on democratic principle but we have \ndecided that we are to have an Upper House for the Central Legislature and \nthere are going to be Upper Houses in some provinces. In that case I would \nsubmit that the qualifications of the members of the Upper House of the \nCentral and Provincial Legislatures being the same, the members of the Upper \nHouse of a Provincial Legislature may be allowed to participate in the \nselection of the President of the Republic. To me it appears there is no \nreason why the members of the Upper House of a Provincial Legislature should \nbe deprived of their right, their privilege and their pleasure of choosing \ntheir own President of the Republic.\n\n \n\n\nI suppose the amendment of Mr. Syamanandan Sahaya.\n\n \n\n\nMr. H. R. Guruv Reddy (Mysore State): Mr. President, Sir, yesterday I was \nlistening with very great interest to the discussions about nominations and \nparticularly about the 'principles underlying nominations. One of our worthy \ncolleagues was saying that the system. of nominations, particularly in States, \nshould be done away with, and that if those nominations are adopted elsewhere, \nthey would not be objectionable. Sir, I fail to see the reasoning of this part \nof the proposition. If nominations are bad, they are bad everywhere and, if \nthey could be accepted, they ,ought to be accepted on principle everywhere. I \nfail to see why we should attach sanctity to nominations if an\n\n \n\n\nelected person adopts it and consider his action just and proper and right \ntoo. and at the same time consider nomination by a ruler of a State or under \nhis direction as something fundamentally wrong and bad. There is DO \njustification for accepting this principle of nomination in one place and \nrejecting it in another. 'If you want to do away with nominations, let us do \nso boldly. But, if for reasons of representation of various interests \nnominations have to be resorted to, certainly let us have nominations both in. \nthe States and in the other Units. No one need be afraid that these \nnominations will be overwhelming in number. There is no need to fear that the \nruler of a State would choose a person who would undo the good things that \nothers attempt to do. In fact, if there is danger ahead, the ruler ought to be \npresumed to act suitably and put in persons who would represent all interest I \nwould therefore repeat that if nominations are to be adopted in this House or \nby the President of the Federal Legislature, what reason is there to say that \nthat system would be bad elsewhere?\n\n \n\n\nThe other idea that was nut forward by one of the speakers was that it would \nbe a method by which we could coerce the States or other Units to adopt the \nmethod of election. That word 'coerce' is something very jarring. It is not a \ngood and sound principle that we should coerce any person to accept or adopt \nour view. Our endeavour should be to win him over to our view. Therefore, Sir, \nonce the principle underlying nominations is adopted here by the-President, is \nought to be allowed to be adopted elsewhere also on principle. But, as I said, \nI am basing my arguments on principles and not on facts. I would appeal to \nthis august House that as the system of nominations has been accepted tinder \nthe Constitution put forth for India, it ought to be allowed in other places \nalso and it would certainly meet out justice to that section of the population \nwhich would be unrepresented otherwise.\n\n \n\n\nSir, I now pass on to the more interesting, if more disturbing factor, namely \nthe North and the South, the States and the non-States. Sir, personally I feel \nthat the North is not separate from the South, nor is the South separate from \nthe North. I am one of those who believe that any one who is given an \nopportunity, if he has got the requisite qualifications otherwise, should come \nup. It is only an opportunity that is sought for. It is not a territorial \ndivision. We know certain reasons why the North and the South are frequently \napprehensive of this or that thing. A man like me coming from the South, the \nMysore State, feels that the North has been getting larger representation on \nthis Constituent body than in is due to it and that hereafter it should not be \nso. Sir, while I honestly feel that the South has been neglected fur sometime \nfor various reasons, I do not put the blame for it on anybody or on any \nsection. But I do feel that the South is to some extent neglected. But then it \nis a, question of opportunity being given to the people of the South. If \nopportunities ire allowed I am positive that persons coming from the South \ncan, equal if not surpass those coming from the North.\n\n \n\n\nSir, this question of States and non-States is really perplexing. Coming from \na State I very much desire that an opportunity is given to someone from the \nState to be the Chief of India. But then it is again a vicious thing. The \nStates form only one-third of the entire Dominion. And then the qualifications \nand other considerations that are to be laid down for this purpose is another \ndisturbing factor. So far as I am concerned, I cannot agree to the separation \nof States and non-States for the purpose of election. As I said, given the \nrequisite opportunity, given the requisite representation to the States, \nanyone who has got that courage of conviction to speak out boldly, honestly \nand fearlessly ought to find a place in the Indian Constitution.\n\n \n\n\nSir, it is difficult to create a reservation either for the non-States or for \nthe States or even to set up a rotation as it were, in the\n\n \n\n\nConstitution. I emphasise the word 'Constitution'. Sir, these are things which \nshould be looked into and provided for in what we know as 'convent-on'. We are \nstarting today with a new Constitution for India and the Constitution itself \nprovides for a change. We can work for another three years and If we find any \ndifficulty we could have the Constitution changed suitably.. Apart from that, \nI would never invoke the aid of the legislature for the purpose. As I said, it \nis only a healthy convention and good feeling and understanding between the \nNorth and-the South and between the States and the non-States that can solve \nthe problem. No legislation can solve it.\n\n \n\n\nIn this connection I would like to draw your very kind attention to the Madras \nmayoralty. There was a lot of bickering so far as the Madras mayoralty was \nconcerned. Some years ago, it should be said to the credit of Sir Ramaswami \nMudaliar that he, when he had something to do with that mayoralty, set up a \nconvention. And that convention is being now respected and persons of various \ncommunities and various sections are being elected according to the- \nconvention laid down. It is not difficult for us to take this illustration and \nto follow it up even in the election of our President. Sir, I would once more \nstate that it is convention, good understanding, good feeling between the \nNorth and the South, between the States and non-States that will solve this \nproblem, not any law or any clause in the law.\n\n \n\n\nSir, with this I pass on to another very small matter but which looms very \nlarge, the question of the oath which was very ably put forth by my worthy \ncolleague as an essential matter, and I do not know that lacuna crept into \nthis report on the Union Constitution. No provision has been made here for the \noath. Sir, it is a common thing all over the world, in all well-established \nGovernments, that the Head of the State takes the oath on his entry into that \nhigh office. It would be becoming and worthy of our Indian Government the \nPresident should take the oath before an appropriate authority that he would \nsafeguard the constitution that is being framed now and which he is going to \nwork.\n\n \n\n\nWith these remarks, Sir, I commend the amendments and principles I have just \nput forward to the acceptance of the House.\n\n \n\n\nPandit Lakshmi Kanta Maitra (West Bengal: General): Sir, I do not want to make \na speech. I want to suggest that the pace at which we are moving is very slow. \nAt this rate I am afraid we won't be able to stick to the time-table. I \nsuggest that now that we are discussing only the principles of the \nconstitution, speeches may be confined to the particular clause or amendments \nunder discussion and not touch the entire field of the Indian Union \nConstitution.\n\n \n\n\nMr. President: I entirely agree with you that we should not discuss the entire \nfield of the Constitution but must confine ourselves to the particular \namendment that has been moved or the particular clause which Is under \ndiscussion. I would also request members to limit their speeches to five \nminutes, unless in a particular case I find that the question that to being \ndiscussed is of such a nature that it requires a longer time.\n\n \n\n\nMr. H. V. Kamath (C.P. and Berar: General): Sir, two amendments moved on the \nfloor of this House yesterday, one by my friend, Rai Bahadur Syamanandan \nSahaya, and the other by my friend Mr. Channiah.\n\n \n\n\nMr. Sahaya's amendment is to the effect that, where the legislature is \nbicameral, the members of the Upper House, also must have the rig-it of voting \nin the election for the President. I stand here, to oppose that amendment. It \nwas asked why, when the members of the Upper House of the Union are allowed to \nvote, the same privilege should not be extended to members of the upper \nchambers of the Units. If my friend looks at Chapter II, he, will find that \nthe Council of States is proposed to be set up on a different basis from that \nof the upper chambers of the Units. Moreover, we have visualised the President \nas being all integral part of the Federal Parliament which will be composed of \nthe President and the\n\n \n\n\nNational Assembly, the National Assembly in its turn being composed of the \nCouncil of States and the House of the People. Where the President is an \nintegral part, an essential part of the Federal Parliament, it stands to \nreason that both Houses should take part in the election of the President.\n\n \n\n\nThe other amendment was moved by my friend, Mr. Channiah. That amendment is \nastounding, bordering on the ridiculous. At a time, Sir, when we have \nregretfully accepted the division of India on a communal basis, at a time, \nSir, when fissiparous and centrifugal tendencies are holding the field. at a \ntime, Sir, when most of us here want to see the unity of our country restored \nto its pristine condition, it is amazing that a member of this House should \nstand up and draw a distinction between the north and south of our country. I \nwas inclined to think that at least after the march of Agstya across the \nVindhyas and after the battle of Rama with Vali and Ravana, this difference \nbetween the north and south of India had been obliterated. We have heard of \nthe Maginot Line in Europe; we have heard of the Siegried Line in Europe; we \nhave heard of the Curzon Line, the Durand Line in Europe. If Mr. Channiah's \namendment is accepted the day will not be far off when we will have a Channiah \nline in India between the north and south of India. When we are trying to \nbuild a strong State, when we are trying to wipe away all the differences of \nthe past, when the division of the country on a communal basis has been \naccepted most reluctantly, it is amazing that an amendment of this kind should \nbe propounded on the floor of this House. Precisely for that reason, Sir, I am \nopposed, for the present at least, even to a linguistic division of provinces. \nLet us for the present bend all our energies to the task of building up a \nmighty Indian Union: and let us bend our energies to the task of restoring the \nunity of our country. Let us, Sir, realize the goal which we have foundly \ncherished 'of a strong united India, an independent India marching forward for \nthe welfare of India and the peace of the world; an India where all Indians, \nbe they Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Parsees or Sikhs all small march \ntogether, :as citizens of one common Motherland, a united, strong and \nindependent India. That is the theme, Sir which is uppermost in our minds. We \nare still hoping to realize the dream when the unity of our country will be \nrestored. It is in the spirit of the words of that famous song, which is on \nthe lips of all Indians today; (Har sooba ke rahanewale har nazhab ke prani \nSab bhed aur farak mitake sab goda me teri ake goonthe prema ki mala. Suraj \nbankar jag par chamke Bharat nama subhaga.) that I oppose the doctrine which \nwas propounded yesterday by my friend Mr. Channiah seeking to divide the North \nfrom the South. One of my friends, Sir, said that the South has been \nneglected. I fail to see how or in what way the South of India has been \nneglected. if my friend says that the South means only Madras. I differ from \nhim. I would like him first to define the South of India, whether the South \nmeans only Madras or Madras plus Bombay and the various other component parts. \nI for one think that the South has not been neglected. Today it is the two \nStates in the South. Hyderabad and Travancore which are giving us the \nheadache. If it is the result of neglect and if it is the result of being \nunimportant, I do not know, Sir, what my friend means, These two States of the \nSouth today, Sir, are giving most of our statesmen and our leaders a big \nheadache. If my friend thinks that Southern India has been neglected ' I do \nnot know, Sir. how he can forget the eminent and leading politicians from \nBombay and from Madras who have contributed to the political development, the \npolitical evolution of our common Motherland.\n\n \n\n\nThen, Sir, a point was made out that the oath should be taken by the President \nof the ]Federation. I agree, but this is not the place where the oath should \nbe mentioned. The oath will certainly find a place in the Constitution when it \ncomes to be finally drafted. Here\n\n \n\n\nwe a-re discussing merely the principles of the Constitution therefore I think \nthat here the mention of the oath to be taken by the President is out of \nplace. For that matter, Sir. we can as well say that the members of the \nLegislature too should take an oath of allegiance to the country, but you are \nnot mentioning anything like that. They are mere details which are to be taken \ninto account when the Constitution is actually drafted. I therefore, Sir, \nshall not take the time of the house. I oppose the amendments which were moved \nby Rai Bahadur Syamanandan Sahaya and my friend, Mr. Channiah.\n\n \n\n\nShri Ajit Prasad Jain (United Provinces: General): *[Mr. President, I support \nthe resolution moved by Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru. The method suggested herein \nfor the election of the President is very appropriate, some of the members \npresent have proposed that the President should be elected by adult franchise. \nMany arguments have been advanced against this proposal. At one place the \nresolution says different weight will be 'attached to the votes of different \nmembers, e.g.. the vote of the member representing lesser number of people \nwill be considered less weighty and that of the member representing greater \nnumber of people will be considered more weighty. I would like to say this \nmuch that this balances the defects caused by indirect election. The example \nof America has been cited where the population is 130 to 140 millions and the \nPresident is elected on the basis of adult franchise. I beg to point out that \nin America it was considered desirable that the Presidential election should \nnot be direct but through \"Electoral College\". We too have here a \nproposal for the formation of an Electoral College, the members of which will \nbe elected by the people. Thus the election of our President will also be \naccording to the choice of the people. I had only to say this much.. but I \nfeel one difficulty in the scheme sponsored by Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru. \nAccording to it, the President will be elected through an electoral college. \nAll members of both the Houses of the Federal Parliament The Council of States \nand the House of People-will be the members of the electoral 'college and they \nwill participate in the Presidential election. The members of the Provincial \nlegislatures and the States legislatures too have been given the right to \nparticipate in the Presidential election. So far as the votes of the members \nof the Unit legislatures are concerned, it is said in the proposal that \ndifferent weightage will be given to them. For example one vote of a member \nrepresenting ten thousand voters will be considered equal to 10 votes of a \nmember representing one million voters, Sir.\n\n \n\n\nSo far as Unit legislatures are concerned this method is very appropriate and \ndesirable. But it has not been clearly stated in the proposal, whether 'any \nweightage will be given to the votes of the members of the Federal Parliament \n(House of people and Council of States) or what will be the value of their \nvotes or the relative position of those votes. One of the interpretations of \nthe proposal relating the unit legislature appears to be that in the present \nstate of affairs, each member of the House of People has merely one vote. If \nthis is correct. I consider the proposal very wrong. In the draft proposal \npresented to us, it has been stated at a later stage that on an average a \nmember of the House 'of People represents one million voters. If he gets \nmerely one vote, this means that members of the Unit legislature who represent \nonly ten thousand voters get 10 votes and a member of Federal Legislature, \ne.g., the House of People who represent one million voters gets only One vote \naccording to the present scheme. In my opinion this is not fair. The question \nof giving due weightage to the votes of the members of the Federal Parliament \nshould be reconsidered so that the people might be properly represented.\n\n \n\n\nThere appears another difficulty. It is possible that state may have some sort \nof nomination and would be difficult to say as to what would\n\n \n\n\n\n \n\n\n-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n<\/pre>\n
‘[English Translation of Hindustani Speech.?\n<\/p>\n
be the value of the votes of the nominated members. Again, there might be some
\nconstituencies which are not territorial for example, the university and the
\nLabour Constituencies. So far as the provinces are concerned. we have decided
\nthat there would be territorial constituencies and there shall be no special
\nconstituencies. But in States it is possible that there may be some
\nterritorial and some non-territorial constituencies and some nominations as
\nwell. Another difficulty may arise from the method suggested for giving
\nweightages to different votes of nominated members. If you decide that some
\nsort of weightage should be given to the votes of the members of the Federal
\nParliament also, although the proposal contains no mention of it-the
\ndifficulty arises as to what would be the weight of the votes of the members
\nnominated to the Council of State.\n<\/p>\n
However, I wish to draw your attention to the necessity of a clear provision
\nfor classifying and giving weightage to the votes of the members of the
\nFederal Parliament.\n<\/p>\n
With these few words, I hope that you will consider my suggestions.]*<\/p>\n
Mr. President: I have got three more names in the list. I find some more
\nmembers standing up wishing to speak. We have already taken one hour today and
\nwe took about one hour yesterday on this clause. If we go on discussing at
\nthis rate, I do not think we shall be able to complete even one Part by
\nThursday next when we wish to close. I therefore desire to request the members
\nto cut down their speeches to the minimum and if any point has already been
\ndiscussed by any member, not to speak on the same point and repeat the same
\narguments.\n<\/p>\n
Dr. P. S. Deshmukh: May I suggest, Sir the system of giving names should be
\nstopped and opportunity should be given only to that member who catches the
\neye of the President?\n<\/p>\n
Mr. President: I accept that, Hereafter, I shall not accept any slip. Any one
\nwho catches my eye will be allowed to speak.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. Yudhisthir Mistra (Eastern States Group 1): Sir, I support the amendment
\nof Mr- K. Chengalaraya. Reddy to sub-clause (2) (b) of Clause. Mr. Reddy has
\nmoved an amendment to substitute the words “elected members” for the
\nword “members”. It would appear to many of the honourable members
\npresent here that the word sought to be inserted is unnecessary and
\nsuperfluous, because tinder the present constitution, the provincial
\nlegislatures would have no nominated members. But I would like to remind the
\nhonourable members that there is no corresponding change in the constitution
\nof the State legislature-,. In many of the States, especially in the smaller
\nones, there is an overwhelming number of nominated members in the
\nlegislatures. In fact. in some of the States, there is no legislature at all.
\nI represent the Orissa States and I would submit before this House that in
\nsome of the States there is no legislature at all. Wherever there is any
\nlegislature, the number of nominated members is so large, that the elected
\nrepresentatives have no voice in the Legislative Assembly. In some of the
\nStates, the State Congress and the Praja Mandals have boycotted elections to
\nthe Legislative Assembly in view of the unsatisfactory franchise. Wherever
\nthere is a legislature, the franchise is narrow and based on communal lines,
\nand it has a large number of nominated members. Sir, if you allow the
\nnominated members to take part in the election of the President, then, some of
\nthe States may set up inadequate and bogus representative assemblies and try
\nto influence the election by undemocratic methods. It would be a mockery of
\ndemocracy if the nominated members are allowed to take part in the election of
\nthe President of the future Republic of India. I therefore support the
\namendment which has been moved by my honourable friend Mr. Reddy.\n<\/p>\n
At the same time, Sir, I would oppose the amendment moved by Mr.
\nchandrasekhariah. He says that the President shall be alternately<\/p>\n
————————————————————————————–\n<\/p>\n
*[English Translation of Hindustani Speech)*<\/p>\n
elected from the States and non-States units. It is an insult to the States if
\nsuch a limitation is placed on the election of the President.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. K. Sidhwa (C.P. and Berar : General) : Mr. President. I had no desire to
\nenter into this debate but for one point which was raised by my Honourable
\nfriend Mr. Reddy from Mysore State, who advocated the rotation system for the
\nelection of the President and in support of that he quoted the instance of the
\nmayorality. of the Municipal Corporation of Madras.\n<\/p>\n
An Honourable Member: There are two members from Mysore. The reference may be
\nclarified, Sir.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. President: (To Mr. Sidhwa). You have made a mistake with regard to the
\nname of the speaker.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. R. K. Sidhwa: He came from Mysore. Sir, It is true that in the Municipal
\nCorporation of Madras, there is the rotation system for the election of the
\nMayor. In the first year a Brahmin is elected, in the second year a
\nNon-Brahmin and in the third year a Harijan. A similar convention prevails in
\nthe Bombay Municipal Corporation. In the first ear aHindu is elected in the
\nsecond year a Muslim, in the third year a Parsi and in the fourth year a
\nChristian. A similar system exists in the Karachi Municipal Corporation also.
\nIn the first year a Parsi is elected, then a Muslim, then a Christian and then
\na Hindu. Also in the Calcutta Corporation, a similar system exists. As I have
\nsomething to do with this rotation system, in the Municipal Mayoral elections
\nin India, I may say that this rotation was introduced to give an opportunity
\nto every community for the purpose of presiding over this Only honoured
\noffice. It is only an honoured office, I repeat, Sir. The Mayor has absolutely
\nno power except that he presides at the meetings of the Municipal Corporation.
\nLet me assure you, Sir, he has no executive power although he is the first
\nCitizen of the city. Therefore, you cannot compare the mayorality with the
\nelection of the President. The President of India will be the best man. He
\nwill have many executive powers. lie will have to select a Premier and he will
\nhave to select his Ministers. He will have power of dissolution of the
\nlegislature, Over and above all, Sir, under the proposed constitution, lie
\nwill be the Supreme Commander of the Army. Do you want, under these
\ncircumstances. Sir, the President to be elected by rotation? I shall certainly
\nstrongly oppose the President being elected on any kind of communal basis or
\nthe rotation or province wise system being introduced. We must have the best
\nman for the President. If the President elected is the best man, we shall
\nelect him for a second time-the best man whosoever he may be he may have
\nbecome from the north., south, west or east. We cannot tolerate the election
\nof the President community wise, or province wise or anywise as I stated. The
\nconvention introduced in the election of the Mayor does not apply in the
\nelection of the President. The Mayor is merely a figure-head. He only presides
\nover the meetings. He has no executive power. The convention is only meant to
\ngive opportunities to the several communities to occupy the honoured and
\ndignified post of the first Citizen of the city, You cannot mix up therefore
\nthe conventional system in the election of the President. I therefore strongly
\noppose this. There is no amendment to that effect, but implicitly or
\nexplicitly no reservation or no convention should be made even by our topmost,
\nleaders that, we shall elect the President province-wise or from the north,
\nsouth, west or east of India, or we shall elect a Parsi, a Christian or a
\nMuslim. The best man should be elected. I therefore.. Sir, strongly oppose the
\nconvention of election province wise to the office of President.\n<\/p>\n
Shri R. V. Dhulekar (United Provinces: General): *[Mr. President, I desire to
\nspeak a few words in support of The clause which has been<\/p>\n
———————————————————————————–\n<\/p>\n
*[English Translation of Hindustani Speech]<\/p>\n
moved much<\/p>\n
has been said in support of it but I would not say anything about them. I
\nwould draw your attention to only two matters.\n<\/p>\n
Firstly, some members have said that the system of election is very irregular
\nin the States and some of the States representatives to this Assembly have
\nbeen nominated either by the government or by the rulers and they should not
\nbe all-owed to take part in the election of the President. In fairness, we
\nmust admit that the rulers, participating in the Constituent Assembly were
\nsubjected to such injustice at the hands of the British government that they
\nhave grown apprehensive that if they join the union they would be crushed. A
\nburnt child dreads fire. We must not think that they are degraded and
\ndemoralised Indians. Personally I think that they were placed in such
\ncircumstances under the British government that they could not follow the
\npolicy which they should have. Therefore, I do not think it proper to raise
\nthis point that the nominated members should not be allowed to participate in
\nthe Presidential elections. In my opinion we must accept their request that
\nthey should be given time so that they may fully realise on joining the Union
\nthat the rulers and their people will have the same rights and status that we
\nhave. When they have realised the advantages of Joining the union, their
\nautocracy will automatically vanish and the rulers will, feel that they are
\ncommon Indians and they have the same rights that the common people have.\n<\/p>\n
The second thing to which I desire to draw your attention is this.\n<\/p>\n
According to this clause regarding the members of the Provincial legislatures
\nit will have to be considered as to how many people they represent; and in
\norder to give weightage to the votes, the word “weightage” has been
\nincluded here. In my opinion, it is unnecessary. It is quite possible that
\nsome members might have said that at some places with lesser population they
\nhad got comparatively more seats than those having greater population. But in
\nmy opinion, no member, whether returned from any provincial legislature or
\nState legislature should be considered go narrow minded that he would demand
\nweightage for his votes in the presidential election. I know, in my own
\nprovince, some members represent 50 thousand voters while some represent ten
\nthousand and others fifteen thousand voter.-. But after being elected, he does
\nnot think it at all that he represents so many people. He considers himself
\nonly a member of the legislature and behaves in a ‘way befitting his dignity.’
\nTherefore the inclusion of the world ‘weightage’ appears odd but at the same
\ntime there is no harm in it and hence I do not oppose it.\n<\/p>\n
With these words I support the clause]’<\/p>\n
Mr. President: The Mover, Pandit Jawahar Lal Nehru, may now reply to the
\ndebate.\n<\/p>\n
The Honourable Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru (United Provinces: General]): *[Mr.
\nPresident, there are many amendments. But the greatest emphasis has been laid
\non one point : the election of the President on the basis of adult franchise,
\ni.e.. everybody should take part in the election. Another amendment is that
\nthe word “Rashtrapati” should be Substituted by the word
\n“Neta” or “Karandhar”. St 11 another amendment is that the
\nPresident should be elected alternatively from the North and the South- Again,
\nthere is an amendment which says that the members of the Upper Houses also
\nshould take part in the Presidential election. There is yet another amendment;
\nbut I do not know whether it has been moved or not. According to this
\namendment, the President should be elected from the States and non-State
\nportion of the Indian Republic (by rotation) alternately.\n<\/p>\n
Lastly, there is an amendment which deals with the oath of allegiance.\n<\/p>\n
—————————————————————————————-\n<\/p>\n
*[English Translation of Hindustani Speech]<\/p>\n
I regret very much that I cannot accept any of these amendments except the one
\nproposing that the word “member” should be substituted by
\n“elected member”, though the word “elected” is not a
\ndefinite improvement. The<\/p>\n
draft would have thoroughly clarified the point: but in spite of this, if you
\nwish to add the word “elected”, I am ready to accept it. Something
\nhas been said about the oath also. It is obvious that it will figure in the
\nConstitution. At this stage, it does not seam necessary.\n<\/p>\n
So far as the question of the election of the President, from the North and
\nthe South and from the States or non-State units is concerned, it seems to be
\nwrong in principle. It is not desirable that we elect ‘the President, once
\nfrom one class and the next time from the other, and framing of rules and
\nstatutory provisions for this purposes is highly undesirable.\n<\/p>\n
In answer to the query, as to why members of the Upper Houses should not take
\npart in the presidential election. I submit that there will be much difference
\nbetween the Upper Houses of the States Units and those of the provinces. I
\ncannot say which the units will have an Upper House. Another point is that the
\nStates and the Provinces will have different standards. No body knows what
\nprinciples the States and the provinces will adopt. If this right is conceded
\nto the Upper Houses it will create confusion. Therefore, in my opinion. the
\nproposition is correct that in the Centre, both the Houses shall have the
\nright to take part in the presidential election, and in the units only the
\nLower House. There is a complexity which has not been clarified i.e., whether
\nthe units will have greater rights than the Centre, whether the members of the
\nCentral Legislature will have one vote-or more to balance the voting strength
\nof units. It is for our advisers to make this point clear, Therefore, for the
\npresent, in my opinion, as I have already stated and as has already been
\nprinted it should be left as it is. I have already stated in the beginning,
\nand I repeat it once again and if you, too reflect Over it, you will arrive
\nat, the same conclusion, that it is best to leave this choice unfettered. I am
\nnot prepared to believe that adult franchise is absolutely essential.
\nObviously, the number of those who will elect the members of the Assembly will
\nbe in millions and they are expected to be proper persons. Therefore, when the
\nmembers of the Assembly themselves are being elected by the votes of millions
\nwhere is the necessity for electing the President by adult franchise?
\nTherefore if you desire to frame and promulgate your constitution without
\nnecessary delay, then we should avoid complications; otherwise we will not be
\nable to frame our Constitution in the least possible time, and act on it.\n<\/p>\n
If you want to elect the President by adult franchise, then this would mean
\nthat we will have to waste much of our time in holding (Presidential)
\nelections and we will not be able to act according to our new Constitution.
\nTherefore, it is my desire that this resolution should be accepted in the form
\nI have put before you.]*<\/p>\n
Mr. Mahomed Sherif: *[Will you kindly throw some light on one matter? You have
\nreferred to election in Clause 2(a). When you accept the principle of
\nnomination in this amendment, then why do you not accept this amendment also?
\nWhy this contradiction between the two?)<\/p>\n
The Honourable Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru: *[Which clause did you read?] *<\/p>\n
Mr. Mahomed Sherif: *[Page 9, Clause 14 (a).]*<\/p>\n
The Honourable Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru: *[The question of may accepting or
\nrejecting nomination is not in issue. I accept that particular type of
\nnomination which is recorded herein, that is to say; nominees of units and
\n“scientific bodies” should be taken. This is not the question. I
\nhave already said that the President should be elected by the votes of the
\nelected members.]*<\/p>\n
————————————————————————————–\n<\/p>\n
*[ ]*English translation of Hindustani speech.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. President: I will now put the amendments to vote first. The first
\namendment which I have to put is the one moved by Mr. Channiah:\n<\/p>\n
“That in sub-clause (1) of Clause 1 after the word “Selected”
\nthe words “by rotation either by the North of India or South of
\nIndia” be inserted.”\n<\/p>\n
May I<\/p>\n
point out to the member the great difficulty which I have rent with regard to
\nthis. The clause as it sought to be amended by him will read:\n<\/p>\n
“The Head of the Federation shall be the President to be elected by
\nrotation either by the North of India or South of India.”\n<\/p>\n
that is to say, the members alone of the North in one year and alone of the
\nSouth in the next election will take part in the election, but I think he
\nmeans not the members who will take part in the election, but the President
\nhimself. I have pointed this out, and shall now put the amendment to vote.\n<\/p>\n
The amendment was negatived.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. President: The next one is by Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad:\n<\/p>\n
“That in sub-clause (1) of Clause 1, for the words “as provided
\nbelow” “the words in the manner set out below” be
\nsubstituted.”\n<\/p>\n
It is a verbal amendment. I do not know if it is necessary. Anyhow, I shall
\nput it to vote.\n<\/p>\n
The amendment was negatived.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. President: Then there is the amendment of Rai Bahadur Syamanandan Sahaya:\n<\/p>\n
“That in paragraph (b) of sub-clause (2) of Clause 1, the words “or,
\nwhere a legislature is bicameral, the members of the Lower House thereof”
\nbe deleted.”\n<\/p>\n
The amendment was negatived.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. President: There is an amendment by Mr. Chengalaraya Reddy that<\/p>\n
“That in sub-clause (2) (b) of clause 1, for the words “the
\nmembers” wherever they occur, the words “the elected members”
\nbe substituted.”\n<\/p>\n
This has been accepted by the Mover.\n<\/p>\n
The amendment was adopted.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. President : Then there is an amendment by Mr. Chandrasekharaiya:that the
\nfollowing new sub-clause be added after sub-clause (3) of Clause 1 :-\n<\/p>\n
“3(A) The President shall be alternately elected from the State and the
\nnon State Units.”\n<\/p>\n
The amendment was negatived.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. President: There is another amendment by Mr. Chandrasekharaiya: that the
\nfollowing new sub-clause be inserted after sub-clause (4) of clause 1 :-\n<\/p>\n
“(5) Provision should be made for the President to take the oath of
\noffice as in the constitution of U.S.A.”\n<\/p>\n
The amendment was negatived.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. President: The next is, Sir, N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar’s amendment:\n<\/p>\n
“That in the last sentence of sub-clause (2) of Clause 1, for the words
\n‘the votes of the Unit Legislative’ the words ‘the votes of the members of the
\nUnit Legislatures’ be substituted.”\n<\/p>\n
The amendment was adopted.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. President: I think these are all the amendments that have been moved. Of
\nthese two have been carried. Now the Resolution as amended is put to vote.\n<\/p>\n
Clause 1, as amended, was adopted.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. President: Now we pass on to Clause 2. Pandit Nehru may move the clause.\n<\/p>\n
CLAUSE 2<\/p>\n
The Honourable Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru: Sir, I beg to move:\n<\/p>\n
(1)The President shall hold office for five years : Provided that-\n<\/p>\n
(a)a President may by resignation under his hand addressed to the Chairman of
\nthe Council of States and the Speaker of the House of the People resign his
\noffices,<\/p>\n
(b)a President may for violation of the Constitution be removal from office by
\nimpeachment in the manner provided in sub-clause (2).\n<\/p>\n
(2)(a) When a President is to be impeached for violation of the Constitution
\nthe charge shall be preferred by either House of the Federal Parliament but no
\nproposal, to prefer such charge shall be adopted by that House except upon a
\nresolution of the House supported by not less than two-thirds of the total
\nmembership of the House.\n<\/p>\n
(b)When a charge has been so preferred by either House of the Federal
\nParliament the other House shall investigate the charge or cause the charge to
\nbe investigated and the President shall have the right to appear and to be
\nrepresented at such investigation.\n<\/p>\n
(c)If as a result of the investigation a resolution is passed supported by not
\nless than two-thirds of the total membership of the House by which the charge
\nwas investigated or caused to be investigated declaring that the charging
\npreferred against the President has been sustained, the resolution, shall have
\nthe effect of removing the President from his office as from the date of the
\nresolution.\n<\/p>\n
(3)A person who holds or who<\/p>\n
has held office as President shall be eligible for re-election once but only
\nonce,”\n<\/p>\n
There are, Sir, we might say, three-parts of this Resolution; one relating to
\nthe term of office-five years. Now, this is not a matter of high principle,
\nbut after consideration we thought five years will be a suitable term. Four
\nwill be too little and more than five certainly too much. The rest of it deals
\nmostly with the impeachment of the President. And lastly, this clause says
\nthat a person can only hold office twice, that is to say, not only twice
\nsuccessively, or consecutively, but twice altogether That means, no man can be
\nPresident for more than ten years altogether in his life. The question, as is
\nwell known, has often been discussed in the United States of America and
\nnormally speaking, nobody was supposed to be President beyond the second term.
\nIn the course of the last war, of course, President Roosevelt actually went
\ninto the fourth term; but as a matter of fact, ten years is about as much as
\nany normal human constitution can bear this heavy burden. Presumably, when a
\nperson becomes President, he will not be too young. He may be in the late
\nforties or fifties and I think it is not right for person to be asked to
\nassume this burden beyond ten years. President Roosevelt, under the stress of
\ncircumstances carried on for the fourth term, but he only carried on for two
\nor three months after his election, So I submit that this rule about not
\nholding office more than twice is a good rule and we should adhere to it.\n<\/p>\n
Forthe rest, I have little more to say. In case there are amendments, I
\nshalldeal with them at the end of the debate.\n<\/p>\n
Mr.President: I have got a number of amendments to this clause. Mr. Pataskar.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. H. V. Patasker (Bombay: General): I (lo not wish to move my, amendment.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. President: Mr. Shibbanlal Saksena.\n<\/p>\n
Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena (United Provinces: General): Sir, I have given
\nnotice of an amendment to the effect:\n<\/p>\n
“That in sub-clause (1) of clause 2, for the figure “5” the
\nfigure “4” be substituted.”\n<\/p>\n
Just now Pandit Nehru was explaining why this term of five years has been
\nfixed upon and said that it was neither too long nor too short for the term.
\nof the President. I quite agree with him. But I would like to point one
\nserious flaw. Later in Clause 13, sub-clause (5) it is stated :\n<\/p>\n
The House of the People. unless soon dissolved, shall continue for four from
\nthe date appointed for its first meeting and no longer…..” :\n<\/p>\n
That means that the life of the House of the People will be four years.
\nSimilarly the fife of our Provincial Legislatures is also four years. This
\nmeans that in the first election the President will continue for one year
\nafter the life of the Provincial Legislature or the life of the House of the
\nPeople comes to an end. In the second election, he will be elected after two
\nyears after the elections for the House of the People, in the next election
\nafter three years and so on. Thus at the time of electing the President the
\nlegislatures may become quite out of date and may not truly reflect the public
\nopinion in the country at the time. Every fourth election of the President
\nwill be by legislatures due to expire a few months after. This will be a most
\nundesirable situation. It may be urged that legislatures will not always run
\ntheir fixed four year terms and some may have to be dissolved earlier. This is
\ntrue, but such dissolutions of legislatures will be rare. Members of some
\nfifteen legislatures will elect the President. If one or two among them have
\nbeen dissolved before completing their normal term, and their members are
\nfreshly elected at the time of the President’s election,, still the members of
\nthe remaining thirteen or fourteen legislatures will not be freshly elected,
\nand the overwhelming majority of the electorate will not truly reflect public
\nopinion in the province at the time of the President’s election. Therefore it
\nwill be much better if the election for the Presidentship is, also held once
\nin four years along with the general election to the Provincial<\/p>\n
legislatures.\n<\/p>\n
It may be argued that when the general elections take place there. will be
\nnone left in office after dissolution of legislatures except caretaker
\ngovernments and it is necessary to have at least the President who’ will not
\nbe a caretaker President. But I submit Sir. the President will vacate his
\noffice only when his successor has been elected, so that the office will never
\nremain vacant, nor will it ever be occupied by a caretaker President. Under
\nthe 5 years system, it is also possible that when a legislature is elected
\nsometime at the end of the fourth year of the President’s term of office, the
\nnew members may lose the chance of electing the President during their life
\ntime.\n<\/p>\n
I wanted to bring these defects to the notice of the House, but I do not want
\nto press my amendment.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. President: Then you do not move your amendment?\n<\/p>\n
Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena: No.<\/p>\n
Mr. President: Hereafter, I think I shall have to ask the members first to
\nmove their amendments and then deliver the speech. Mr. Mahomed Sherif.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. Mahomed Sherif: Mr, President, Sir, my amendment is:\n<\/p>\n
“That in sub-clause (1) of Clause 2, for the figure “5” the
\nfigure ‘4’ be substituted.”\n<\/p>\n
That means that Instead of holding his office for five years, the President
\nshall hold it for four years. My intention is to make the life of the
\nlegislature and the tenure of office of the President the same. That will be
\nin consonance. with the strict principles of democracy The Report says that
\nthe legislature should last for four years; if that is so, then immediately
\nthe legislature goes, the President also must become functus officio and if he
\nstill remains President that will be against the principle of democracy. It
\nmight possibly be argued that after four years the elections would take place
\nand if the President, should be functus officio then, who should carry on the
\nadministration? For this I would suggest that two or three months before the
\nexpiry of the four years the election of the President may be held, so that
\nthe termination of the four years the President would have been elected.\n<\/p>\n
With these observations. Sir, I move my amendment..\n<\/p>\n
Mr. D. H. Chandrasekharaiya (Mysore State): Mr. President, Sir, the amendment
\nwhich stands in my name runs as follows:\n<\/p>\n
“That in sub-clause (1) of Clause 2, for the figure and word “5
\nyears”, the following word be substituted :\n<\/p>\n
“4 years or until the election of a new President whichever event happen
\nlater”. ”\n<\/p>\n
Under our constitution the term of office of the President is proposed to be
\nfixed at five years, while the terms of the lower houses will stand at four
\nyears. Under this arrangement the President becomes one year behind hand
\nduring the second term of the Lower House, two years behind hand during the
\nthird term and four years behind hand during the fifth term. Thus you will
\nfind that the President becomes more and more removed from the popular house,
\nas we advance from the second to the fifth term. This is a state of affairs
\nwhich cannot be accepted with any reason or logic.\n<\/p>\n
The President is proposed to be elected by the members of the Federal and Unit
\nlegislatures. it would therefore be right that the Presidential election
\nshould reflect the opinion of the legislatures concerned and if the
\nPresidential office becomes old and does not properly reflect the opinions. of
\nthe legislatures then there might arise the possibility of conflicts between
\nthe President and the legislature concerned It is to avoid this possibility
\nthat the term of office of the President should be made coterminus with the
\nterms of the popular houses of the Centre and the Units,<\/p>\n
It may be argued that one year extra is proposed to be added to the term of
\noffice of the President, in order that discontinuity in the policies and
\nmeasures of administration should not happen soon after the legislatures come
\nto an end. I do not think that this will really happen, taking the experience
\nof countries where this system actually prevails. But even granting for
\nargument’s sake that this difficulty is bound to occur, it may be<\/p>\n
easily avoided by continuing the same President for a, short time longer till
\nthe new legislatures come into being and the new President is elected.\n<\/p>\n
Let me refer to the practice adopted in a few well known constitutions of the
\nworld. In the U.S.A the President is elected for four years arid he continues
\nduring two periods of the lower house. In Switzerland the Federal Council is
\nelected for four years, that being the period fixed for the lower house, as
\nwell in the Soviet Union the People’s Commissars are elected for four years,
\nwhile the Council of the Union lasts for the same period of four years. In
\nIreland the period of the President is 7 years and the same is the period for
\nthe lower house. Thus the practice elsewhere seems to be that the period of
\nthe term of office of the President coincides with the life of the lower
\nhouses. I think it would be worthwhile to adopt the same practice in our
\nconstitution. I do not think that there is any particular charm in the number
\nFive. Therefore taking the practice obtaining elsewhere into consideration and
\nin view of the advantage of fixing the same period for both the term of office
\nof the President and the term of the lower houses. I feel that. the amendment
\nI have proposed is a very sound one and I hope that the House will kindly
\naccept the same.\n<\/p>\n
(Amendments Nos. 102, 103 and 104 were not moved.)<\/p>\n
Mr. H. V. Kamath: Sir, as the President’s position under the constitution is
\nsuch that he is not likely to misbehave I do not think it is necessary or me
\nto move my amendment No. 105.\n<\/p>\n
(Amendments Nos. 106 to 120 were not moved.)<\/p>\n
Rai Bahadur Syamanandan Sahaya (Bihar: General): Sir, my amendment runs thus:\n<\/p>\n
‘That the following new sub-clause be added after sub-clause (3), of Clause 2
\n: ‘(4) A person who has been removed from the office of the President under
\nsub-clause 2 will not be eligible for re-election for two terms’.”\n<\/p>\n
With your permission and with the permission of the House I would like to
\namend my amendment and drop the words “for two terms” occurring at
\nthe end. My amended amendment will then read: “A person who has been
\nremoved from the office of the President under sub-clause 2 will not be
\neligible for re-election.” The principle suggested in this amendment is
\nof course so obvious that I will not endeavour to place arguments in support
\nand I have no doubt that, in drafting this matter will be set right. A similar
\namendment was moved to the Provincial Constitution. Hence I thought I might as
\nwell place this amendment for your consideration in connection with the Union
\nConstitution.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. H. V. Kamath: Mr. President, as my amendment to sub-clause (3) of Clause 2
\nis unnecessary I am not moving it.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. President: There are all the amendments, of which I have notice to Clause\n<\/p>\n
2. If there are any others. Members who have given notice will please tell me
\nand take this opportunity of moving them. As I see none rising, I think the
\nHouse can now proceed to the discussion of the Clause and also the amendments.\n<\/p>\n
Is there any Member desiring to speak on this Clause? (Honourable Members
\n“Vote”).\n<\/p>\n
The Honourable Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru: There are two amendments moved to this
\nClause neither of which raises any question of high policy, the last one
\nespecially stresses an obvious thing. It is impossible, practically speaking,
\nfor a President removed from office to stand for re-election. I do not imagine
\nany high principles involved in this. We are dealing with important matters.
\nIf something else has to be done about it, it Will be done later.\n<\/p>\n
As regards the amendment concerning the term of years, that too is not a
\nmatter of big policy. We fixed this period for various reasons into which I
\nneed not go now, one of them being not to just fit in with the four-year
\nperiod of the other elections. Now, many members seem to think that, while the
\nelections to the provincial and other legislatures will take place once in
\nfour years, this alone will take place every five years and that after
\nsometime it may so happen that the electors will be rather old in the sense<\/p>\n
of being elected three or four years previously. Well it may be that the
\nfive-year period for the President will be a fixed term unless the President
\ndies or is impeached or something happens to him. But, so far as the other
\nprovincial, etc. elections are concerned it is obvious and it is highly likely
\nthat the four-year period will not be strictly adhered to. Elections will
\nnecessarily have to be held from time to time. Something may happen; the
\nMinistry might change; it might lose the confidence of the House and so many
\nother things may happen and there will be so many of the provincial
\nlegislatures that you can not say at any time that the membership has remained
\nconstant without a change. Membership of the legislatures will be changing
\nfrom year to year or from quarter to quarter so that this objection that the
\n‘Rashtrapati’ will be chosen by an electorate which itself has been chosen
\nseveral years previously does not hold at all. There will be a changing
\nelectorate all the time and the four-year period is only maximum period. The
\nelectorate may remain unchanged for one year or 6 months and fresh election
\nwill take place as it now does. I submit therefore that, in the balance, the
\nfive-year period is better.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. President: I will put the amendment to the vote. The question is :\n<\/p>\n
“That in sub-clause (1) of clause 2, for the figure “5” the
\nfigure `4″ be substitute.”\n<\/p>\n
The motion was negatived.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. President: Now I shall Put the next amendment to the vote. The question
\nis:\n<\/p>\n
“That in sub-clause (1) of Clause 2, for the figure and word `5
\nyears” the following words be substituted : ‘4 years or until the
\nelection of a new President whichever event happens later’.”\n<\/p>\n
The motion was negatived.\n<\/p>\n
Rai Bahadur Syamanandan Sahaya: Sir, I wish to say a word at the stage I do
\nnot think it will be right to take a negative vote on my amendment (No. 121).
\nI would rather leave it to the drafters. A negative vote on this amendment
\nwill mean that in the opinion of this House an impeached President will be
\neligible for re-election. If the Hon’ble Mover is not in a position to accept
\nmy amendment I would withdraw it rather than risk a negative vote.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. President: I take it that the House grants him leave to withdraw his
\namendment.\n<\/p>\n
The motion was. by leave of the Assembly, withdrawn.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. President: The question is that Clause 2 be accepted.\n<\/p>\n
The motion was adopted.\n<\/p>\n
CLAUSE 3<\/p>\n
The Honourable Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru: I beg to move that Clause 3 be
\nadopted. It runs as follows:\n<\/p>\n
‘3 Every citizen of the Federation who has completed the age of thirty five
\nyears and is qualified for election as a member of the House of the People
\nshall be eligible for election as President.”\n<\/p>\n
This is a very simple, proposition and I do not think any argument is needed
\nto support. It has been believed that a person who has not achieved much by
\nthe age of 35 is not going to do much later. Nevertheless, normally speaking
\nin India, and more especially in other places, men up to 35 sometimes do not
\neven get a chance to achieve much. Others hold the field. In any case, the age
\n35 is not a high limit. I think it is a fair limit. It means that a person who
\nis chosen shall have at least a dozen years or so of experience. I think it is
\ntherefore a fairly safe age or debarring the candidates. I hope the House will
\naccept the Clause.\n<\/p>\n
(Amendments Nos. 123 to 128 were not moved.)<\/p>\n
Mr. H. V. Kamath: While not moving my amendment, I would however, seek
\nclarification from Pandit Nehru on one point. The expression used for a
\nsimilar purpose in the Provincial Constitution was “reached the age of 35
\nyears” and here we are using the phrase “completed the age of 35
\nyears”. I do not know why we are adopting different language here. Do the
\ntwo phrases mean One and the same thing?\n<\/p>\n
The Honourable Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru: I am sorry I did not hear a word of
\nwhat Mr. Kamath said. Anyway I am not responsible for the Provincial
\nConstitution. I consider this a better wording. To say ‘completed’, means
\ndefinitely what it says. What the other wording<\/p>\n
means I do not know. (Laughter),<\/p>\n
(Messrs. Thakur Das Bhargava, Rajkrushna Bose and H. V. Kamath did not move
\nthe amendments in their names.)<\/p>\n
Mr. President: I think these are all the amendments of which notice has been
\ngiven. I think there is no other amendment. I shall now put the clause to
\nvote.\n<\/p>\n
Clause 3 was adopted.\n<\/p>\n
CLAUSE 4<\/p>\n
The Honourable Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru: I move Clause 4, Conditions of
\nPresident’s office.\n<\/p>\n
“(1) The President shall not be a member of either House of the Federal
\nParliament and if a member of either House be elected President, he shall be
\ndeemed to have vacated his seat in that House.\n<\/p>\n
(2)The President shall not hold any other office or position of emolument.\n<\/p>\n
(3)The President shall have an official residence and shall receive such
\nemoluments and allowances as may be determined by Act of the Federal
\nParliament and until then, such as prescribed in schedule……….\n<\/p>\n
(4)The emoluments and allowances of the President shall not be diminished
\nduring his term of office”.\n<\/p>\n
There is one small matter which I thought might be cleared up and I shall
\nawait an amendment to clear that up.’ In sub-clause (1), it says “The
\nPresident shall not be a member of either House of the Federal Parliament.`
\nObviously he should also not be a member of any provincial legislature. I
\nbelieve some amendment will be moved to this effect. If so, I will accept it.\n<\/p>\n
Nawab Muhammad Ismail Khan (United Provinces: Muslim): May I ask the Mover as
\nto what he means by the words “The President shall not hold any position
\nof emolument.” Does he also mean that he cannot be a director of a
\ncompany or merely that he cannot hold any position of emolument under the
\nGovernment?\n<\/p>\n
The Honourable Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru: He shall not hold any other office or
\nposition of emolument, whatever it may be. He cannot hold any other office
\nwhich brings him some gain.\n<\/p>\n
Nawab Muhammad Ismail Khan: I hope you will make it quite clear.\n<\/p>\n
The Honourable Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru: It is perfectly clear. It is dead
\nclear. As the House knows, the convention his that even the Ministers should
\nnot hold directorships of companies. That is the convention in many countries.
\nalthough it cannot be the law. So far as the President is concerned, he should
\nnot hold any directorships or any position of profit or gain in business.\n<\/p>\n
Dr. B. Pattabhi Sitaramayya (Madras: General): But that is not conveyed by the
\nwording.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. President: We shall have a discussion of the clause when all the
\namendments have been moved.\n<\/p>\n
(Messrs. Seth Govindas, Ajit Prasad Jain, S. V. Krishnamurthy Rao and
\nNaziruddin Ahmad did not move their amendments.)<\/p>\n
Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad (West Bengal: Muslim): Mr. President, Sir, I beg to move
\nthat for sub-clause (2) of Clause 4, the following be substituted :\n<\/p>\n
“(2) The President shall not hold any position or office under the Union
\nor under any Provincial Government, or in or under any local authority or in
\nor under any business concern (whether incorporated or not) in any honorary
\ncapacity or for any emolument allowance.”\n<\/p>\n
Sir, I find that this point has struck some honuorable members of this House.
\nWhat the report says is that the President shall not hold any other office or
\nposition of emolument, but it may be that he may hold an honorary office in a
\nbusiness concern. It he is concerned with any religious charitable,
\neducational or similar other institution, there can be no objection, but I
\nthink, if he is connected with any business concern even in any honorary
\ncapacity, it will be open to serious objection. Any businessman can ask the
\nPresident to be a patron of his business and he might secure good business
\nbecause of that. That would be throwing the President into the arena of party
\npolitics. I would submit that this sort of business connection should not be
\nallowed. I am only urging this to enable the drafting committee to consider
\nthis point. This is all that I desire to submit to the House.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. H. V. Pataskar: Sub-clause (2) of Clause 4, gave rise to doubts and and
\ntherefore I tabled this amendment which<\/p>\n
stands in my name, “nor shall he be interested in any business or
\nprofession for gain or profit”. Since I now understand that it is not the
\nintention that the President should hold any interest in any business, I am
\nnot moving this amendment. AR the same, I would request that when the final
\ndraft constitution is prepared, this should be made more clear.\n<\/p>\n
Shri T. A. Ramalingam Chettiyar (Madras: General) : My amendment refers to
\nappointments after the President has held office. I , will leave it to the
\nMover to accept it or not, as he likes, and if he does not accept it, I do not
\nwant to press it.\n<\/p>\n
The Honourable Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru: What is the amendment referred to it?\n<\/p>\n
Mr. President: The amendment which Mr. Ramalingam Chettiyar has given notice
\nof is “that the person who has held office as President shall not be
\neligible to be appointed to any salaried office in the Federation” i.e.
\nafter he has ceased to be a President, he shall not be appointed. The
\namendment is not moved formally. Therefore we shall proceed further.\n<\/p>\n
(Messrs. D. Govinda Doss, P. Kakkan, V. I. Muniswami Pillay and P.M.
\nVelayudapani did not move their amendments).\n<\/p>\n
K.T.M. Ahmed Ibrahim Sahib Bahadur (Madras: Muslim) : Mr. President, Sir, I
\nmove:\n<\/p>\n
“That in the last sentence of sub-clause (2) of Clause 1, for the words
\n‘the votes of the Federal Parliament and until then, such be deleted.”\n<\/p>\n
Now, Sir, the President of the Federation is the supreme executive authority
\nof the whole State and as such he should be completely free from any party
\ninfluence when once he is elected. But if the determination of his emoluments
\nand allowances are dependent on any Act of the Federal Parliament it is quite
\npossible that he will be conscious of the fact that the determination of his
\nsalary is subject to party influence and that his actions may on occasions be
\nswayed by such consciousness. It is therefore meet and proper, Sir, that the
\nPresident’s salary should be placed beyond any party influence in order to
\nensure impartiality in his actions and therefore I have moved this amendment.
\nI hope it will be accepted by the Honourable Mover.\n<\/p>\n
(Messrs. B. M. Gupta, R. K. Sidhwa, Biswanath Das, Thakur Das Bhargava
\nSyamanandan Sahaya, and S. Nijalingappa, did not move their amendments.\n<\/p>\n
K.T.M. Ahmed Ibrahim Sahib Bahadur: Mr. President, Sir, I move:\n<\/p>\n
“That in sub-clause (4) of Clause 4, for the word “diminished”,
\nthe word altered” be substituted.”\n<\/p>\n
In the draft it is provided that the salary of the President shall not be
\ndiminished, but at the same time there should also be no Provision for the
\nincrement of salary during his tenure of office as President. The reason is
\nthe same as I pointed out when I moved the previous amendment., i.e., the
\nPresident should not be in any way conscious that his salary is dependent on
\nany Act of Parliament and it is absolutely necessary that the quantum of his
\nsalary should be determined by the Constitution Act itself.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. Ramnarain Singh (Bihar: General): *[Mr. President, I propose: “that
\nthe President must not be a party-man”.\n<\/p>\n
When the Objectives Resolution enunciating our objectives was moved in the
\nHouse I put in an amendment that a proviso that no party would be deemed legal
\nin this country, should be incorporated in the constitution. Every party
\nwhether named after any person or following any particular principle should be
\ndeclared illegal.\n<\/p>\n
The reason for my amendment is this. In many countries of the world there are
\nparty governments and they flatter themselves with the thought that they are
\ndemocratic. What does democracy mean? It means, “Panchayati
\nRajya”-the peoples’ government. The very word makes it clear that the
\nparty system of government is poles apart from democracy. In India it is
\nbelieved that the “Panch”, is God Himself and its rule is God’s
\nrule. I venture to say that the very term party system deteriorates at times
\ninto a government of the wicked and the sly. Sometimes it seems as if there is
\nno gentle soul in the party. A few sly persons from a party and establish
\ntheir own government<\/p>\n
in the name of Democracy. I appeal to the members of this Assembly that the
\nparty system be abolished. So long there is a party true of democracy cannot
\nexist. The party system is fatal to democracy.]*<\/p>\n
Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru: *[Mr. President, on a point of order. I would like to
\nknow what bearing this speech has on my motion.]*<\/p>\n
Mr. President: The amendment which he has moved is ‘that the President must
\nnot be a party-man’.\n<\/p>\n
The Honourable Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru: I should like to understand its
\nbearing.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. President : He wants to put a disqualification on a-candidate who wants to
\nstand for Presidentship.\n<\/p>\n
The Honourable Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru: A disqualification which can be
\nmeasured, weighed, computed somehow. It must have some relation to fact.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. President: So far as the amendment is concerned, I cannot rule it out.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. Ramnarain Singh: *[Yes, I will just tell you. I am condemning here the
\nparty system and suggest to the House that our President should not be a party
\nman. What I mean is this that often the party system of government is mistaken
\nfor democracy or Panchayati Rajya. To make it clear let me put a concrete
\nexample. Suppose a particular party has 300 members in the Assembly.]*<\/p>\n
Mr. President: *[Please do not discuss the party system at length. You just
\nmake out your point that the President should not be a party man. Merits and
\ndemerits of the party system cannot be discussed here.]*<\/p>\n
——————————————————————————————\n<\/p>\n
*[] English translation of Hindustani speech.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. Ramnarayan Singh: *[I submit to your ruling, Sir, I shall not discuss
\nthat. But it is difficult for me to support the amendment unless we condemn
\nthe party system. However, I shall not further press it at the moment. If
\ngiven a chance, I shall speak on its later. Now I conclude with the remark
\nthat it is absolutely essential that the President must not be a party man.]*<\/p>\n
The Honourable Sir. N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar : Sir, I wish to move an amendment
\nto sub-clause (1) of Clause 4. It is in the following terms:\n<\/p>\n
“For sub-clause (1) of Clause 4 the following be substituted: ‘The,
\nPresident shall not be a member of Parliament or of any, Legislature and if
\nsuch a member be elected President, he shall be deemed to have vacated his
\nseat in Parliament or in the Legislature concerned.” The Principle of
\nsub-clause (1), which, now, according to draft above the House, applies only
\nto the Federal Parliament will be extended by this amendment to membership of
\nthe legislatures of the Units. I have advisedly used the terms ‘Parliament’
\nand ‘Legislature’, because, under the principles adopted for drafting in
\nconnection with this document, “Parliament” applies to the
\nlegislature of the Federation and the word ‘Legislature’ is confined to the
\nlegislatures of the Units. I have nothing more to say.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. President: All the amendments have been moved. The original proposition
\nand the amendments are now open for discussion.\n<\/p>\n
Shri K. Santhanam : Sir, I accept the clause as it is; but I do feel that it
\nrequires to be filled up in the drafting stage.\n<\/p>\n
My honourable friend Mr. Ram Narayan Singh moved an amendment which in its
\npresent form is not suitable. The President has to stand as a party man. But
\nit is essential that after the election, he should give up all his association
\nwith any political party.\n<\/p>\n
As you know, there has been some discussion as to whether the Speaker of the
\nAssembly can continue to be a party man. It has not yet been decided. I hope
\nin the new constitution, the President, the Governors and the Speakers, will
\nall cease to have connection with any political party.\n<\/p>\n
Then, again, there are business connections. Of course, “position of
\nemolument” may cover many things; but it will not cover other things.
\nTake for instance the holding of shares in a company. It is not possible to
\npresent the President from holding shares; but it is essential that as soon as
\nhe is elected, he must declare his holdings in any company so that the public
\nwill know. During his<\/p>\n
term of office, he should not be allowed to acquire any shares or immovable
\nproperty except through a special procedure. We must keep the President far
\nabove all these complications. Otherwise, all kinds of rumours and slander
\nwill be set afloat. I hope the Drafting Committee which will be set up for
\ndrafting will go into the matter and give us a good, comprehensive draft which
\ncould be put into the constitution.\n<\/p>\n
Pandit Lakshmi Kanta Maitra: Mr. President, Sir, I wish to, put in half a
\ndozen sentences in connection with the amendments which have just been moved.\n<\/p>\n
In reply to the question of my Honourable friend Mr. Ismail, the mover of the
\nresolution has made it perfectly clear that the Union President will not be
\nentitled to hold any office in any joint stock or limited company. He cannot
\nbe a Director of a registered or unregistered body. He cannot be in receipt of
\nany salary or emoluments from any quarter. The principle is very salutary and
\nsound. He should be a man who has no other allegiance except to the State, a
\nman who has for the time being dedicated his whole energy to the service of
\nthe State. He should be in a position to give undivided attention to his
\noffice.\n<\/p>\n
—————————————————————————————–\n<\/p>\n
*[ ]*English translation of Hindustani speech.\n<\/p>\n
While I am clear on this and the House will agree to this, that he should not
\nhold any office of emolument, I think we should go a step further. 1 am
\ninclined to think that the President should not hold any honorary office. For
\ninstance, he cannot be the President of a Chamber of Commerce; lie cannot be
\nthe President of a Trade Union organisation and the like. My idea is that from
\nsuch honorary offices also he should be excluded, because, his position might
\nbe utilised for furthering sectional interest. I am not moving a formal
\namendment. I hope and trust that the honourable the mover of the resolution,
\nwhen it goes for final drafting, will take note of these things and see to it
\nthat in the final draft these things are. included.\n<\/p>\n
We are all agreed that the President should be a man, who like Caesar’s wife,
\nshould be above suspicion. To ensure this, all these steps should be taken and
\neven the extreme step proposed by my honourable friend Mr. Ram Narayan Singh
\nshould be taken into consideration. You cannot eliminate a party man from
\nstanding for the Presidentship. But as soon as he gets into the office of
\nUnion President, he should certainly sever all his political connections and
\npolitical affiliations, and he should cease to be a party man. That goes
\nwithout saying. Keeping in view all these things, I hope the honourable the
\nmover will, at the final stage, take such steps as will make the position of
\nthe President unimpeachable and above suspicion.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. M. S. Aney (Deccan and Madras States): Mr. President, Sir, I have to make
\none or two suggestions in regard to the words “Position of
\nemoluments” so that when this memorandum goes back to the Drafting
\nCommittee for final draft, they may be taken into consideration.\n<\/p>\n
It has been pointed out, and rightly too, that the words “position of
\nemolument” are not comprehensive to include many position in which
\nemoluments are had by persons and therefore the words have to be made more
\nclear. I may point out one or two instances which probably you may not have
\nnoted. For example in the C.P. and Berar, there is a system of hereditary
\nvillage officers known as Patels and Patwaris. Again there are persons who are
\ncalled Ex-Pargana officers styled Deshmukhs. Deshpande, etc. They were real
\nPargana officers in olden times and in recognition of that fact, certain
\nemoluments are given to them by the British Government. My honourable friend
\nDr. P. S. Deshmukh who is our colleague in this House belongs too that class.
\nThey get certain emoluments which are known as Rasams; these persons are
\ncalled Ex-Pargana officers. Up to this time, in all matters of elections,
\nPatils, Patwaris and these Pargana officers in C. P. and Berar used to be
\nconsidered as not holding a<\/p>\n
position of emolument debarring a citizen from standing as a candidate for
\nelection. The second thing I want to mention is there are members of the old
\nRoyal family who are getting certain political pensions. They are not called
\nemoluments. Are we to consider that persons in this position should be
\ndebarred from standing for election as President? It is not an emolument but a
\ncompensation paid for what was taken from their royal ancestors. It is
\nsomething in the nature of a private property of the man. These are the three
\nkinds of emoluments, two of which are particularly peculiar to the provinces
\nin which I live I therefore wish that the Committee which is going to draft
\nthe Constitution should consider these points while drafting with a view to
\nexclude them from ’emoluments, in this clause.\n<\/p>\n
With regard to the amendment of my friend Mr. Ram Narayan Singh would like to
\nstate that if a man, no matter what party he belongs to, once occupies the
\nPresidentship, he must sever his connections with the party and remain a
\nnon-party man, but you cannot expect a man to be a non-party man before he
\ndoes take that place. It is something like askinga fish not to be in the
\nwater. A person must belong to some party, it may not be a political party
\nlike the Congress, it may be some other party, he may belong to some religious
\nparty. A man being a social being, is supposed to belong to some kind of a
\nparty or group And if we use that word ‘non-party man’ it will be difficult to
\nelect a President. Therefore, although I cannot subscribe to that particular
\namendment which he has suggested, I accept the principle that once he is
\nelected to that position, he is expected to be a non-party man and he should
\nsever his connection with his party and remain there as a man belonging to all
\nor as a man belonging to none. He must take one of the two positions and only
\nin that case he will be in a position to discharge his duties properly.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. President: Mr. Sri Prakasa.\n<\/p>\n
Shri Sri Prakasa: Listening, Sir, to some of the speeches almost compels me to
\nrepeat what I said-in another place that it seems that some members at least
\nare of the opinion that the President should be a person who has no ostensible
\nmeans of livelihood. (Laughter). I think, Sir, that we should have some trust
\nin the person whom we are putting up for the Office of the President. We
\nshould not fetter him in any way. If we do not like the man’s profession, then
\nwe need not put him up at all. But if we like the man, we can trust him to do
\nhis best as President and not allow his profess-ion to interfere with his
\nactions. We can understand your prohibiting a man from practising law or
\npractising Medicine as long as he is the President of the Republic but it
\nwould not be fair to, expect him to give up all or any means of livelihood
\nthat he may possess as a non-President simply because he is elected to the
\noffice of the President.\n<\/p>\n
How, I ask, would it be possible for a person to transfer all his property, if
\nhe has any house property, landed property, shares, etc. to someone else who
\nshould keep all these things in trust for him against the day when he returns
\nto non-official life? How are you going to be sure that the person is going to
\nget back on relinquishing his office. all the property which he possessed
\nbefore he became President? I could agree, if you have a provision that a
\nperson who has once been a President will be guaranteed a sufficient
\ncompetence for the rest of his life. In that case I can understand any member
\nwanting to deprive the President of all or any of his possessions that he may
\nhave had before. Even lawyers find it difficult to go back to their profession
\nafter they have been out of it for a long time. I am particularly worried
\nabout persons who like myself, may possess some landed property. (Laughter.)
\nBefore all these landed properties are abolished in your province and mine,
\nthere may be some provision made for persons-not that I am a candidate-who are
\nin that position so that they could stand for the Presidentship. There may be
\nsome provision so that<\/p>\n
persons who are in the unfortunate position of possessing some properties of
\nthat nature may not be wholly debarred.\n<\/p>\n
Sir, it would not be fair either for the person who is put up for the
\nPresidentship to be required to declare all the shares that he may possess in
\nvarious companies. Suppose he forgets one or two non-paying shares that he
\npossesses e.g., in the National Herald of Lucknow……..\n<\/p>\n
Shri Balkrishna Sharma (United Provinces: General): May I know on a point of
\ninformation, viz., why has he taken it for granted that the person will have
\ndivest himself of all his properties as soon as he takes up his office.\n<\/p>\n
Shri Sri Prakasa: I thought that was what Mr. Santhanam was after.\n<\/p>\n
Shri K. Santhanam: I merely wanted him to declare his shares so that we will
\nknow.\n<\/p>\n
Shri Sri Prakasa: I think, Sir, we must look at the man whom we are putting in
\nthe President’s position and not at his property or at his shares or anything
\nelse. If we trust the man, we ought to Put him in that office. If we don’t, we
\nought not to put him there. Even if you make a beggar aPresident, he can be as
\ndishonest as the biggest shareholder or anyone else. Honestly does not
\nnecessarily depend upon the economic position of the individual. Honesty is
\nsomething apart, What we want is that our President should be a person above
\nsuspicion; and whether he is already already possessed of any property or not
\ndoes not really matter. I think we should not hedge in the position of
\nPresident by any of the provisions that we are seeking to introduce.\n<\/p>\n
Shri M. Ananthasayanam Ayyangar: Sir, it is rather surprising that we should
\nhear these words from our friend Shri Sri Parkasa. It is not that he has
\nentirely misunderstood the scope of the amendment. If he should be chosen as
\nthe President, let him continue to be in possession of his properties. But we
\nwill assume he becomes the Commerce Member. He ought not to deal in shares the
\nmoment he becomes a Member. Otherwise, if a Commerce Member of any Government
\nor the President gets into the share market, there is an assurance that that
\nparticular share for which he goes in is a sound one. The next day he may sell
\nthem away. He will be in a position to monopolize the shares. We are not going
\nto clothe the President of the Federation with such powers to traffic in
\nimmoral business-there are various kinds of immorality. Now. Sir, my friend
\nMr. Santhanam’s amendment is that we should insist, upon the President to
\ndeclare what shares he possesses. My friend Mr. Sri Prakasa says there may be
\na share lurking in some comer and he may not know. I don’t think he will be so
\nnegligent about his own affairs. But he expects the President to be negligent
\nabout his affairs. As regards business, even if he is a honorary President or
\nDirector of a business, and may receive only sitting fees, all the same when
\nhe has to give assent to a particular Bill, he may be induced to send it back,
\nparticularly if those provisions affect his bank or concern. I don’t mean to
\nsay that a particular thing will arise but it shows the necessity why the
\nPresident should not be connected with these directly or indirectly.\n<\/p>\n
Then as regards his being a party man, Sir, it is impossible unless he is a
\nwooden block or a wooden tool. He ought to belong to one party or other. After
\nhe is elected, it must be obligatory that he should resign all his connection
\nwith the previous party and absolve himself of the allegiance that he owes. To
\nthat extent, one may reasonably expected but to say that he ought not to be a
\npartyman is impracticable. I am trying to find out one but I am afraid we may
\nnot be able to get a non-party man at all. I cm only think of a pial school
\nteacher as a non-party man. Even he may be inclined in favour of his District
\nBoard President who may be a party man. Therefore. it is impossible to come
\nacross a non-party mean in any sense of the word. It is enough if he gives up
\nhis connections with his party after he becomes President of the Federation or
\nthe President of the Union. I do say, Sir that all these limitations and<\/p>\n
qualifications are necessary so as to ensure that proper administration and
\nproper men will be available.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. President: There is no other speaker. Has the Mover of the clause anything
\nto say in reply?\n<\/p>\n
The Honourable Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru: Sir, a great deal has been said about
\nthe emoluments of the President. It seems to me that it is very difficult to
\nmake lists of offices which he should not hold. Only a general principle can
\nbe laid down and carefully no doubt, but subsequently the rest depends a great
\ndeal on convention. If you start making long lists, it means that there may be
\nmany things left out which he can do. So normally speaking, one will have to
\ndepend upon convention. The point is that he should not be actively connected
\nor associated with the management of any gainful office. Obviously, in the
\nmodern world, if he is a at all well-to-do, he will have some shares or like
\nMr. Sri Prakasa he may be a landholder or he may have some other property-
\nThere isno chance as far as I can see of Mr. Sri Prakasa being prevented from
\nstanding for the Presidentship and I would deem it a calamity if it we* so. So
\nI submit that at this moment one need not go further into this question but
\nleave it as it is and not Only for the drafting but for the convention to grow
\nup.\n<\/p>\n
In one matter I am inclined to agree with what Mr. Santhanam said, although I
\ndo not think it is necessary to put it down, and that is that any person in
\nhigh responsible office should make some kind of disclosure of his connections
\nwith business and of his holdings, etc. I think there would be an advantage in
\nthat, whether he is a President or whether he is a Minister or any other
\nperson in high responsible office. (Hear, hear.) I accept. Sir, the amendment
\nmoved by Sir N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar, which clarifies sub-clause (1).\n<\/p>\n
There is the question I believe of the emoluments and allowances of the
\nPresident. A suggestion has been made that some other words should be used
\ninstead of “diminished”. After consideration we came to the
\nconclusion that “diminished” was the right word. We could use
\n“varied” or “increased or diminished” but on the whole
\n“diminished” was considered the best. The point is that the
\nlegislature has in its power to do anything it chooses, but it must not
\nexercise its power to the deteriment of the person who has been chosen the
\nPresident. There is no question of increasing his allowances or emoluments
\nunless the Parliament so desires. You need not check Parliament doing
\nanything, but there is the slight danger possibly of Parliament or the people
\nfrom making the position of the President impossible. Therefore You say it
\nshould not be “diminished.” In these clays, one does not quite know,
\nsuddenly there might be inflation and it may affect the situation so much that
\nall normal standards of salaries and allowances might have to change. So I
\ndon’t think any change is needed there.\n<\/p>\n
Last of all, the amendment moved in regard to the President not being a party
\nman-now, I don’t know, but certainly I have a certain sneaking sympathy with
\nsuch a proposition. But inspite of that, it seems to me completely
\nimpractical. What is a party man? No doubt, one thinks in terms of the huge
\nparty machines running political elections. But it is almost impossible for
\nyou to advise all of them. There are all kinds of parties and a person does
\nnot become bad because he belongs to a small party or a big party. Everybody
\nis associated, I am afraid, with some group or association. The point is that
\nthe President should not function as a party men after he is elected. That, on
\nthe whole, is so. I am not myself clear in own mind as to what his relation to
\nthe party he belongs to should be after his election. However, the question
\ndoes not arise. But in any event, he should function as any one should
\nfunction, whether he is a party man or not, completely impartially when he is
\nin high office. SO Sir, I regret I am unable to accept any amendment except
\nSir N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar’s.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. President: I will now put the amendments to vote. I will first put the<\/p>\n
amendment moved by Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad:\n<\/p>\n
“That for sub-clause (2) of Clause 4. the following be substituted:\n<\/p>\n
(2)The President shall not hold- any position or office under the Union or
\nunder any provincial Government, or in or under any local authority or in or
\nunder any business concern (whether incorporated or not) in any honorary
\ncapacity or for any emolument or allowance.”\n<\/p>\n
The amendment was negatived.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. President: Now the amendment moved by K. T. M. Ahmed Ibrahim Sahib
\nBahadur:\n<\/p>\n
“That in Sub-clause (3) of clause 4, the words ‘as may be determined by
\nthe Act of the. Federal Parliament and until then, such’ be deleted.\n<\/p>\n
The amendment was negatived.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. President, There is another amendment by the same member that-\n<\/p>\n
“That in Sub-clause (4) of clause 4 for the word ‘diminished’ the word
\n‘altered’ be substituted.”\n<\/p>\n
The amendment was negatived.\n<\/p>\n
Mr.. President: Then there is an amendment by Mr. Ram Narayan Singh, namely:
\nthat the following be inserted as sub-clause (5) of clause 4:\n<\/p>\n
“(5) The President must not be a party-man.”\n<\/p>\n
Mr. Ramanarayana Singh: I do not press my amendment.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. President: I take it the House allows him to withdraw his amendment.\n<\/p>\n
Honourable Members: Yes.\n<\/p>\n
The amendment was, by the leave of the Assembly, withdrawn..\n<\/p>\n
Mr. President: The amendment moved by Sir N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar is:\n<\/p>\n
“That for sub-clause (1) of Clause 4, the following be substituted: ‘The
\nPresident shall not be a member of Parliament or of any Legislature and, if
\nsuch a member be elected President, he shall be deemed to have vacated his
\nseat in Parliament or in the Legislature concerned.-\n<\/p>\n
The amendment was adopted.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. President: Now the Resolution, as amended, is put to vote.\n<\/p>\n
Clause 4, as amended, was adopted.\n<\/p>\n
The Honourable Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru: Sir, I move:\n<\/p>\n
“Clause5-Appropriate provision should be made for election to fill casual
\nvacancy is,the detailed procedure for all elections, whether casual or not,
\nbeing left to beregulated by Act of the Federal Parliament:Provided that-\n<\/p>\n
(a)an election to fill a casual vacancy shall be held as soon as possible
\nafter, and in no case later than six months from, the date of occurrence of
\nthe vacancy; and (b)the person elected as President at an election to fill a
\ncasual vacancy shall be entitled to hold office for the full term of five
\nyears.” The word “casual” here has not been very happily used,
\nSir; but I propose to accept an amendment to delete it from the various
\nplaces.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. President: I shall take up the amendments now.\n<\/p>\n
(Messrs. B. M. Gupte, A. K. Ghosh, Rajkrushna Bose, Biswanath Das and S.
\nNagappa. did not move their amendments Nos. 151 to 155).\n<\/p>\n
Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad: Sir, I beg to move:\n<\/p>\n
“That in proviso (b) to Clause 5, the words ‘at an election’ be
\ndeleted.”\n<\/p>\n
Sir, this is a purely drafting amendment which aught to be accepted.\n<\/p>\n
The proviso says”\n<\/p>\n
“The Person elected as president at an election<\/p>\n
The words “at an election” are redundant, as he has been elected.
\nThe very fact that he is the person ‘elected ‘as President makes it perfectly
\nclear that he has been elected at an election. The moment you say elected as
\nPresident’ the words ‘at an election’ are necessarily implied, and are
\ntherefore redundant. My amendment, as I said, is purely a drafting amendment
\nand it should be accepted. for obvious reasons.\n<\/p>\n
(Mesas. K. Chengalaraya Reddy, Shibbanlal Saksena, Gokulbhai D. Bhatt, D. H.
\nChandrasekharaiya and C. Subramaniam, did not move their amendments Nos. 158,
\n159, 161, 162 and 163).\n<\/p>\n
The Honourable Sir N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar: Sir, the Honourable Mover has
\nalready referred to the use of the words “casual vacancies” in this
\nclause. This expression has given rise to a number of difficulties which
\ndeserve to be avoided. Casual vacancies are generally vacancies which occur in
\nthe middle of a prescribed term for a particular office, and when they are
\nfilled up, the person who gets into the office is supposed to be in the office
\nonly for the remainder of the term. But the whole’ object of this clause is
\nthat the<\/p>\n
person elected for the vacancy should start on a full term of office, and
\ntherefore it is desirable that the drafting of this clause should be so
\nchanged as to bring out the intention much more clearly than it does now. For
\nachieving this end, I move the following amendment.\n<\/p>\n
“That for Clause 5, the following be substituted:\n<\/p>\n
‘5. Vacancies in the office of President.-Appropriate provision should be made
\nfor elections to fill vacancies in the office of President, whether occurring
\nbefore, or at, the end of the normal term of an incumbent of that office, the
\ndetailed procedure for elections being left to be regulated by Act of the
\nFederal Parliament:\n<\/p>\n
Provided that in the case of a vacancy occurring before the end of the normal
\nterm of a particular incumbent,<\/p>\n
(a)the election to fill the vacancy shall be held as soon as possible after,
\nand, in no case, later than six months from, the date occurrence of the
\nvacancy; and (b)the person elected as President at such election shall be
\nentitiled to hold office for the full term of five years’.” I do not
\nthink any more words are necessary to explain it.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. President: The amendments have been moved. The amendments ;and the
\nResolution are now open for discussion.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. Jagat Narain Lal (Bihar: General): Sir, I have to say a few words ;about
\nthe amendment moved by Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad. He seems to think that the
\namendment proposed by him is merely a drafting amendment; but it is not so.
\nActually the vacancy may be filled in more ways than one. If the vacancy has
\nbeen filled otherwise than by regular election, say by nomination or
\notherwise, than the person shall not be entitled to hold office for the full
\nterm. Therefore, I submit, Sir, that the amendment proposed by Mr. Naziruddin
\nAhmed is not an amendment which can be accepted.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. President: There is no one else who wants to speak on the motion. The
\nMover may now reply.\n<\/p>\n
The Honourable Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru: Sir, I accept Sir N. Gopalaswami
\nAyyangar’s amendment, that is all.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. President. Then I shall put the amendments to vote. The amendment is:\n<\/p>\n
“That in Proviso (b) to Clause 5, the words ‘at an election’ be
\ndeleted.”\n<\/p>\n
The amendment was negatived.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. President: Then there is the amendment moved by Sir N. Gopalaswami
\nAyyangar. It has been accepted by the Mover, but it has to be accepted by the
\nHouse.\n<\/p>\n
The amendment was adopted.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. President: The amendment becomes the substantive clause. Now I put Clause
\n5, as amended, to the vote of the House.\n<\/p>\n
Clause 5 as amended, was adopted.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. President: It is now just 1 o’clock. The House stands adjourned till 10
\no’clock tomorrow morning.\n<\/p>\n
The assembly then adjourn till 10 of the clock on Friday, the 25th July, 1947.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Constituent Assembly Debates Constituent Assembly Debates On 24 July, 1947 CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY OF INDIA VOLUME-IV Thursday, the 24th July 1947 The Constituent Assembly of India met in the Constitution Hall at Ten of the Clock on Thursday, the 24th July, 1947, Mr. President (The Honourable Dr. Rajendra Prasad) in the Chair. PRESENTATION OF CREDENTIALS AND […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-271033","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-judgements"],"yoast_head":"\nConstituent Assembly Debates On 24 July, 1947 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/constituent-assembly-debates-on-24-july-1947-3\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Constituent Assembly Debates On 24 July, 1947 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/constituent-assembly-debates-on-24-july-1947-3\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1947-07-23T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-03-24T16:02:34+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"91 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/constituent-assembly-debates-on-24-july-1947-3#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/constituent-assembly-debates-on-24-july-1947-3\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Constituent Assembly Debates On 24 July, 1947\",\"datePublished\":\"1947-07-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-03-24T16:02:34+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/constituent-assembly-debates-on-24-july-1947-3\"},\"wordCount\":12456,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Judgements\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/constituent-assembly-debates-on-24-july-1947-3#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/constituent-assembly-debates-on-24-july-1947-3\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/constituent-assembly-debates-on-24-july-1947-3\",\"name\":\"Constituent Assembly Debates On 24 July, 1947 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1947-07-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-03-24T16:02:34+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/constituent-assembly-debates-on-24-july-1947-3#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/constituent-assembly-debates-on-24-july-1947-3\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/constituent-assembly-debates-on-24-july-1947-3#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Constituent Assembly Debates On 24 July, 1947\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Constituent Assembly Debates On 24 July, 1947 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/constituent-assembly-debates-on-24-july-1947-3","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Constituent Assembly Debates On 24 July, 1947 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/constituent-assembly-debates-on-24-july-1947-3","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1947-07-23T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-03-24T16:02:34+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"91 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/constituent-assembly-debates-on-24-july-1947-3#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/constituent-assembly-debates-on-24-july-1947-3"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Constituent Assembly Debates On 24 July, 1947","datePublished":"1947-07-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-03-24T16:02:34+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/constituent-assembly-debates-on-24-july-1947-3"},"wordCount":12456,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Judgements"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/constituent-assembly-debates-on-24-july-1947-3#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/constituent-assembly-debates-on-24-july-1947-3","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/constituent-assembly-debates-on-24-july-1947-3","name":"Constituent Assembly Debates On 24 July, 1947 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1947-07-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-03-24T16:02:34+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/constituent-assembly-debates-on-24-july-1947-3#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/constituent-assembly-debates-on-24-july-1947-3"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/constituent-assembly-debates-on-24-july-1947-3#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Constituent Assembly Debates On 24 July, 1947"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/271033","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=271033"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/271033\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=271033"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=271033"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=271033"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}