Friday, 29th August, 1947

14-8-1947
Volume V to
30-8-1947

CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY
DEBATES

OFFICIAL REPORT

R EPRINTED BY L OK S ABHA S ECRETARIAT , N EW D ELHI

SIXTH REPRINT 2014

Printed at JAINCO ART INDIA, New Delhi

 CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY OF INDIA

President:

THE HONOURABLE DR. RAJENDRA PRASAD.

Vice-President:

DR. H.C. MOOKHERJEE.

Constitutional Adviser:

SIR B.N. RAU, C.I.E.

Secretary:

SHRI H.V.R. IENGAR, C.I.E., I.C.S.

Joint Secretary:

SHRI S.N. MUKERJEE.

Deputy Secretary:

SHRI JUGAL KISHORE KHANNA.

Under Secretary:

SHRI K.V. PADMANABHAN

Marshal:

SUBEDAR MAJOR HARBANS RAI JAIDKA.

 CONTENTS
Volume V—14th August to 30th August 1947

PAGES PAGES

Thursday, 14th August 1947— Friday, 22nd August 1947—

Singing of Vande Mataram ................ 1 Members taking the Pledge .............. 105
President’s Address ............................. 1—3 Report of the Union Powers Com-
Motion re. Pledge by Members ........ 3—10 mittee—contd. ................................. 105—33
Intimation to the Viceroy about Monday, 25th August 1947—
the assumption of power by the
Constituent Assembly and the Signing of the Register ..................... 135
Assembly’s endorsement of Taking of the Pledge ......................... 135
Lord Mountbatten’s appoint- Announcements by the President ..... 135—36
ment as Governor-General of
Incidents in West Punjab .................. 136—38
India .................................................. 10
Report of the Union Powers Com-
Presentation of the National Flag ..... 10—11
mittee—contd. ................................. 138—66
Singing of National Song .................. 11
Tuesday, 26th August 1947—
Friday, 15th August 1947—
Taking of the Pledge ......................... 167—68
Messages .............................................. 13—15
Union Powers Committee Report
Address of H.E. the Governor- —contd. ........................................... 168—96
General .............................................. 15—18
Address of the Honourable the Wednesday, 27th August 1947—
President ........................................... 19—23 Report on Minority Rights ............... 197—251
Hoisting of the National Flag ........... 23
Thursday, 28th August 1947—
Wednesday, 20th August 1947—
Presentation of Credentials and Members taking Pledge ..................... 253
Signing of the Register .................. 25 Report on Minority Rights ............... 253—85
Taking the Pledge ............................... 25 Presentation and Unveiling of the
Incidents connected with the Portrait of Mahatma Gandhi ......... 285—88
Flag Hoisting Ceremony in Appendix ............................................. 289—91
certain parts of India ...................... 26—34 Friday, 29th August 1947—
Report of the Union Powers Commi-
ttee—contd. ....................................... 34—57 Member taking Pledge ...................... 293
Announcement re. personnel of Election of Members to the House
Committee to consider the Committee ........................................ 293
Independence Act, Adaptation Committee to Scrutinise Draft
Rules, etc. ......................................... 57 Constitution ...................................... 293—310
Appendix .............................................. 58—68 Report of the Constituent Assem-
Thursday, 21st August 1947— bly Functions Committee —contd. 310—32

Presentation of Credentials and Saturday, 30th August 1947—

Signing of the Register .................. 69 Supplementary Report on Funda-
Report of the Union Powers Com- mental Rights—contd. .................... 333—74
mitee—contd. .................................... 69—103 Appendix A ........................................ 375—76
 CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY OF INDIA
Friday, the 29th August 1947

The Constituent Assembly of India met in the Constitution Hall, New

Delhi, at Ten of the Clock, Mr. President (The Honourable Dr. Rajendra
Prasad) in the Chair.

MEMBER TAKING PLEDGE

The following member took the pledge:
Lt.-Col. Brijraj Narain (Gwalior State)

ELECTION OF MEMBERS TO THE HOUSE COMMITTEE

Shri Satyanarayan Sinha (Bihar: General) : Sir, I beg to move the
following motion:—
“Resolved that the Constituent Assembly do proceed to elect in the manner required
under Rule 44 (2) of the Constituent Assembly Rules, two Members to be Members of the
House Committee.”
As you know, Sir, two of our Members who were Members of this
Committee, Mr. Abdul Ghaffar Khan and Mr. A. K. Das have ceased to
be Members of the House. According to the Rules, they have ceased to
be Members of the House Committee too. Therefore, there are, two
vacancies to be filled in the manner prescribed by the Honourable the
President.
The motion was adopted.
Mr. President: Nominations to the two vacancies in the House
Committee will be received up to 5 pm. today, and elections, if necessary,
will be held between 3 pm. and 4 pm. tomorrow in the Under Secretary’s
room (Room No. 25), Ground Floor, Council House, in accordance with
the principle of proportional representation by means of the single
transferable vote.

COMMITTEE TO SCRUTINISE DRAFT CONSTITUTION

Shri Satyanarayan Sinha: Sir, I beg to move—
“This Assembly resolves that a Committee consisting of—
(1) Shri Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar,
(2) Shri N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar,
(3) The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar,
(4) Shri K. M. Munshi,
(5) Saiyid Mohd. Saadulla,
(6) Sir B. L. Mitter,
(7) Shri D. P. Khaitan,

293
294 CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY OF INDIA [29TH AUGUST 1947

[Shri Satyanarayan Sinha]

be appointed to scrutinise and to suggest necessary amendment to the draft Constitution of
India prepared in the Office of the Assembly on the basis of the decisions taken in the
Assembly.”
Sir, you will remember, last time when we were discussing the Union
Constitution and also the Provincial Constitutions, on your suggestion, the
House approved that a Drafting Committee should be appointed to give proper
shape to the decisions which we have taken in this House. With that end in
view, this Committee is going to be appointed. This is purely an expert
committee. I hope the House will approve the names suggested.
Mr. H. V. Kamath (C. P. & Berar: General) : On a point of order,
Mr. President, Saiyid Mohd. Saadulla, as you, are well aware was unseated
as a result of the Sylhet Referendum and has been only recently re-elected.
He has not yet signed the Roll of Members and taken his seat in this House.
As such I think he is not eligible for election to any Committee. Will you,
Sir, be so good as to tell the House whether, as far as
Mr. Saadulla is concerned, the motion is in order?
Mr. President: He will begin to function after signing the Roll.
Begum Aizaz Rasul (United Provinces: Muslim) : Mr. President, though
I have not given notice of this motion, I would like to move with your
permission that this House gives the Honourable the President the power to
nominate any other Member to this Committee, if any Member who has been
nominated on it is not able to serve for any reason. I hope the House will
kindly accept this amendment of mine and give this power to the Honourable
the President.
Mr. President: Have you given notice of this amendment.?
Begum Aizaz Rasul: I said just now that I have not given formal notice
of this motion, but that I hope the House will kindly accept my motion.
Mr. President: I shall consider this matter a little later. In the meantime
the other amendments may be moved.
The Honourable Shri B. G. Kher (Bombay: General) : Mr. President,
Sir, the amendment of which I have given notice is suggested with a view to
express more clearly and give effect to the intention of the mover,
Mr. Satyanarayan Sinha. It reads this way:
That for the words “to scrutinise and to suggest necessary amendments to
the draft Constitution of India prepared in the Office of the Assembly on the
basis of the decisions taken in the Assembly” the following be substituted:—
“to scrutinise the draft of the text of the Constitution of India prepared by the
Constitutional Adviser giving effect to the decisions taken already in the Assembly
and including all matters which are ancillary thereto or which have to be provided
in such a Constitution, and to submit to the Assembly, for consideration the text
of the draft Constitution as revised by the Committee.”
It makes provision for two things. One is that for the purpose of giving
effect to the decisions taken already in the Assembly—the Constitutional
Advisor will prepare the draft. That draft has to be scrutinised by this
Committee. Then, Sir, we have not here considered all the points which are
ancillary to the decisions which we have taken or which are usually
necessary and have to be provided in the Constitution. For example,
we have laid down a principle that all the action to be taken in
the Provincial Constitution will be taken in the name of the
 DRAFT CONSTITUTION COMMITTEE 295

Governor. There are a number of things which have to be put in order to give
effect to this decision which the Assembly has taken and which have been
given a place in the Government of India Act. Then there are provisions
which are ancillary in the other constitutions, and some other provisions which
must usually find a place in the Constitution. All these will have to be
included in our draft even though they may not have been discussed or
decided here up to now. I do not think it proper to make any lengthy remarks
on this amendment. It was not possible for us to discuss and provide for
every necessary matter but without them the constitution will not be complete.
We have taken decisions on almost all important points. Those will be given
effect to but the draft will also contain things which are ancillary to these and
also all such things as are otherwise necessary. The draft containing all these
matters is bound to come up before the House for discussion and decision.
I hope, Sir, this House will accept this amendment.
Mr. President: Those amendments which go to the merit of the resolution
will first be considered.
Shri Satyanarayan Sinha: I accept the amendment, Sir.
Mr. A. P. Pattani (Western India States) : Mr. President, I wish to submit
that the Motion that is being placed should be shortened and it might be just
said that this Committee be appointed to assist the Constitutional Advisor in
drafting the Constitution. I wonder whether it is necessary to entrust the task
of drafting the constitution to a large Committee. It would be much better if
the Constitutional Adviser who is the one experienced adviser is given the
work, because all the details are only known to him. The draft cannot be
made in sections but as a whole. Consequently those members of the
Committee that are appointed will be of help to him in framing the
Constitution, to draft it on the lines of the amendments that have been accepted
in the House here. So instead of scrutinising, etc., it will better serve the
purpose, if the House simply says that this Committee will assist the
Constitutional Adviser in drafting the Constitution.
Shri M. Ananthasayanam Ayyangar (Madras: General) : Sir, I am not
in favour of the suggestion just made by the previous speaker. It is not right
that the work should be entrusted entirely to the office, however eminent the
officers might be. We have now taken decisions on various matters that have
been placed before us by way of the draft Constitution. It is up to us to
appoint a Committee of the leading men to frame the Constitution. There are
a number of things in which we have moved amendments to the draft that
was placed before us, approved of other things which normally find a place
in any Constitution and which are taken for granted and even in respect of
lists we have to consider them. It is wrong to leave these Lists—whether they
are good or bad—to the decision of the officer who has to frame it. We have
been looking for guidance from time to time to many Honourable Members
of this House. For instance, the Honourable the President many a time has
asked Mr. Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar what is his opinion and likewise various
others have also contributed. They have got all the amendments that have
been tabled. No doubt, the amendments have not been formally moved, but
they will be taken into consideration. Therefore, I suggest that this Committee
may introduce a draft bill which will be considered clause by clause later on
by the Assembly.
296 CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY OF INDIA [29TH AUGUST 1947

[Shri M. Ananthasayanam Ayyangar]

I also agree in a way to the suggestion made by the Honourable Lady
Member that in case anyone of the Members may not find it convenient
to come and the work cannot wait, the power to fill in or co-opt such of
the members who may find it convenient or who are prepared to shoulder
this responsibility must be given to the President, Sir, if the House accepts,
I would like to clothe the President with that power also. It is not for
two or three members to meet and share the entire responsibility. For
instance, Mr. Santhanam has been here taking a great interest in these
matters. He continues to be in Delhi. These gentlemen may be requested
to attend in case others do not find it convenient to appear. Therefore,
with the modification of vesting the general power in the President, the
amendment of Mr. Kher may be accepted.
Shri K. Santhanam (Madras: General) : I support the amendment of
Mr. Kher, but I should also like to have some information upon a few
important points. We have left certain material particulars undecided in this
House so far. For instance, we have yet to decide upon the definition of
citizenship, upon the procedure for change of constitution, upon the
emergency powers and upon the financial clauses of the Constitution. Now,
I would like to know whether this Committee is to begin work now or
whether it is to wait till we have decided these matters in the next session.
This should be made clear unless this Committee is to sit quiet and
practically not function at all. I would myself suggest that the Committee
should proceed to draft all the clauses. But they should keep the matters
which have been already decided distinct. The other portions may be put
in big types or italics so that when we meet here we may adopt a
different procedure for the two parts. So far as the parts containing our
decisions are concerned, only the verbal part of it will be scrutinised and
no material amendments of principle will be adopted. As far as those parts
which contain matters which are not decided are concerned, we shall
proceed to table amendments on principle also. Therefore, I do not think
this Committee need wait till we have decided the points which have not
yet been decided.
Let them prepare a tentative draft and let the whole draft be brought
before the next session. Let us then consider verbal amendments to those
parts which have already been decided and in case of the other sections
of the constitution which have to be considered de novo, we can table
amendments of principle. Thus we can save the time of the House.
Otherwise, another session to determine all these unsolved particulars will
be a great strain on the Members. Therefore, I hope that when we meet
in November, we will have a complete draft of the whole Bill including
all matters which we have decided and other matters which we have yet
to decide, so that we can adopt this procedure. I hope this will be
acceptable. Mr Kher’s amendment should be interpreted in the more liberal
fashion that I have suggested.
Seth Govind Das (C. P. & Berar: General) : *[Mr. President, one
very important matter has not yet been decided and in this connection
I want to say what should be our language. You had said that the
*[English Translation of Hindustani speech begins.
 DRAFT CONSTITUTION COMMITTEE 297

constitution, which we will draft, will originally be in our national language,

and if it is deemed necessary it will be translated into English. I want to
know in what language the committee that is being set up will transact its
business. I want to know whether this matter will be considered by the
Committee or not.
The other thing that I want to know is, as to whether the bill that we are
drafting will be originally in our language, as you had said, or whether it will
be in English. I want to suggest that these matters as well should be decided
now, and also that the Bill that we are drafting should initially be in our
national language. It can later be translated into English. What our national
language should be, must also be decided just now.]*
Mr. M. S. Aney (Deccan States) : Mr. President, Sir, I have come to
make some observations because my friend Mr. Santhanam has made a
suggestion which appears to me to be unconstitutional. Mr. Santhanam has
asked that the Drafting Committee work should be to prepare a draft showing
those clauses which are based upon our decisions in some form to be
distinguishable from the rest of the clauses. He further stated that those clauses
which are based upon the decisions already taken here should admit only of
verbal amendments here and there; and any substantial amendment to modify
those clauses should not be permissible. I submit, Sir, that the right of the
House cannot be restricted in that way. (Hear, hear). It is one thing when you
take the decision now. When the whole draft of the Bill is before you, in the
light of that, it may become necessary for you even to go back upon certain
decisions that you have taken before. No hard and fast restriction is, in my
opinion, desirable. I have come here mainly to emphasize this particular thing.
Secondly, a suggestion has been made that it should be open to the
President to nominate anybody he likes in addition to the names on the list.
Ordinarily, nobody will take any objection to this. The main reason why we
have thought of giving certain names is to relieve the President of his invidious
responsibility in a matter of this kind. It will be putting him in an awkward
position if ten persons go and tell him, “I think I am very competent to deal
with the matter and so my name should be there”. It is better that the names
that are given in the list are adopted. It is not necessary for anybody to be
on the committee itself to assist the members by making suggestions.
Therefore I oppose the particular suggestion which has been made by the
lady who spoke and who was supported by my Honourable friend
Mr. Ananthasayanam Ayyangar.
Mr. R. K. Sidhwa (C. P. Berar: General) : Mr. President, as I have understood,
the object of this Committee is to proceed immediately with the business that has
been adopted by this House. That is to say, all the proposals that this House has
considered as far as the Union and Provincial constitutions are concerned, will be
duly framed, excepting those subjects, namely language, citizenship and the
principles of the first part which are to be held over. The Committee cannot
discuss these matter until these and other subjects which are not yet

]* English Translation of Hindustani speech ends.

298 CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY OF INDIA [29TH AUGUST 1947

[Mr. R.K. Sidhwa]

decided by this House have been discussed threadbare again in the next
session. But that would not prevent the Committee from proceeding with
its business. Mr. Santhanam’s apprehension therefore is not tenable. The
object of this Committee is to proceed immediately with its business and
therefore, I feel, Sir, there is no necessity for Mr. Santhanam to be
apprehensive.
Secondly, as Mr. Pattani has suggested, I do feel that the constitution
could be prepared by one expert gentleman. Personally, I would have felt a
Committee of three persons to scrutinise it would be enough. As it is stated
that some members may be absent, seven names are suggested. I am not in
favour of asking the President to fill in names for those persons who are
absent. Three even would be sufficient; five would be more than that and
seven much more. Therefore, I feel that as proposed by Mr. Kher and
Mr. Santhanam, the names which are there should be allowed to stand without
giving power to the President to take any more in the event of a vacancy for
persons who are absent, and that the proposal as made by Mr. Kher with the
names that have been proposed should be accepted.
Dr. D. Pattabhi Sitaramayya (Madras: General): Mr. President, Sir, we
cannot read into the resolution more than the wording permits and therefore
I am not perturbed by what Mr. Santhanam has suggested. As a practical
politician, he expects that the Bill to be ready must be complete and cannot
be full in certain parts and absolutely blank in other parts, and so he thinks
that the Bill should be a complete one. When it is made a complete one, his
suggestion comes into operation. Whether there is to be a complete Bill and
his suggestion should be permitted to come into operation is the issue that we
have to consider. If that is to be accepted, then it will be taking away the
powers of the whole House and constituting the Sub-Committee into a kind
of Committee Delegate of the Constituent Assembly, a step that is not desirable
by any means. As Mr. Santhanam has himself categorically described the first
three Chapters of the Union Constitution Committee and the last two bits of
the same, as well as the Provincial and concurrent and a good half of the
Federal lists of the Union Powers Committee constitute a big chunk which
has been left out and has yet to be considered by the whole House. For
instance, the Union Constitution Committee and the Model Provincial
Constitution Committee had a joint sitting and appointed a Sub-Committee in
regard to linguistic provinces and its recommendation has been considered by
the Joint Committee of the two Committees. What is to happen to that
hereafter? Should it be dangling in the air like Trisanku, neither in heaven nor
on earth? Should it be given the go-by? Should it be passed over? I mention
it only as an example, not that I am a faddist about the question. The matter
has to be taken as an illustration. I ask; “When on November 6th, this
Assembly reassembles, for what purpose is it going to reassemble? Is it going
to be presented with a Bill, complete in every detail, and then consider it as
a matter of course?” In that case, it will have embodied in it portions which
have not been considered at all by this House even primarily. If that is not
so, then, the November 6th Session will have to address itself to a consideration
of the left-over points in which case no Bill can be ready by that time. This
is the difficulty that presents itself to me logically. Therefore, I would like the
President to make the position clear and also if possible to convene a Session
of this House in the month of September or October in order to complete all
the points which have been left unconsidered. Then the material that
 DRAFT CONSTITUTION COMMITTEE 299

will be presented to the draftsmen or the drafting Committee or the

scrutinising Committee will be ample and complete and then only they can
deal with the matter. I make this suggestion in order to have in our mind
a clear idea as to what is going to happen and if possible to persuade the
President to convene a session in the month of September or October for
completing the business by attending to those other matters which have
been left over.
Pandit Lakshmi Kanta Maitra (West Bengal: General) : Mr. President,
the amendment moved by my Honourable friend Mr. Kher deserves very
careful consideration and in that connection the observations that have been
made by Mr. Santhanam should also be closely scrutinized. I am sure that
most of the members of this House have not yet got any clear picture as
to what is going to be done in the next session. Mr. Santhanam say’s that
a portion of the Union Powers Committee’s Report has not yet been dealt
with by the House. Nobody knows whether the House is in a position to
accept it in toto or to modify it. Ho seemed to suggest that there will be
drafting of the decisions that have already been taken by the House and
that it would be open to the members to make certain small verbal
alterations only if necessary. I want to tell this House that this is not an
ordinary piece of legislation or an ad hoc piece of legislation which a
legislature is called upon to enact. You are going to enact a Constitution
Act for Free India and, therefore, it is incumbent, nay, it is imperative on
everyone of you to scrutinise closely every single provision in the
Constitution Act and to satisfy yourself that it meets with the requirements
of the nation. If you simply restrain the powers of the members of this
House and restrict them to mere verbal alterations. I think you will be
doing the greatest possible injustice to this house and also to the country.
It may be that when a full picture is presented to the House they may
be constrained to make certain drastic modifications of certain portions of
clauses of the Constitution Bill in the light of the decisions that we may
be able to take mean-time. How can you say beforehand that, the draft
that will come up before you would be only amenable to certain formal
or verbal alterations? Does Mr. Santhanam ‘seriously suggest that because
we have accepted certain principles in this House in connection with the
reports of the Union Powers Committee and the other Committees, therefore,
that will operate as a res judicata, that they cannot be reopened, that it
is, not open to any member to go back on them or to modify them to
suit the necessity of the law itself or the constitutions itself so that it
might fit in with the rest of the provisions? If that is the view held by
him, I will join a straight issue with him. I cannot too strongly emphasise
the point that it is the Constitution Act of this country which you are
going to frame.
Then, Sir, I thoroughly agree with my Honourable friend Mr. Kher
when he said that the drafting should be entrusted to certain responsible
persons and that too many cooks would spoil the whole broth, and that
these responsible persons should be entrusted with the specific duty of
seeing that The decisions that have been taken so far are really embodied
in the Bill with such alterations as may have been suggested. I want to
ask you, Mr. President, to indicate to us whether or not, when the draft
bill is prepared and formally introduced in the House for consideration,
you are going to allow a Select Committee of this House, elected by
members of this House, representing it all sections (and ‘by all sections’
I mean also the States) to go into and examine the whole Bill that is
presented for the consideration of the House. Unless in my opinion, a
300 CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY OF INDIA [29TH AUGUST 1947

[Pandit Lakshmi Kanta Maitra]

Select Committee is appointed to go into the whole question to examine the
bill with meticulous care in respect of every single provision of the Constitution
Act, I am sure we are not going to get satisfactory results. Let us not forget
that once a Constitution Act is passed, it is not changed within three, or six
months or even within a year and a half. Therefore, we must take every
possible care and precaution so as to make it as faultless as is humanly
possible. No human institution is perfect, I know. But we must take all possible
care to see that the Constitution Act framed by us is nearly faultless as
possible. We will defer our judgment for some time until we are satisfied
with all provisions of the Constitution Act. Therefore before we put the final
imprimatur or seal of approval on the Constitution of India, I ask you carefully
to consider whether you will not insist that on the presentation of the Bill
there should be a Select Committee to examine the whole Bill and all its
provisions with the utmost care and caution and then when the report of the
Select Committee is presented before the House, you should have the final
opportunity of carefully discussing every single section of the Bill. Personally
speaking, I do not feel that we need proceed with the drafting of the
constitution at the terrific speed now when we are going to introduce rules
and regulations by which this Constituent Assembly will also be functioning
as a Legislature. While functioning as a legislature this House can carefully
examine the provisions of the Constitution Act as well. With regard to the
portions that have been left out, I would suggest that if it is insisted that a
complete draft should be presented to this House by the November Session,
then the draftsmen may proceed on the assumption that the portions of the
report of the Union Powers Committee that have not been so far discussed by
this House or left over, have the approval of the House. If, however, we find
that these recommendations in the report of the Union Powers Committee will
not ultimately meet with the approval of the House, then we will modify
them, and if the principles are not later accepted, the draft also will be
modified accordingly. Therefore I do not agree with my Honourable friend
Dr. Pattabhi Sitaramayya that an intermediate session would be necessary to
complete the programme that was placed before us. I do not think it will be
possible in the whole of September to convoke another session of the Assembly
to go into this matter. I must say that the November Session should first of
an discuss the portions that have been left out and which can be pieced
together towards the end. The draft can follow. We shall expect the draft of
the Bill in three month’s time. After all the constitution of a country is not
a small matter and cannot be lightly treated. I would therefore request that
you, Sir, should give a clear indication to the House as to how we want to
proceed. So far as I am concerned, I do not know if I am voicing the feelings
of my Honourable friends here, but I am inclined to think that the final draft
of the constitution should be in the hands of Honourable Members of the
Constituent Assembly for at least three weeks before it is taken up. Unless
you give them sufficient time carefully to read and scrutinise the provisions
that you make in the draft, You will be simply taking a terrible lot of time
here. You cannot stop the flood gates of amendments that would be pouring
in from all directions, if you give them insufficient time. I do not think that
for the scrutiny of the draft constitution of the country three weeks’ time is
too much. I mean that the draft will be prepared and circulated to the
members at least three weeks in advance of the session. If you can do that,
then the Honourable Members would come prepared thoroughly, and the
amendments that may be tabled in connection with the different clauses
probably will not be so numerous as they would otherwise be, if the Bill
 DRAFT CONSTITUTION COMMITTEE 301

is drafted in haste and if the draft is circulated to the members only a

few days before the session commences. This is a very important matter.
Sir, I do not mean to cast any reflection on your office, Mr. President,
but from our experience of the Central Legislative Assembly Department,
I may say that your secretariat is not half as efficient as that of the
Central Legislative Assembly. That is what we find from the way in which
papers,—daily order papers, are circulated to us. On the question of the
supply of the draft constitution, if we are confronted with excuses such as
“shortness of time” or “we sent to your address” or “we could not send
it” and so on and so forth, that will be disastrous. Therefore I would say
that it is very necessary to see that these drafts are sent to us in time.
Then, Sir, I would submit that it will be for you to take counsel with
the other important members of this House and consider whether you
envisage the appointment of a Select Committee to go into the whole Bill
before it is taken up clause by clause by this House. Unless that is done
we may not be able to safeguard ourselves against pitfalls.
Mr. Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar (Madras: General) : Sir, on a matter
like this it is as well we are sure as to what exactly the import of the
resolution is. One thing must be made quite clear, namely, that in regard
to the decisions already reached, they will be treated as binding, though
if errors are discovered or unforeseen difficulties arise, it will always be
open to the House to review the decisions. The analogy of a Select
Committee in the case of an ordinary bill that is introduced by Government
is misleading. We have taken nearly a year for the consideration of various
subjects by certain committees of the House. There has been a Fundamental
Rights Committee, the Union Powers Committee, and the Union Constitution
Committee and they have considered and placed their decisions before this
House. In regard to matters which have already been considered by this
Assembly and in regard to which decisions have been reached, the scope
of review at a later stage must naturally be limited. The analogy of an
ordinary Bill introduced by Government without reference to the Assembly
is misleading. There the Government Department prepares a Bill without
reference to the legislature and places the Bill before the legislature. Then
the House appoints a Select Committee which goes into the question. If
you treat the whole question as a draft without reference to the decisions
already reached on various important matters and if clause after clause
were taken and discussed, I think it will be like beginning again. There
will always be a beginning to the procedure, never an end of the procedure
started in this House. I think it is as well that it is made clear that in
regard to matters in respect of which no decisions have been reached they
stand on a different footing.
But difficulty arises on account of my friend Mr. Santhanam’s suggestion
that this committee must take into account the other set of provisions in
regard to which no decision has been reached. I do not say that it is not
open to the House to review the entire decision but there must be some
degree of finality in regard to the work already done for about eight or
nine months, so that we do not begin again as if it is the case of an
ordinary Bill placed before a Select Committee ignoring the reports that
have been submitted by the committees, the discussions of this Assembly
on clause after clause and the votes that have been taken on the floor of
the House. I do not know whether it is the wish of the House that this
Committee should consider all matters. Sections which have not become
the subject of decisions by this House is another matter. At any rate,
some distinction must be drawn between cases in which decisions have
302 CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY OF INDIA [29TH AUGUST 1947

[Mr. Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar]

been reached in this House yesterday, the day before and during the whole
of the various sessions of this House. We have discussed clause after
clause and there have been very long and elaborate arguments an the floor
of the House. We owe a duty to the public, to make them feel that all
this time is not to be treated as waste of time. That is the only point I
want to make clear.
Dr. P. S. Deshmukh (C. P. & Berar: General) : Mr. President, Sir, I
am sorry I cannot find my way to agree with the suggestion and the
speech made by Mr. Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar, or Ayyangar—I am afraid
I am not able to pronounce his long name correctly, but whether it is
Ayyar or Ayyangar, probably it makes no difference. in any case, he can
be fittingly described as the previous speaker. His suggestion. Sir, is that
the time that we have spent in this House should not be wasted. But this
is, Sir, the important legislation which could never be altered lightly, and
whatever procedure we may lay down in the House, it is bound to be
very hard to amend it. We will have also to take into account the fact
that many of our friends have already made up their minds that we are
going to have a very large number of representatives coming from the
States. We all know that the States are a conservative element in India
and they are sure to put in their weight against any alterations. It is
absolutely certain that if we try to amend the constitution, they would be
on the side of maintaining it rather than permit it to be altered.
Apart from that Sir, what is the exact situation in which we find
ourselves today? Sir, Alladi or Mr. Alladi said that we have spent a year
on this work. I am afraid, Sir, that is not strictly correct. For the first
time we met in the month of December. What was the business that was
transacted then? Very little. The sum-total of the work we turned out in
that session does not come to much especially from the point of view of
being of much practical use. Then we met again in January, but that also
was a very short session. We merely passed a resolution giving out the
objectives of this Assembly. As a matter of fact, if we carefully look into
the proceedings and records of our work, we will find that the work that
we have done so far, is in my humble view, of a very perfunctory nature.
We have bad several committees, but in most cases we have had only
interim reports, provisional suggestions, tentative proposals and things of
that sort. That is the sort of thing we have been dealing with. We have
not yet had a complete picture of the Constitution. As a matter of fact,
the most important chapters in the. Union Powers Committee are yet to be
decided on. Then, how can we possibly say that we have before us a
skeleton of the constitution? I say there is not even a skeleton constitution
before us. Therefore, it is but proper that we should have a very
comprehensive committee a committee got up of members from all sides
of this House containing the best intellect and competence that we have
in this House to look to the shaping of the Constitution. Not to give such
an opportunity and to rush legislation like the framing of a Constitution
would be highly improper. I hope, Sir, that the suggestion made by
Mr. Santhanam and supported by Mr. Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar will not
be accepted by this House and that the counter-suggestion made by other
friends of mine and supported by Mr. Aney on this side will be accepted
by the House.
As I said before, we have been dealing with the Constitution in a
very piece-meal manner and unless we have the whole picture before
 DRAFT CONSTITUTION COMMITTEE 303

us, the House should not be regarded as having committed itself one way
or the other. Of course, in some matters, as in the case of the Minority
Committee report, etc., there was so much of unanimity that the decisions
arrived at are not likely to be disturbed. But there are so many ancillary
things, and things that arise as sort of corollaries to the main propositions.
It is fit and proper that they should be decided afresh. It should not be
supposed that the decisions that we have already taken in respect of these
are unalterable. They should be alterable with as much ease as possible
till we have the whole picture and till we have had a proper opportunity
of discussing every word, every section and every principle involved in
the Constitution. Till such time none of our decisions should be regarded
as in any way unalterable.
Mr. Tajamul Hussain (Bihar: Muslim) : Sir, I rise to oppose the
motion of Mr. Satyanarayan Sinha. In my opinion it will be wrong to
appoint a committee at this stage. I do not believe in doing work piecemeal.
I think it is far better in our own interests that we sit here till we have
finished the consideration of all the Reports. I think it will not take more
than about a fortnight to finish the consideration of the Reports. If we
continue the work now, I think, that by the 12th of September we will be
able to finish it. If Government, for certain reasons, are not prepared to
do so, being busy elsewhere—let us adjourn for a few days and meet
again. But let us not end this session, now. Let us adjourn for a few
days, meet again and finish the work which we have taken on hand.
When all the Reports are finished let us then appoint a Committee, and
then adjourn for about three months. I think it will take the Committee
about two months to scrutinise the whole thing and submit its report in
the form of a Bill. And then we will take at least one month to consider
the Bill and then we can come to the Assembly to deal with that Bill.
Therefore, I say, let us go on till the end or at least till the middle of
September and finish consideration of these Reports. Suppose we go to the
end of September, we can adjourn for October, November and December,
and meet again in January and then go on till we finish this work. I
think if we sit for two months during, January and February, then by the
end of February we shall finish the work. For the three months we can
stay here as the Members of the Union Parliament. During these three
months, part of the time can be spent in this way. Then we can sit from
the beginning of March to end of March or middle of April for the
Budget Session of the Central Legislature. I think, Sir, for the smooth
working it would be better that we continue now, and appoint a committee
after the entire work of considering the Reports is finished. I have come
here to oppose the original motion of Mr. Satyanarayan Sinha.
Mahboob Ali Baig Sahib Bahadur (Madras: Muslim) Mr. President,
Sir the process of constitution-making has been going on for the last eight
or nine months. This Assembly appointed certain committees to go into
several topics, and to recommend a constitution for the Province and for
the Centre, and some committee were appointed to make reports on
special subjects such as the Powers of the Union, the Minorities
Rights, the Fundamental Rights and so on. After these committees
had gone into the several matters referred to them, and after great
care and scrutiny, they made their reports to this Assembly. Most
part of the reports has been discussed and debated upon in this
304 CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY OF INDIA [29TH AUGUST 1947

[Mahboob Ali Baig Sahib Bahadur]

Assembly, and this Assembly came to certain conclusions, and decided certain
matters this way or that. So we have reached a certain stage now. After the
committees had studied the questions and prepared their reports, these reports
were discussed and debated in this Assembly and most of these questions
have been decided upon and only a few topics have been left over. Now, two
questions arise. The first is, whether a select committee to draft the Constitution
should be selected now, or whether it should be selected after the remaining
topics also have been decided upon by this august House. That is the first
question to be decided. The second question is whether the decisions that
have been taken by this House can be re-opened again at the stage when the
draft Bill comes before it. These are the two questions to be decided on this
motion. I am clearly of the opinion that there is no room, nor justification for
reopening the decisions on those topics that have already been decided upon.
As my friend Mr. Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar put it they have been debated
upon, they were scrutinised on reports drawn up by committees competent to
consider them. They were again thrashed threadbare and debated upon by this
body. Therefore, Sir I think no useful purpose would be served by reopening
then again at this stage, nor is it right and proper.
Shri C. Subramanyam (Madras: General) : Sir, on a point of order Rule
32 of the Rules of Procedure is as follows:—
‘No question which has once been decided by the Assembly shall be re-opened except
with the consent of at least one-fourth of the members present and voting.’
Therefore, it is clear that we have provided for the reopening of questions
already decided upon. That being the case. I want to know why there should
be any debate on this point at all. We have already provided for the reopening
of decisions. So I submit there need not be any debate regarding the reopening
of decisions once arrived at.
Mr. President: You should have raised this point of order when the first
speaker raised the question. Now that the debate has proceeded so far it
cannot be stopped in the middle. But all the same, I think this question has
been discussed at great length and I would request Honourable Member to cut
short their remarks as much as possible.
Mahboob Ali Baig Sahib Bahadur: The second question is about the
select committee for drafting the Bill. I entirely agree with my friend
Dr. Pattabhi Sitaramayya that the topics left over should also be debated
upon, discussed and scrutinised by this House and when we have done that,
then that will be the time to appoint this drafting committee. I do not see any
reason why certain topics which have been left over should not be discussed
by this Body. Is it considered that the topics left over are not of as much
importance as the others? It is clearly not so. One Member has said that after
the Bill is presented to the House it should go to a select committee. I do
not think that is necessary at all after this larger body, the whole Assembly,
had once gone into the whole question and decided on the issues one
way or the other. Therefore there is no necessity for a select committee
to be appointed before, which the Draft Bill should go and I submit that
just as we have decided on many topics the remaining topics also should
 DRAFT CONSTITUTION COMMITTEE 305

be decided by this body so that what is left to the Drafting Committee will
be only placing the topics that have been decided on, on which decisions
have been arrived at, in a legal form and providing any consequential provisions
that may be necessary from those decisions That is all. When the draft Bill
comes before the House it should be very much easier for us to get through
the business and pass it in a shorter time than would be necessary if we were
to go through it in extenso. Therefore, I submit that it is not open to us, at
any rate, normally, to reopen the question at the time the draft is placed
before us. At the same time I am of opinion that this House should decide,
as it had decided other topics beforehand, regarding matters that had not been
decided and it is not necessary for us at this stage to appoint a Committee.
Shri Raj Krushna Bose (Orissa: General) : Mr, President, I do not have
to say much in this connection. In my opinion it would have been proper if
we had maintained continuity and consistency in the proceedings hitherto.
From the discussion today it appears that we are deviating from the course
which we were following. As first, we had thought of determining the principles
for drafting of the constitution. You set up two committees and they have
settled the principles. When principles have once been decided, it would have
been proper for us to express our opinion on them. This could not be done,
because the present session finishes before the 31st of August. Therefore, I
desire that hence forward, whenever we are summoned we should have clear
indications as to how many days we would be required to stay. We do not
get any indications in this connection and we come on the understanding that
after finishing the work of the Assembly in a few days we will be able to
go back to our respective constituencies. But in future, we should have clear
indications as to how long approximately the session will continue so that the
members may not say that they are not prepared to stay so long. I want to
submit most respectfully that we should have liked to express our opinion on
the principles which the two Committees have agreed upon after so much
labour and hard work. To do otherwise is a mistake and I think that we are
not doing our duty. When you have decided that we shall not sit after 31st,
then I submit that for expressing our opinion on the Union Constitutional
principles on which we have not yet given our opinion, another session should
be summoned either towards the end of September or the beginning of October.
After that, the draft should be prepared which we will pass of course. If there
is some mistake of language we will correct it. When the draft comes before
us we can amend it if necessary, but we have no right to go against the basic
principles. Then we will not be able to say that the Governor should be
elected on the basis of indirect election instead of adult franchise. If we go
on changing the principles like this, then the task of the Constituent Assembly
becomes very difficult, and the work will never come to an end. Therefore,
I submit very respectfully that consistency should be maintained with what
has so far been accomplished, and in order to ascertain opinion regarding the
remaining principles of the Union and Provincial Constitutions, another session
should be summoned either at the end of September or the beginning of
October. After that, we will give time to the Constitutional Adviser to prepare
the draft, and when the completed draft comes before us, we will give our
final opinion. Therefore, it is essential that continuity be maintained.
As I have already said, from now onwards when the Constituent
Assembly is summoned an indication should be given that we will have
306 CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY OF INDIA [29TH AUGUST 1947

[Shri Raj Krushna Bose]

to stay here for approximately so many days. The members will therefore
not form their own idea that the work will be finished in so much time
and make their arrangements accordingly. On the contrary, they will make
their programme on the basis of your directions and then these difficulties
will not arise.
Mr. Jaipal Singh (Bihar: General) : Mr. president, Sir, I oppose the
Resolution that has been moved because I feel that it is not right for us,
at this stage, to appoint any Committee, whether of experts or otherwise,
which can pry into things which we have not yet decided. I can fully
understand that decisions that have been made may be put into the melting
pot by them and turned out in constitutional language, but it has been
insinuated by some, speakers that this Committee would also look into
matters where the House has not taken its decision. A great many important
subjects are yet left over. They have not been decided by this Assembly
and I don’t see how we can delegate our_constitution making power to
any Committee at all. I do not think there can be any difference of
opinion on that. I do admit that, as far as the question of clauses and
other things that have already been decided by us, is concerned, a
Committee may reproduce them in suitable constitutional language. Here, a
point has been raised that some sort of finality should be reached. True
we are making a constitution and that very word itself means that we are
not to change it every five minutes, but at the same time, before finality
is reached, I think we should have ample opportunity of reviewing the
situation. It may be that we shall have to unmake our decisions. The
House is a sovereign body and it has the right to make decisions and
unmake them. It seems to me that, by appointing a Committee at this
stage, we are putting the cart before the horse. More and more have we
realised that it does not pay us to rush things. We have appointed
Committees of experts; they have produced their reports; and what has
happened is that those reports when they have appeared before this
Assembly have been thrashed out and there have been very many important
changes in the recommendations of the experts. This may be the case with
the Drafting Committee also when it submits its report. I think, in that
case, we shall just be wasting time. I think the better thing would be that
we should complete whatever remains to be done and, then, the Drafting
Committee will be in a position, having been in full possession of all
decisions taken by this Assembly to produce a Bill which can come before
us to make up our mind finally whether we want to change the language
or the subject matter contained in that Bill. Sir, I particularly feel that it
should not be left to this Committee even to draft in constitutional language
clauses in regard to tribal matters, for instance. Now, the Tribal Committee,
one of the Sub-Committees appointed by the Advisory Committee which
again has been appointed by this Assembly, has yet to complete its work.
We have, I know, submitted an interim report. Does it mean that this
Committee of experts, expert draftsmen, are going to submit in the Bill
matters which have not yet come before the Assembly? I think, that would
be a preposterous thing for us to do. The House must have the right to
make its decisions and I suggest that we can never delegate our
constitutional power to any Committee, however great the experts might
be. We have seen their we are grateful for the work they have produced,
but our experience has been that even experts have to be shifted when the
matter they produce comes before the floor of the House.
 DRAFT CONSTITUTION COMMITTEE 307

Mr. Hussain Imam (Bihar: Muslim) : Mr. President. I do not wish to

take up the time of the House. I simply wish to point out the conditions
under which we are working. At the moment there is so much distress
and disturbance in the country that it seems unnatural for us to sit here,
and not be at our posts. A suggestion was made that this Session should
be continued. I think it would be disastrous for this Session to be continued
for a day longer than is absolutely necessary. We must terminate the Session
as soon as possible and go back and give the message of peace to the
countryside. It is our duty as citizens of India to see that peace is restored.
The motion by Mr. Satyanarayan Sinha is very simple and I do not
understand why there has been so much distrust shown by Honourable
Members. Let us examine this in a cool way. An Assembly of this nature
cannot possibly go into and examine the, things in detail. Everywhere the
detailed scrutiny is left to Select Committees. Here, too, we had the
advantage of double scrutiny. Firstly, you had the Union Powers Committee
and then the Union Constitution Committee. These two have gone into the
matter, sifted the whole thing and framed their recommendations. They
have then been examined by the House. But let me tell the House. that
no doubt there have been a large number of amendments moved, but the
amendments that have been carried have been mostly inspired amendments
and the Committee that has been proposed consists of experts whose
opinions have prevailed in this House. You have the guarantee that after
the double scrutiny there will be a third scrutiny by the experts. Now
there is no question of usurpation of the rights of the House. The House
being a sovereign body, has the right to change everything which it has
not approved in the first instance. Only those are sacred which have been
approved by the House, and after the approval of the House, you, as a
sovereign body, respect yourself and impose a self-denying restraint and do
not go back on your own decision. Therefore if any item is brought in
which has not been approved of by the House, it will be open to the
House to examine and reconsider and change. No one can deny the right
of the House to amend those proposals which have not been approved in
principle but this is what I want the House to realize. We are talking in
riddles. We are really different parties and decisions are taken therein. No
matter whatever people might say but it is only if the majority of the
party feel that an amendment should be approved, then only it will be put
as a party question and even those who were against it will vote for it.
This is the reality of the situation. Therefore it is idle to say that
suggestions have a better chance of being carried here if the Committee
is not formed. Whether the Committee is formed or not, the party machine
will move and as such only the inspired amendments which can have the
approval of the machine of the party can get through. I therefore suggest
that it is idle to make objections to the procedure. The procedure is quite
all right. You have appointed the best people available to examine the
draft put up by the office and it will not be difficult to go back on those
recommendations of this Committee which have not been specifically
approved by the House. I therefore feel, Sir, that this motion should be
approved unanimously by the House.
Shri Shanker Dattatraya Deo (Bombay : General) : Sir, I move
closure.
Mr. President: Closure is moved. I put it to the House.
The motion was adopted.
308 CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY OF INDIA [29TH AUGUST 1947

Mr. President: Mr. Satyanarayan Sinha may reply.

Shri Ramnath Goenka (Madras: General) : Certain amendments have
not been moved.
Mr. President: I shall take up the amendments later. I am taking at
the present moment the amendment relating to the text of the Resolution.
Mr. Satyanarayan Sinha: Sir, I confess I have not been able to
appreciate the misgivings and doubts expressed by many of my friends
here. I think the Drafting Committee’s Report will be before this House
and this House has got an inherent right to alter, modify and change
anything it likes. I think the Assembly has the right to change even the
decisions it has taken but it will not be fair if it goes on changing the
decision which it has once taken and therefore I think the House will not
agree to change the decisions on important principles which were discussed
and decisions arrived at. But with regard to those principles which might
be incorporated in drafting the whole bill on which we have not expressed
our opinion or taken any decision, to that extent I think this House has
every right to modify, change and alter. I don’t see any reason for any
fuss. The Committee’s report will be before this House and it will have
every opportunity to change or modify anything it likes.
Mr. President: I think it is necessary for me to make the position
clear before I put the Resolution to vote. I do not think there is any
intention of taking away any of the powers of the Members of this House
and even if there were any such intention, that intention can have no
effect. The idea is to place before the House at its next Session a draft
in a more or less complete form so that the Members may be in a
position to give their attention to the draft as a whole and then come to
their conclusions and pass the draft section by section. We have already
discussed and adopted the principles underlying some of the most important
items and there are some about which we have not yet had any discussion.
The idea is that the Committee which is now being suggested should have
the draft ready, not only of the principles which have already been accepted,
but also of those which we have not considered. Of course both will be
before the House but they will be on a somewhat different footing. Those
relating to the portions which have already been accepted will be considered
by the House from one angle of vision. The House will ordinarily try to
conform to its previous decisions and not to alter them unless it finds that
there is something which calls for a revision. But with regard to the items
which we have not yet discussed, the House will naturally scrutinise the
draft with a greater degree of latitude or freedom and I think that will be
the best course to save time, so that the House may consider the whole
thing and may have an opportunity of forming a comprehensive view of
the constitution as it emerges. I have this to say, that I am anxious that
the Constitution should be completed; but at the same time I am
equally anxious that we should do nothing in a hurry and that every
clause, every sentence of a clause and every word of the clause
will be weighed and carefully weighed by all the members before it is
finally adopted. (Hear, hear.) Therefore when the draft comes up before
‘in its final form for consideration, we shall take as much time as is
considered necessary for giving it the fullest possible consideration and the
members will have an opportunity of considering every word that is used
there and of giving their own decision on the draft. I think with
 DRAFT CONSTITUTION COMMITTEE 309

that the members will be pleased to accept this resolution in the amended
form which gives the Committee a somewhat larger latitude in preparing
the draft in regard to matters which do not come exactly under the
principles which we have decided but which are implied in them. I now
put the amendment of Mr. Kher to the House.
An Honourable Member: What about your announcement that the
Bill will be in Hindi or in the National language?
Mr. President: We will have it in Hindi. When the time comes. I
shall place it before you.
Another Honourable Member: How many weeks will you give us to
study the Bill?
Mr. President: Reasonable time would be two to three weeks. I will
now put the amendment of Mr. B. G. Kher to vote.
The question is:
“That for the words ‘to scrutinise and to suggest necessary amendments to the draft
Constitution of India prepared in the Office of the Assembly on the basis of
the decision taken into the Assembly’ the following be substituted:—
‘to scrutinise the draft of the text of the Constitution of India prepared by the
Constitutional Adviser giving effect to the decisions taken already in the
Assembly and including all matters which are ancillary thereto or which have
to be provided in such a Constitution, and to submit to the Assembly for
consideration the text of the draft Constitution as revised by the Committee’.”

The motion was adopted.

Mr. President: I now put the resolution, as amended to vote.
The motion was adopted.
Mr. President: Now, with regard to the names of the Members who
are to constitute the Committee I find that there are several amendments.
Honourable Members: We are not moving the amendments.
Dr. P. S. Deshmukh: I request all friends, who have given notice of
amendments, adding my name to the list of names already suggested, kindly
not to move their amendments. I am most thankful to them for their
kindness in proposing me as a member of the Drafting Committee.
Mr. President: So then we have dispersed of the amendments to include
new names to the list.
There is one suggestion made by Begum Aizaz Rasul and that is that
in case any of the Members are unable to attend the Committee or if any
vacancy occurs I should be given power to fill it. I take it that that
suggestion was made in view of the fact that Mr. Saadulla is unfortunately
not keeping fit and may not be able to serve on the Committee. I take
it that the House will give me leave to fill up the vacancy if it actually
occurs. (Members: “Yes”)
310 CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY OF INDIA [29TH AUGUST 1947

[Mr. President]
The question is:
“That original list of names suggested in the Resolution moved by Mr. Satyanarayan
Sinha be adopted.”
The motion was adopted.

REPORT OF THE CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY FUNCTIONS

COMMITTEE
The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar (Bombay: General) : Mr. President,
I beg to move that this Assembly do proceed to take into consideration the
Report on the functions of the Constituent Assembly under the Indian
Independence Act, 1947, submitted by the Committee appointed by the President
in pursuance of the decisions of the Assembly on the 20th August 1947.
Sir, the Report of the Committee has already been circulated to the
Members of the House and, I do not think that, at this stage, when the Report
has been in the hands of the Members at least for the last two days, I need
expatiate at great length upon the work of this Committee. I think it would
be enough if I, in the first instance, draw attention to the recommendations
of the Committee.
All together the Committee has made five recommendations. Its first
recommendation is that it is open to the Constituent Assembly to function as
Legislature and that it should function as such; (2) that while functioning as
Legislature it should adopt the rules of the Legislative Assembly as far as
possible with necessary amendments; (3) the necessary amendments should be
made under the orders of the President of the Constituent Assembly; (4) the
work of the Constituent Assembly as a Constitution-making body and as an
ordinary legislature should be separated and should be conducted in separate
sessions to be held on separate days; (5) the power of prorogation should vest
in the President and not in the Governor-General as found in the Adaptation
of the Government of India Act. After having made these recommendations,
the Committee considered whether there were any difficulties which would
stand in the way of giving effect to their recommendations and found three
which they had to resolve in order to give effect to their recommendations.
The first was whether one and the same person should preside over both
the bodies, the Constituent Assembly and the Legislature. This difficulty arose
because section 22 of the Government of India Act, which related to the
office of the Speaker, has been dropped by the Adaptations which have been
carried out under the Indian Independence Act with the result that the President
is the one person who has to preside over both, the Constitution-making body
as well as the Legislature. Ordinarily speaking, this should not create any
difficulty, but in the circumstance where for instance the President is a Minister
of the State, this difficulty may arise. For instance, it would be an anomalous
thing if the President who is a Minister of State also were to preside over the
Constituent Assembly when it was functioning as a lawmaking body.
Consequently the Committee thought that either of two courses has to be
adopted; either the President should cease to be a Minister, or, if he continues
to be a Minister, the Assembly should elect another officer to be called the
Speaker or Deputy President whose functions it would be to preside over the
Constituent Assembly when it is in session for the purpose of making laws.
 REPORT OF THE CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY FUNCTIONS COMMITTEE 311

The second difficulty which the Committee came across was with regard
to the representatives of the States. The House will remember that the
Constituent Assembly, when it will be meeting for the purposes of law making,
would be operating upon the whole field which has been included in List
No. 1 of the Seventh Schedule to the Government of India Act. The House
also will recall that the States at the present moment have joined the Constituent
Assembly on a basis of what is called the Instrument of Accession which
does not altogether tally with the subjects included in List No. 1. In fact the
subjects included in the Instrument of Accession fall considerably short of the
subjects included in List No. 1. The question, therefore, that arises is this,
whether a body of people, who are Members of the Constituent Assembly and
who are bound by the Instrument of Accession and have responsibility for a
shorter number of items, should be permitted to take part in motions and in
debates relating to certain other subjects which were not included in the list
contained in the Instrument of Accession. There were of course two ways of
dealing with this matter. One way of dealing with this matter was to adopt
the procedure of what is called ‘in and out’, that they should sit in the
Assembly and vote when an item which was being debated was common to
both the Instrument of Accession as well as List No. 1, and when an item
was being discussed in the House which did not form part of the Instrument
of Accession, they should not be permitted to participate. The Committee
came to the conclusion that although theoretically the second course was
more logical, from a practical point of view such a distinction need not be
made in the circumstances in which we stand and, therefore, the Committee
made the recommendation that notwithstanding the subjects contained in List
No. 1 and the Instrument of Accession, the representatives of the Indian
States should continue to take part in all motions that may relate to all
subjects irrespective of the distinction between the two lists.
The third question which the Committee felt they had to deal with was
the position of the Ministers. As the House knows, there are certain Ministers
who are at present not Members of the Constituent Assembly. They are five
in all who fall in that category. The question therefore arises for consideration
whether the Ministers who are Members of the Constituent Assembly should
take part in the proceeding of the Constituent Assembly and also in the
Legislature. So far as their participation in the work of the Legislature is
concerned, the position is safeguarded by reason of the fact that Section 2
sub-clause (2) of the Government of India Act is retained by the Adaptation
and Members of the House know under the provisions contained in Section
10 sub-clause (2) a person, notwithstanding the fact that he is not a Member
of the Legislature, may still continue to participate in the work of the
Legislature and be a Minister. Under that, therefore, the Ministers who are
not Members of the Constituent Assembly will be eligible to sit in the
Constituent Assembly when its functions as a Legislature, without ceasing to
be Ministers of State.
The question that remains is, what is to happen with regard to their
relationship to the Constituent Assembly. At present, as they are not
Members of the Constituent Assembly, they are not entitled to
participate in the work of the Constituent Assembly so far as it
relates to the making of the Constitution. The Committee came to the
conclusion that it was necessary that their guidance should be available to
312 CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY OF INDIA [29TH AUGUST 1947

[The Honourable Dr. B.R. Ambedkar]

the Constituent Assembly in the matter of constitution-making and therefore
just as Section 10 sub-clause (2) permits them to participate in the work of
the Legislature so also the Constituent Assembly should make a provision
which would permit Members of Government who are not Members of the
Constituent Assembly also to participate in the work of the Constituent
Assembly.
Sir, there are two other matters about which the Committee has made no
recommendation and it is necessary that I should refer to them. The first
matter is the question of double membership. As the House knows there are
certain Members of the Constituent Assembly who are also Members of the
Provincial Legislature. So far there is no anomaly, because the Constituent
Assembly is not a Legislature. But when the Constituent Assembly begins to
function as a Legislative Body, this conflict due to double membership will
undoubtedly arise. I might also draw attention to the provision contained in
Section 68 (2) of the Government of India Act which deals with this matter.
Section 68 (2) did not permit a member to hold double membership of two
Legislatures, the Central or Provincial. But this provision has now been dropped
by the adaptation. Consequently, it is permissible for Members of the
Constituent Assembly when they are functioning as Members of the Legislature
also to be Members of another Legislative Body. The anomaly, of course,
purely and from a strictly constitutional point of view does remain. It is for
the Constituent Assembly to decide whether they will accept the principle
embodied in the omission of Section 68 (2) and permit double membership
or whether notwithstanding the dropping of Section 68 (2) they will take such
suitable action as to prevent double membership.
The second question about which the Committee has made no
recommendation is relating to the administrative organization of the Assembly.
As the administrative organization in the Assembly is a single unified
organization it is under the exclusive control of the President of the Constituent
Assembly. So long as the Constituent Assembly had only this single and
solitary function to perform, namely, to prepare the constitution, there was no
difficulty, in this matter. But when the Constituent Assembly will function in
its double capacity, once as the constitution-making body and another time as
a law-making body with another person at the head of it, namely, the Speaker
or the Deputy Speaker, questions with regard to the adjustment of the staff
may arise. But the Committee thought that they were not entitled under the
terms of reference to deal with this matter and therefore did not make any
reference to it at all.
Sir, I do not think it is necessary for me to take the time of the House
any more than I have done. I think what I have said will sufficiently remind
Members of what the Committee has done and will enable them to proceed
to deal with the report in the best way they like.
Mr. President: Mr. Munshi has given notice of a Resolution embodying
the recommendations of this Committee. I think it will be best if that motion
is taken up first and the discussion may follow later.
Dr. P. S. Deshmukh: Would it not be better if we first take the motion
that the report to be taken into consideration and after a decision on that take
up the other amendments?
 REPORT OF THE CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY FUNCTIONS COMMITTEE 313

Mr. President: Is it necessary to have a separate discussion on the

motion for considering the Report? I think both can go together if the
House permits. Strictly speaking, that Resolution which Mr. Munshi moves
is practically the same thing.
Mr. K. M. Munshi (Bombay: General): I move the Resolution which
stands in my name. The paragraphs of the Resolution which I seek to
move are almost in the words of the Report, except one or two things to
which I will presently draw the attention of the House. The clauses are
taken bodily from the Report which has been explained to the House by
the Honourable Dr. Ambedkar. I need not, therefore, go over the same
ground again, but I would like to draw the attention of the House to one
or two changes which I have made and which I think were necessary in
the interests of giving proper effect to the Report.
Para. (iv) runs as follows:
“Suitable provision should be made in the Rules of the Constituent Assembly for the
election of an officer to be designated the Speaker to preside over the deliberations of the
Assembly when functioning as the Dominion Legislature.”
In this connection, I have to mention that the Report has placed before
the House two alternatives:
Alternative (a) is that the President of the Constituent Assembly should
be a person whose whole time is given to the work of the Assembly both
when engaged on Constitution-making and when transacting business of the
Dominion Legislature. They have also stated another alternative: If the
President of the Constituent Assembly is a Minister, provision may be
made in the Rules of the Constituent Assembly for the election of an
officer to preside over the deliberations of the Assembly when functioning
as the Dominion Legislature.
Sir, as you happen to be a Minister, I have selected the second
alternative and embodied it in my paragraph (iv) with the result that the
House will have to elect an officer to preside over the deliberations of the
Assembly when it functions as a Dominion Legislature.
The only other change that I have ventured to make is the name of
the officer whose election I have suggested, that upon election, the officer
should be designated Speaker, so that when the House sits as the Constituent
Assembly, we will have the President presiding over it and when it sits
as a Legislature, the officer elected will preside and we will address him
as Speaker. The word Speaker being of sufficient significance, it will convey
that we are sitting as the Legislature and not as the Constitution-making
body. That is the only change which I have ventured to make. I submit
that the motion as have moved may be accepted by the House.
Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad (West Bengal: Muslim): Sir, on a point of
order, the motion has not been read out and moved.
Mr. K. M. Munshi: I will read it out certainly. I am much obliged
to the Honourable Member for drawing attention to this and I stand
corrected. My motion stands as follows:
“That with reference to the Motion by the Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar regarding
the consideration of the Report on the functions of the Constituent Assembly under the
Indian Independence Act, it is hereby resolved that—
314 CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY OF INDIA [29TH AUGUST 1947

[Mr. K. M. Munshi]
(i) The functions of the Assembly shall be—
(a) to continue and complete the work of Constitution-making which commenced on
the 9th December, 1946, and
(b) to function as the Dominion Legislature until a Legislature under the new
Constitution comes into being.
(ii) The business of the Assembly as a Constitution-making body should be clearly
distinguished from its normal business as the Dominion Legislature, and different
days or separate sittings on the same day should be set apart for the two kinds of
business.
(iii) The recommendations contained in para. 6 of the Report regarding the position of
representatives of Indian States in the Assembly be accepted.”
I have incorporated para. 6 of the Report. The operative part of that para
is as follows:
“We agree that, as implied in the wording of this term of reference, the members of the
Assembly representing the Indian States are entitled to take part in the proceedings of the
Assembly on all days set apart for the business of Constitution-making. They further have the
right on days set apart for the functioning of the Assembly as the Dominion Legislature to
participate in business relating to subjects in respect of which the States have acceded to the
Dominion. Though it is competent for the Constituent Assembly to deny or limit their
participation in business relating to subjects in respect of which the States have not acceded,
we should recommend that no ban or restriction be placed by rule on their participation in such
business also.”
Coming to my resolution,
“(iv) Suitable provision should be made in the Rules of the Constituent Assembly for the
election of an officer to be designated the Speaker to preside over the deliberations of the
Assembly when functioning as the Dominion Legislature.
(v) The power of summoning the Assembly for functioning as the Dominion Legislature
and proroguing it should vest in the President.
(vi) Ministers of the Dominion Government, who are not Members of the Constituent
Assembly, should have the right to attend and participate in its work of constitution-making,
though until they become members of the Constituent Assembly they should not have any right
to vote.
(vii) Necessary modifications, adaptations and additions should be made—
(a) by the President of the Constituent Assembly to the Rules and Standing Orders
of the Indian Legislative Assembly to bring them into accord with the relevant
provisions of the Government of India Act as adapted under the Indian
Independence Act 1947.
(b) by the Constituent Assembly or the President, as the case may be, to the Rules
and Standing Orders to carry out the provisions of para. 9 of the Report and
where necessary to secure an appropriate adaptation of the relevant section of the
Government of India Act to bring it into conformity with the new Rule.”
In this connection I may mention one fact which I omitted to mention in
the beginning. The power of summoning the Assembly and proroguing is,
according to the Resolution moved by me and according to the report, to be
vested in the President. As already stated, under the Government of India Act,
as adapted, for the moment it rests with the Governor-General. That of course
means, Governor-General as advised by the Prime Minister. But our legislative
function being only an aspect of the Constituent Assembly as a whole, it is
necessary that the Constituent Assembly should remain independent of the
Governor-General. Therefore, it was thought that the President would be the
proper person to summon or prorogue the Legislative Council.
These are all the remarks that I have to make and I hope the House will
accept the resolution.
 REPORT OF THE CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY FUNCTIONS COMMITTEE 315

Mr. President: I have got notice of certain amendments. I find that four
of these amendments are covered by the Resolution which Mr. Munshi has
moved and therefore they need not be moved. There are two amendments of
which I have noticed which are not covered by Mr. Munshi’s Resolution, one
by Mr. Ananthasayanam Ayyangar and the other by Mr. T. T. Krishnamachari.
(Shri M. Ananthasayanam Ayyangar did not move his amendment.)
Shri T. T. Krishnamachari (Madras: General): Sir, I am not moving the
amendment; but I would like to say a few words on the motion before the
House.
Mr. President: There is no other amendment. The resolution is now open
for discussion. You can speak now.
Shri T. T. Krishnamachari: Mr. President, my object in speaking on this
motion moved by Dr. Ambedkar and the amendment thereto of
Mr. Munshi is to obtain elucidation on a few points, because as things are
one feels he is in a maze of conflicting proposals. The first point that I would
like to draw the attention of the House to is in regard to sub-section (vi) of
Clause 1 of Mr. Munshi’s amendment. The Honourable Dr. Ambedkar in
moving the main motion drew attention to the fact that the Report had taken
cognisance of Section 10 sub-section (2) of the Government of India Act
thereby providing the members of Government who are not members of this
Assembly the right to participate in the proceedings. This is again reiterated
in the resolution which is moved as an amendment to the main motion. Sir,
I would like to know whether the limitation that exists in sub-section (2) of
Section 10 of the Government of India Act, namely, that those members of
Government can continue in the capacity and hence can participate only for
a period of six months and not more and during that time they have got to
be qualified by becoming members of the Assembly applies to the members
of the present Government. That is a point that I would like either
Dr. Ambedkar or Mr. Munshi to make clear.
The second point I would like to mention is in regard to the designation
of the officer that has been suggested to preside over the Dominion legislature.
I am afraid there is some conflict between the adaptation of the Government
of India Act and what Mr. Munshi stated. The adaptation of the Government
of India Act deals rather drastically with Section 22 which refers to the
presiding officers of the Legislature under the 1935 Act. Sub-sections (1), (2),
(3), and (5) of this section have been omitted and sub-section (4) reads thus
in its original form:—
“There shall be paid to the President and Deputy President of the Council
of States such salaries as may be respectively fixed by Act of the Federal
Legislature, and, until provision in that behalf is so made, such salaries as the
Governor-General may determine”. The adaptation merely says that in sub-
section (4), for “and the Deputy President of the Council of State”, substitute
“of the Dominion Legislature”. So the provision remains more or less intact
so far as sub-section (4) is concerned, except the change that is contemplated
in the nomenclature of the legislatures and the words the Council of State and
the Lower House have been removed and the words “the Dominion
Legislatures” substituted. So when the entire scheme has been changed and
the name Speaker has been wiped out in Section 22 of the Government of
India Act, and in the following Section 23, Ido not know if it is quite right
or legal for the name Speaker to be introduced here. It would
316 CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY OF INDIA [29TH AUGUST 1947

[Shri T.T. Krishnamachari]

probably be better to adopt the wording of the original report namely ‘an
officer to preside’, whatever the designation he might get ultimately.
The third matter on which I would like some elucidation is this. That is
sub-clause (v) of Clause 1. The position taken up in this sub-clause is quite
correct from our point of view since this is a sovereign body entitled to
frame its own rules of procedure and appoint its own officers. But so long
as we shall be functioning under the Government of India Act which we have
adapted as a legislature, why not take the adaptation a little further and make
it state that the Governor-General shall not have the power a proroguing and
summoning the Assembly which shall be vested in the President? I do not
think there is any legal bar to an adaptation of this sort. As I said, at the start
I am open to correction: But I think that the position could be suitably
rectified by proper legislative procedure rather than by means of a motion and
an amendment thereto, or by an explanation by the mover of the amendment.
I refer to Mr. Munshi.
Sir, yet another matter which I would like to mention here and which
relates to the amendment of which I had given notice, is this. We are dealing
with a number of anomalies because the position in which we are now placed
is not of our own creation. A number of factors have come into play by
reason of the rapidly changing political position of our country and we have
to carry on as best as we could. In the circumstances, without going into
personalities, I think it best, Sir, that the sphere of action of the presiding
officers of the Constituent Assembly over its two functions should be clearly
defined and that is why I wish Mr. Munshi had reproduced in his amending
resolution those words in paragraph 6 of the Committee’s report which had
clearly stated it has to be remembered that though transacting two kinds of
business, the Assembly is one and can have only one President and that the
President should be the supreme head of it, both on its administrative side
and on its deliberative side. I may at once assure the House that in bringing
to the notice of the House this Particular clear and precise enunciation of the
functions of the President and the consequent delimitation of the functions of
any officer that the President or the House might appoint, I have no intention
of either trying to put extra power in the hands of anybody or take away the
power of anyone else. Only I feel that when we are dealing with circumstances
over which we had no control,—we are trying as best as possible to get on
with the work that we are obliged to do—let us have a precise definition here
and now so that later on, whatever happens, if by any chance there is any
conflict, it will be known exactly who is the supreme authority. I wish
Mr. Munshi had put this idea in his amending resolution. It is quite adequate
for our purpose if it is acknowledged by the mover that the wording of the
report of the Committee is supreme and that it cannot be altered even by the
amending resolution which has been moved. I think that assurance will serve
the purpose. After all the position that we are envisaging now might last only
for six or eight months. Thereafter, this Assembly will function principally as
the Dominion Legislature, until the new Constitution comes into operation,
and there might have to be other changes also in the status and powers of the
presiding officer. But for the time being I think a precise definition of the
sphere of his activities and emphasis on the fact that the President of the
Constituent Assembly, notwithstanding the fact that he concedes with the
permission of the House some powers to another person, still remains the
supreme head both in regard to the administrative and deliberative
 REPORT OF THE CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY FUNCTIONS COMMITTEE 317

sections of the House, will go to satisfy fears and doubts in the minds of
Members. I also hope that either Dr. Ambedkar or Mr. Munshi will try to
clarify the doubts that I have stated in regard to items (iv) and (vi) of
Clause 1 of the amendment moved by Mr. Munshi.
Mr. D. H. Chandrasekharaiya (Mysore State): Mr. President, I rise to a
point of order. It is this. Whenever a report is brought up for consideration
before this House the motion made is that the report be taken into consideration.
After the Report is considered, the decision of the House is taken on the
motion, and then clauses are taken up one after another. What has happened
now is that the motion stands undecided and Members are permitted to move
their amendments, and then even the amendment which Mr. K. M. Munshi
has moved is so omnibus in character and covers so many points that it will
be difficult for the Members to discuss them all together. What I would
suggest is that a decision might first be taken on the motion moved by the
Hon’ble Dr. Ambedkar, and then each one of the points covered by
Mr. Munshi’s amendment might be taken up separately for discussion and
decided. This is my point of order.
Mr. President: I think the point of order which has been raised now was
raised at an earlier stage, and at that time I found generally the desire of the
House was that it would serve no useful purpose to have two discussions, one
on the motion to take the report into consideration and another on the
Resolution of Mr. Munshi dealing with the details, and therefore I allowed
both to be taken up together. Both are now under discussion and Members
are at liberty to speak on the Resolution which has been moved, in which all
the details covered by the Report are put in.
Dr. P. S. Deshmukh: Mr. President, Sir, I would not go so far as to
describe the present situation created by the presentation of the Report and
the proposals embodying the proposed decisions on the Report as a messy
situation, as has been done by my friend who preceded me,
Mr. Krishnamachari. But I must say, Sir, that I consider the Report not very
satisfactory. If we analyse the contents of the Report, I think many Members,
if not most, will agree with me that the Report states either what is most
obvious or what is a matter of pure commonsense for anybody. Secondly the
Report contains certain alternative proposals. For example, it says you can
have one President or two as you like. Stating alternative is, I submit, Sir, of
no use. What we expect such a committee to do is to give us proper guidance.
It is clear that the Ambedkar, that they relied more upon logic and on what
was political, rather than giving this House a direction as to what was legal
and constitutional. I refer to the recommendation as regards the States
representatives. Let it be remembered that we have no quarrel whatever with
the States representatives whether they have come here on behalf of the rulers
or the people. I welcome them; I would like them to be absolutely identical
with us and have all the privileges and all the right that any of us coming
from other parts of India have. But nonetheless I believe it was the duty of
the Committee to tell us what the legal position was so far as the exercise
of the rights of these persons coming from the States and sitting in this
House was concerned. It was not necessary to tell us what was logical and
political. We can and shall exercise that discretion ourselves. The direction
that we really wanted was as to what is constitutional and what would be
legal and then ultimately there might have been a sentence or two with regard
to the property of their proposal. And I should like to, make it clear that I
mean no offence to any particular member of the Committee and
318 CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY OF INDIA [29TH AUGUST 1947

[Dr. P.S. Deshmukh]

least of all to Dr. Ambedkar—but there is a fair number of members in
this House who characterise the work that is done by several of our
committees in the same terms as I have been compelled to use in
connection with this particular report. And that is the reason why they
have not been satisfied with some of the reports that we got from time
to time at least from some of these committees.
Even so, Sir, I think it would be futile for me to hope that it will
be possible for you to give us more time for the consideration of the
Report or to refer the Report back to the same Committee for further
consideration. That is too much to expect. I have been sufficiently long in
politics and in the legislatures to know that wise counsels do not always
prevail. So I am not going to indulge in requesting you that the
Committee’s report should be turned down or it should be referred back.
All that I wish to point out is that what is before us is not satisfactory.
We have not been guided and directed on the lines on which we should
have been directed, and as such the whole situation is very unsatisfactory.
I will take only one or two points. I was very glad that Mr. Krishnamachari
made a very cogent speech and pointed out quite a few vital defects in
the Resolution that has been moved by Mr. Munshi. In fact the main
purpose and the main thing with which members of the Committee should
have concerned themselves was as to what is the result of the adaptations
which have been made behind our back. There is reference to only one
or two modifications that have been made. But all that is a fait accompli.
We have the whole Government of India Act altered to suit. God knows
whose convenience, or according to whose intelligence and dictation. But
we have certain ready-made decisions before us and we are trying to
tinker with them in certain places by means of this Report and the
Resolution. We have as a matter of fact at least two definite things before
us. Although we have been given the powers of a Legislative Assembly
and called a Dominion Legislature the adapters of the 1935 Act removed
the Speaker, the section referring to the election of Speaker having been
omitted. Secondly, we have all been agitated about the question as to
whether M.L.A.’s from the different provinces should sit here as full-
fledged members of both the Legislature and the Constituent Assembly or
not. The position is that that section by which a person was prevented
from being a member of two legislatures has been quietly removed from
the 1935 Act and this was Imposed upon this House. We have no quarrel
with it; we want to get on with the work. I am merely mentioning this
point by way of showing that the position is unsatisfactory. I do not
question the right of any one to change or modify the sections but the
whole situation is not sufficiently clear and not of such a nature as to
enable the members to be clear on any particular matter. Of course when
things are proposed and resolutions are moved we have got to support it
in whatever condition it is, and we are so anxious to get on with decisions
and Constitution-making that we do not mind in what messy or
unsatisfactory condition it is. But at the same time I want just by way of
criticism to suggest that it is not a very happy situation, and if it is
possible for you or the Mover of the Resolution or for the Mover of the
amendment to do something to attend to our grievance and redress it at
least in part I shall be obliged and I am sure many other Members of the
House also would feel obliged.
Shri Biswanath Das (Orissa: General): Sir, I have very little quarrel
with the Resolution that was so ably moved by Mr. Munshi but
 REPORT OF THE CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY FUNCTIONS COMMITTEE 319

I must frankly confess that I am not happy with the Report that has been
presented to us. The Report seems to support the adaptations which I am
afraid very few Members of this House will do. Both the Report and
Mr. Munshi’s Resolution therefore proceed on the basis that the Constituent
Assembly which has been the Dominion Parliament from the 15th of this
month has to function in absolutely two different capacities, namely, the
Constituent Assembly and the Dominion Parliament. Having taken up this
stand, namely absolute separation out and out, they necessarily follow the
same course throughout their plan and that in where the parting of the ways
comes in. A reading of the Indian Independence Act of 1947 shows that the
Constituent Assembly is the supreme legislature of this country. That is a
position which has been accepted by the Constituent Assembly, or if not by
the Constituent Assembly, at least it has been accepted by our leaders and the
Constituent Assembly is a party to it from the 14th August. This Constituent
Assembly has accepted the Indian Independence Act, has elected its leader
and has authorised the leader to go and invite Lord Mountbatten to be the
Governor-General of India. In that view of the question, the Constituent
Assembly as such, has accepted the position assigned to it by the Indian
Independence Act of 1947. Therefore there is no use saying, today at this late
hour, that we function as two different bodies, that we function differently
and absolutely for different purposes. The purposes are one and the same; and
while on the one hand we have to prepare a Bill for the future constitution
of India and pass it into an Act we have also to look to the day to day
administration of the country and also undertake such other legislation as
might be necessary. Therefore the proposal of the Committee to function in
a dual capacity and also the Resolution of my Honourable friend
Mr. Munshi giving the silent approval of the House to the same cannot be
accepted by us. That is where my complaint is. Sir, if once we accept this
principle it means two Secretariats and that we will have the same experience
of the Secretariat of the Constituent Assembly who are not efficient nor very
polite and should undergo some training in politeness and good manners.
An Honourable Member: Can you prove that?
Shri Biswanath Das: Yes, if necessary I can cite examples. An Honourable
friend spoke about their inefficiency. I must say that the Secretariat of the
Constituent Assembly is not efficient. In these circumstances, these are mainly
additional arguments as to why we cannot take these two functions as dual
functions. If we undertake to do the work of the Constitution-making on
different days, with which suggestion I fully agree, it is not because we are
different, but for convenience of the transaction of the business. To quote
another illustration, let us take the disposal of the business in the High Courts.
There we have civil matters on one day, criminal on other days and so on.
In the same way this one single body will undertake the disposal of
Constitution-making on certain specified days, and ordinary legislative business
on some other days.
Mr. H. V. Kamath: The mike has become inefficient.
Shri Biswanath Das: It is a question of opinion. (Laughter)
Some Honourable Members: The mike is not working.
Shri Biswanath Das: I am very sorry. I will speak loud. That being
the position, I feel that the time has come when a little plain
320 CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY OF INDIA [29TH AUGUST 1947

[Shri Biswanath Das]

speaking is necessary and we have to make it very clear that we function
here as absolutely one legislature for no different purposes, except one of
convenience for the transaction of our business. Only to that extent am I
prepared to agree with the Committee that we may allot different days for
Constitution-making and different days or hours on the same day for ordinary
legislation or for the discussion of other measures an executive work. That
being the position, I suggest that this duality of functions should cease.
Mr. President: I am afraid the current has failed and so the mike is not
working. I take it the Members will just raise their voices so as to be audible
to the other Members.
Shri Biswanath Das : Yes, Sir, Having done that, I came to the second
question on which I wish to address the Honourable Members of this House,
and that is the question of adaptations. Sir, adaptations have been undertaken
without consulting the Honourable Members of this House and important
alternations have been made to which I must record here a note of protest.
Let me illustrate my point. We have met here in the Constituent Assembly,
in a single session. We have no session except one, namely we begin and we
will close as and when we decide. Our rules are very clear in his, If we
adjourn from time to time it is because for our own convenience and for the
convenient transaction of our business. But the fact remains that the Constituent
Assembly functions as one single body till its main business is over, namely,
the preparing and passing of our constitution. Sir, having seen those rules, the
Parliamentary Act has been framed which means it has been accepted. Therefore
the position remains that the Constituent Assembly sits all along, be it for one
year, or two years or six months, it is all one session. This being the position,
I strongly protest against the adaptations wherein it has been laid down that
the Governor-General has to summon us to sit in sessions of the Parliament
to transact business. It is no concern of his, no business of his. We are
members of the Constituent Assembly and the Constituent Assembly meets
and adjourns at its pleasure. We cannot delegate its functions to the Governor-
General however much we may love him, like him or respect him. Nor do
we delegate this important function to the Honourable President, though we
love him, like him, and esteem him. Sir, this adaptation is very unfortunate
and I think it is fair that we should record our protest.
Secondly, I come to prorogation. We have met and we ourselves shall
prorogue. No authority, no power on earth can make us prorogue this Assembly
and we cannot delegate this function to any other authority except the
Constituent Assembly itself. In this view of the matter, I am not prepared to
accept the adaptation. I have just picked up a few and there are a number of
other items on which adaptations are not necessary, nor are they fair to us.
I now come to the third question, the participation of the States. My
Honourable friends, the Members of this Committee have recommended to us
that they, the States representatives should be with us. We are prepared to have
them here. But is it their proposal that they should not only participate in our
deliberations and discussions but also in the matter of voting? I must frankly
confess that I must take more time to think over the question than what has been
given. So far as the States representatives are concerned, they constitute about 6
Members—a fairly good fraction of the strength of the legislature. It would
 REPORT OF THE CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY FUNCTIONS COMMITTEE 321

be very hard, very difficult for us to agree without further consideration

whether these 62 Members of the Constituent Assembly should be allowed
to vote with us also in a budget for which they have absolutely no
responsibility—except in respect of the three subjects.
Before closing. I would beg of you to consider the question, that we have
got a Legislative Assembly Secretariat, well-trained, efficient and ready at
hand to do the work. Under these circumstances, why should we have a
duplicate Secretariat, which means puzzle, expenditure and inefficiency? Under
these circumstances I would beg of you to consider this question from the
point of view of finance and from the point of view of efficiency.
Mr. Hussain Imam: Mr. President, I was very sorry to see that some of
our colleagues have taken objection and exception to the work of the
Committee. As a member of the Committee, I have come here to explain the
position in which we worked. We were restricted by the term of reference
which was originally framed here. The Members who are being wise now did
not suggest any modification in the term of reference. But now, having worked
under that restricted term of reference we are being criticised on two counts.
Firstly, that we have exceeded our limits and the other that we have not done
enough. These two self-contradictory charges have been levied. Now what
was the position of the committee? A committee is never superior to the
parent body which has created it. The parent body is always supreme and has
the right to modify or change the suggestions of the committee. The committee
cannot impose its will. What it really does is to bring forward before you in
a concrete form all the pros and cons of a particular course of business. Now,
it is obvious that the Constituent Assembly has dual functions. Even that has
been attached by the ex-Prime Minister of Orissa, that it should have no dual
functions. Now, this is what was regarded by one Honourable Member as
obvious and by the other Honourable Member as wrong. But what is the
position? Please remember that after the Indian Independence Act, the whole
power for making the constitution for today and tomorrow vests in you; for
the whole of the administration of today and till such time as the new
constitution starts functioning, the power vests in you. This House being in
that position, it cannot and should not ignore one of the two functions. The
genesis of this Committee was that a question was raised here and discussion
took place that at the present moment we should have some forum to question
the Executive Government on the actions which they are taking in the present
circumstances. Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru was present and after a lot of speeches,
he said that it would be better if some Committee were to sit and examine
all the implications and suggest ways and means. We were working really in
order to make arrangements for dual functions to be peformed simultaneously.
The two functions are so separate that they could have been kept in watertight
compartments. We might have sat in August, say, as the Constituent Assembly,
and in September as the Legislature. That was one of the courses open to us.
The other course open to us was that we should have separate days in the
same session. ‘The third course was that within the same day we should have
separate hours. All these subjects were referred to us and as conscientious
people we have not given any preference to any one of the three courses. We
have pointed out all the three courses that are open to you. You can have either
322 CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY OF INDIA [29TH AUGUST 1947

[Mr. Hussain Imam]

different hours in the same day, or you can have separate sessions, but we
have indicated that instead of different hours, we prefer different sittings. You
can have a morning sitting for one purpose and an afternoon sitting for
another purpose. That is all we have done. We have left the discretion entirely,
to you and the better course would have been to allow the Executive
Government which is responsible to the House to use its discretion and give
us the time for the legislative business just as they do for non-official business
in the sessions. We can similarly have two kinds of days, Constituent Assembly
and the Legislature. A time may come when the Constituent Assembly function
may become so small that even one day would be enough in the week and
four days may be devoted to legislative business, or at other times you may
have it the other way round. I mean, you may be doing the Constituent
Assembly work for four days in the week and one day only for the legislative
work.
Now, the question arises of duality of control. We have stated in so many
words that the President shall be the head of both the legislative and
Constitution-making work. Now, it is open to the House, if it thinks that a
particular type of executive. is required to carry on the secretariat work of the
Constituent Assembly when acting as Legislature, to make that rule. If it
thinks that it is necessary to have an amalgamation of the two sections, it can
do that also, or if it wishes that one side should be dismissed and another set
appointed, it has perfect power to do it. Why ask the Committee to take up
the burden when it is not in the terms of reference? It would be something
of an imposition. We are really there not to impose our will on you, but to
point out to you what are the courses open to you and what would be the
implications thereof. In fact, it has been said that we have exceeded our terms
of reference. In two instances, that was necessary because we found that we
were up against certain things which, though not strictly in the four terms of
reference, were nevertheless so pertinent and so germane to our discussions
that we could not ignore them and therefore we have submitted some
observations on those subjects. But we have taken care not in any way to
impose our will on you.
The question which was put about Section 10 (2) of the Government of
India Act, while it lays down that a Member of Government must become a
member of the Legislature within six months or vacate office, is also one of
those Sections which you can change and if the Executive Government feels
that a change is necessary it can make that change; or if it feels that it is
necessary to bring them into the Constituent Assembly, there are openings
enough for those Members to be brought in. I therefore think that it is really
making a mountain out of a molehill to suggest that any adaptation of the
clauses will stand in the way of the work. Knowing that it is a little bit
difficult and takes time to make adaptations, we have suggested a better
course, that the Constituent Assembly being a sovereign body and having the
right to have these rules framed as it likes, we have recommended that the
work which we think to be very essential and immediate should be done by
means of rule-making power. For instance, the question of summoning the
Legislature. Instead of suggesting that the clause should be changed
and the power should vest in some other authority than the Governor-
General we have suggested that the Constituent Assembly’s own rules
should be so adapted as to enable the President to have the power. But
to say that not even the President should have power to fix the date
 REPORT OF THE CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY FUNCTIONS COMMITTEE 323

and it is so important that the House cannot surrender that right to anybody
is, in my opinion, showing too much suspicion. Knowing the state of affairs
through which we are passing, we have to rely on our officers, on the President,
to do the right thing. The President is always subject to the House. Although
he is the supreme head, nevertheless, under the democratic theory he is subject
to the vote of the House. So if he does wrong you can always correct him,
but for executive functions you must have an executive head. There are certain
things which democracy even delegates to executive, and it is one of those
functions, i.e., The summoning of the Legislature, which is sought to be given
to the President. We always give directions. The executive carries them out.
For instance, the exact dates had not been fixed for the last session. The last
session was called on a date which the President found suitable and no one
raised an objection to that. So far the President has not used his discretion
in a wrong manner.
All these are human elements. We must not be creatures of rules and
regulations or theories. Let us remain human beings and regard things from
that angle and trust where trust is necessary and distrust where you must
distrust. Otherwise work cannot proceed. I therefore suggest that
Mr. Munshi’s resolution may be adopted.
Shri R. V. Dhulekar (United Provinces: General): *[Mr. President, I rise
to support the report which has been put before the House. So far as the
principles in it are concerned they are very appropriate and no one can have
any objection against them. In this connection I want to say a few things as
follows.
The first is that no one can have any objection to what is said in
Section 1 to the effect that our Constituent Assembly should continue to work
until the constitution is completed, and even after that it should continue to
work until the new Lower and Upper Houses are brought into existence. I
desire to say only one thing in this connection. It will be proper if we
confine the use of the words “Dominion Legislature” which constantly come
to our lips, to the Indian Independence Act. The reason is that the word
“Dominion”, somehow does not sound very good. In 1929, Dominion Status
was very much discussed and we had passed resolutions against it and in
favour of complete independence. Even though Dominion Status appears
attractive to many, yet if it is translated into Hindi, its meaning will be—the
place of slavery. And if it is translated into Persian or Urdu, then also it
would have the same meaning. Therefore I feel that if on some suitable
occasion, either the drafting Committee or our Assembly or the President
were to give it some such name as Indian Parliament, or Parliament of India,
then it would be very proper.
Besides, there is one more question about which many people
have misgiving, and that is as to what should be the rights of the
representatives from the States. I think that there representatives
should be able to discuss our problems and also vote upon them. I want to
tell those who have any misgivings that their fears are not proper.
*[ English Translation of Hindustani speech begins.
324 CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY OF INDIA [29TH AUGUST 1947

[Shri R.V. Dhulekar]

We must now consider the whole of India as a single unit, and every
individual who takes his seat here, every member who comes here should
find an honourable place. I think it would not be proper if we tell him
that he can speak only for a short while, or, when the occasion arises to
express a definite opinion (which comes only when hands have to be
raised either in support or opposition), we tell him that he has no right
either to vote or to express his opinion.
One other thing I want to say to those who think that those
representatives who are the Princes’ nominees should not have full liberty
of expression, because the States are backward. We see that some of our
Provinces are very progressive whereas some are backward. In some
Provinces rules and regulations have been framed which are democratic
and popular in form. Many good laws have been made for the workers
and peasants. In our United Provinces, “Gaon Hukumat” Bill and “Prajatantra
Rajya” Bill have been passed by the Assembly and now they will go to
the Upper Chamber, the Council. Such a Bill has not yet been passed by
any other Province. Therefore, it is not proper to say that States’
representatives should find no place here, only because the States are
backward. Some have also suggested that those representatives who have
been popularly elected should be given the opportunity to speak whereas
those who are nominated by the rulers, should be denied such facility. I
have to submit that they also should be given full facilities so that they
may be able to occupy their rightful place. I think that if they get
opportunity to see clearly, what democracy is, how legislative assembly
proceedings are conducted and what collective wisdom they contain, then
very soon they will endeavour to extend democracy there. It is for this
reason that I believe that it is not proper to insinuate that the nominated
representatives of the States should not have full rights. I am of opinion
that it is a very great task to take democracy a step further and this task
has been accomplished by our Dr. Ambedkar and his colleagues, and I
want to congratulate him very warmly.
There is one more question and that is that we are going to appoint
a Speaker for the Legislative Assembly—which is a popularly elected law-
making body. This is a very good suggestion. I do not approve of giving
power to the Governor-General for two reasons, firstly because he is a
foreigner and secondly because the word Governor-General does not sound
well. Therefore he should not have, the power of summoning or proroguing
the Assembly. It now remains to be settled as to who should have the
right of summoning and proroguing the Assembly; whether it should be
the President or the Speaker. When it was stated that the Honourable
President should not be the Speaker, because he is a Minister, then my
opinion was that when we appoint a Speaker, he should be given the right
of summoning or proroguing the Assembly. Because the argument which
applies to the first point also applies to the second one. If a Minister
should not have the right to sit in the Legislative Assembly as our President,
then this argument can be applicable there as well. But I also agree that
there is no harm in accepting the statement of some of our members that
we should not go into constitutional matters and their provisions.
Now the question of double-membership remains. Some members
have perhaps suggested that because of the presence here of many
representatives of Provincial Assemblies their work is likely to slacken
 REPORT OF THE CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY FUNCTIONS COMMITTEE 325

and therefore they suggest that double membership should be abolished. It has
been said that the Constituent Assembly should consider whether double
membership should be retained or not. My humble submission is that
Constituent Assembly has nothing to do with this question. Provincial
Assemblies have the right to send their elected representatives to the Constituent
Assembly; and the Provincial Assemblies have sent those men here in whom
they had full confidence; and these men are working here. My opinion is that
when we have worked in the Constituent Assembly from the very beginning,
then at this stage our ideal should be that there should not be any such
alteration in the Constituent Assembly as may make it difficult for those, who
come after us, to understand the task which we have already accomplished.
I admit that most of the prominent men of all provinces are here and it can
be said that the provinces may have to suffer some loss on that amount. But
my submission is that the distinguished men are here because they were
considered the fittest by the Provinces. Therefore there is great force in the
argument that double-membership should be retained till a new Legislative
Assembly is set up on the basis of new elections, and my humble submission
is that this question should not be over-emphasised.
Now I will conclude after saying this that in our existing constitution
there are many things which our Constituent Assembly has not yet considered;
and I suggest that the Constituent Assembly should be summoned at least
once before the meeting of the Legislative Assembly in which we will consider
the whole legal position. Before meeting as the Dominion Legislature there
should be a session of this Constituent Assembly in which all remaining
matters may be considered and the committee drafting the constitution may
have our collective opinion on all matters so that it may be able to draft a
good constitution. With these remarks I conclude my speech.]*
Mr. President: Mr. Tajamul Husain may speak now. I would ask him to
be brief. I want to finish the discussion at one o’clock.
Mr. Tajamul Husain: I will be brief, Sir. Sir, the question before us is,
how was this Assembly constituted? Was it constituted by any Act of Parliament
or how? Sir, it was not constituted by any statute or by any law. It came into
existence by means of the Statement of April 16. After that, it assumed power
and it became the Sovereign body for the whole of India. As such it is in
existence now and is continuing. We know there is no difference between the
Constituent Assembly as a constitution-making body and the Constituent
Assembly as a legislative body. Both are absolutely one and the same. There
is no difference. This Constituent Assembly has been summoned. To suggest
now that the Governor-General should go out of his way and summon us
again would be meaningless. You as President here, in my humble opinion
can summon us as Members of the Constituent Assembly to make a
Constitution for India or to make laws for the day to day administration of
the country.
Sir, now a point has been raised whether there should be another
President and another Speaker when we sit as a legislative body. I think,
Sir, that the President of the Constituent Assembly can continue to function
as President or Speaker of the legislative body. But the only difficulty
is that you happen to be, unfortunately or fortunately also a Member
of Government. Therefore, it has been suggested that it will not be right
or proper for you to sit there, because many questions will be asked

]* English Translation of Hindustani speech ends.

326 CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY OF INDIA [29TH AUGUST 1947

[Mr. Tajamul Husain]

about the departments in your charge and the difficulty will be in your
having to answer them as Member of Government or as Speaker. You
have got power given by us to delegate your power to anybody you like.
you can appoint a Deputy Speaker or some other functionary from any
one of us to discharge your duty. Now I will give you an instance for
a precedent. In Bihar, Dr. Sachidananda Sinha (who happens to be a
Member of this Assembly) was President of the Council at the same time
a Member of the Executive Council of the Government. He functioned in
both the capacities at the same time. If such a thing can be done under
the British rule, why can it not be done under our own rule, Sir? Therefore
I submit that there is absolutely no necessity for the Governor-General to
call us again in different capacities. We are already in existence and
continuing and a meeting can be called by you at any time you wish. It
will be proper for you when necessary to leave the Chair and appoint a
Deputy Speaker in your place to carry out your duties.
Pandit Hiralal Shastri (Jaipur State): *[Mr. President, my friends
Dr. Deshmukh and Mr. Dhulekar, have asked me to make my humble
submission before you. Some are of opinion that from the Constitutional
and legal point of view the representatives of Indian States should not be
given equal rights here; others have suggested that even though the States
are backward, they should be allowed to participate fully. I revere this
Constituent Assembly and I deem it an honour to be elected as its member.
But I cannot help saying that this Assembly has been summoned under
special circumstances and many persons of different shades of opinion are
included in it. There are many who have come here through the Provincial
Assemblies and many have come from the Indian States. Even among
those who come from the States there are different categories. There are
some who have been nominated by the rulers, some who are self-nominated
and some who are called elected representatives though there can be genuine
objection against calling them elected. There are some who are themselves
ruling chiefs, though small. One class is of those who are Princes and
there are others who can be called Heirs-apparent. In this fashion, many
different types of men have come here. Circumstances were pressing; we
were invited hesitatingly and we reached here after many obstacles. I will
not repeat these matters; you all know them very well. But today we have
taken our seats here just like the representatives of the Provinces. I hope
you do not think that we have come here as beggars, or that we have to
beg against the law and the Constitution. There was a time when the fight
for the country’s freedom was being fought here. In that fight the Indian
States’ people took part without any invitation. and fought shoulder to
shoulder with you. They did not require any invitation. Therefore today,
we have not come uninvited. We are here on invitation of some sort or
other, and we are here in this gathering. Now, having come in, there is
a talk of serving different kinds of purposes. We may be told “Look here,
friend, you can deal with three matters but you must not touch the rest,
because it is against your Interest.” This can be said but you should not
say it. You can count on us that we ourselves will stay away from that
which is not proper for us to discuss. We may ourselves not take part in
those things; but if that is the decision then I have nothing to ask for,
from you. It is our misfortune that our rights have not been fully
recognized, but if we are here by right, then no matter whether they be
*[ English Translation of Hindustani speech begins.
 REPORT OF THE CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY FUNCTIONS COMMITTEE 327

Rulers or Princes, or Heirs-apparent, whether they are nominated (by these

rulers) or self-nominated or whether they are Prime Ministers, they are all
equal. They are, in no way backward, but are progressive and they also
include men of action. All have come here without any distinction of
caste or creed and their rights should be equal. That is my opinion.]*
Mr. President: I think we have had enough discussion on this, I would
now call upon Dr. Ambedkar to reply.
The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar. Mr. President, the report made by
the Committee obviously has received a mixed reception. Some members of
the House have described it as a messy document. I do not propose to give
any reply to those who have described the Report in those terms, because
personally I think that the arguments advanced by them do not deserve
sufficient consideration. All that I propose to do in reply is to meet some
technical points which have been raised by my friends Dr. Deshmukh and
Mr. Biswanath Das. Dr. Deshmukh refers to two recommendations made by
the Committee. One was the recommendation relating to the permission to be
granted to the Members representing the States for taking part in all the
deliberations of the Committee. The second recommendation to which he
referred was the recommendation in respect of the Ministers of the State to
whom the Committee said it might not be desirable to permit to take part
also in the proceedings of the Assembly, Dr. Deshmukh said that all that the
Committee observed was logical or convenient. The Committee did not say
whether this was constitutional. I am very much surprised at that question
particularly because Dr. Deshmukh happens to be a lawyer. As a matter of
fact he ought to have realised that we have really no constitution at all. The
Constituent Assembly is making a Constitution, and anything that the
Constituent Assembly does would be constitutional (Hear, hear). If the
Constituent Assembly say that the State representatives should not take part
that would be perfectly constitutional. If the Constituent Assembly said that
they should, that would also be perfectly constitutional. Therefore that sort of
observation I thought was entirely misplaced. With regard to the point raised
by my friend Mr. Biswanath Das, I also feel a considerable amount of surprise
that he should have thought fit to make the observations he made. If I
remember correctly what he said, his observations related to two points. He
said that the Committee was dividing the Constituent Assembly into two
parts, that it was an indivisible body, that it was functioning as an integral,
one whole. Well, I do not know whether he is not in a position to appreciate
that the working of a constitution is quite different from the making of ordinary
law. The distinction, it seems to me to put it in a nutshell, is that the Constituent
Assembly, is not bound by the Constitution. But a Legislature is bound by the
Constitution. When the Constituent Assembly functions as a legislature it would
be bound by the Government of India Act as adapted under the Independence
Act. Anybody would be in a position to raise a point of order. Anybody would
be in a position to say whether a particular motion is ultra vires or intra vires.
But such a question can certainly not arise when the Constituent Assembly is
functioning as a body framing the Constitution. And I thought that
was a sufficiently substantial distinction to enable us to understand notionally
at any rate that the two functions were different that the purposes were different,
that the work was different and if we are intending to avoid confusion, the
practical way of doing so would be to let the Constituent Assembly

]* English Translation of Hindustani speech ends.

328 CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY OF INDIA [29TH AUGUST 1947

[The Honourable Dr. B.R. Ambedkar]

meet in a separate session as distinct from a legislature. He also raised
some grouse against the adaptations. Now, I must frankly say that no one
here is responsible for the adaptations that have been introduced in the
Government of India Act, 1935.
If he refers to section 8 sub-clause (1) of the Indian Independence
Bill, he will realise that under that section the power of adapting the
Government of India Act of 1935 to suit the new status, which the
Constituent Assembly has as a legislature, has been vested entirely in the
Governor-General. I think it is possible that the Governor-General did take
advice from some source in order to decide what adaptations to introduce.
Therefore, at the present moment, nobody is responsible for it. If the
Constituent Assembly is not satisfied with the adaptations which have been
introduced in the Government of India Act, the very same section 8 sub-
clause (1) states that the Constituent Assembly would be perfectly within
its competence to change the adaptations and to introduce any other that
it may like. I therefore, submit, Sir, that there is no substance in the
points that have been raised by the critics of the Committee.
One other point to which my friend Mr. Krishnamachari referred: He
said that Mr. Munshi’s resolution omitted to take into account the second
part of the report which dealt with the question that the President was the
sole authority both on the deliberative and administrative side. He questioned
why the resolution which has been framed and submitted to us by
Mr. Munshi, practically accepting all the proposals of the Committee did
not contain this particular provision. I should like to say that if
Mr. Krishnamachari reads the report carefully, he will find that that particular
part of the report is an observation on the part of the Committee and not
a recommendation and therefore, I submit my friend Mr. Munshi was
perfectly justified in not referring to it.
Pandit Lakshmi Kanta Maitra: Sir, I want to ask Dr. Ambedkar
certain information. First of all, I want to know from him whether or not
he is convinced that there is necessity for re-adaptation and if so, is it in
his contemplation to bring any fresh adaptation in respect of certain matters
before the next session of the Constituent Assembly or at any earlier date.
For instance, the abolition of Speakership in the Government of India Act
and its introduction in this recommendation here. There are also certain
other matters: for instance, Ministers who are not members of the
Constituent Assembly but who are required to be members. Is it
contemplated to bring in any other measure for re-adaptation in respect of
such parts?
Secondly, he has just referred in his speech to the fact that he did not
go into the question of the administrative control of the department that is
going to be set up and he said that it was beyond the terms of reference,
if I understand him aright. There is some apprehension in our minds that
there is likely to be conflict in the event of another independent machinery
being set up for this Organisation when it is to function as the legislature.
The third question is whether or not the proposal as made in the
resolution which has been moved by Mr. Munshi, is going to be a purely
temporary one, only for the period we continue to function in a dual
capacity, as a constitution-making body as well as the legislature?
 REPORT OF THE CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY FUNCTIONS COMMITTEE 329

An Honourable Member: Is it a speech or a question?

Mr. President: I would remind Pandit Maitra that he cannot make a
speech. He has put the question and Dr. Ambedkar will answer if he
chooses.
An Honourable Member: Even the question is out of order.
Pandit Lakshmi Kanta Maitra: Why is it not permissible? when the
honourable member replies to the debate and an honourable member does
not understand, he is perfectly within his right in asking further questions
to get points cleared up.
Mr. President: You have put the question. Dr. Ambedkar will reply.
The Honourable B. R. Ambedkar: I shall be brief. The first question
was whether we contemplate any change in the adaptations of the
Government of India Act. My answer is that that is a matter for the
House to determine what adaptations the House wants. But I want to
assure my friends here that we have got the power to change the
adaptations. The Government of India Act with its adaptations is not entirely
binding on us in the sense that a change is not beyond our purview. If
the House, on a reconsideration of the matter, finds that certain adaptations
ought to be changed, it would be perfectly possible to undertake that
provision.
The second question which my honourable friend Mr. Maitra put to
me was whether the unity of administration is likely to be affected and
there is likely to be a conflict in view of the fact that there may be two
offices, one President presiding over the Constituent Assembly and secondly
a Speaker presiding over the legislative body. What the Committee has
said is that there is a theoretical possibility of conflict. But I take it that
there need not necessarily be a conflict. In practice, it should be perfectly
possible for the two offices, the President and the Speaker of the Assembly
to work in union and to so arrange the timing of the Constituent Assembly
as well as the legislative body in perfect order so that notwithstanding the
fact that we have two offices, we need not be afraid that there would
necessarily be a conflict.
With regard to the third question, obviously, the arrangement that we
are making now for the purpose of converting the Constituent Assembly
into a legislative body, undoubtedly will be temporary. It would last so
long as the function of constitution-making has not been completed. When
the function of constitution-making is completed, obviously, one or the
other arrangement would vanish and we shall then continue only to function
as a legislature.
Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad: One more question. The honourable member
has said that readaptation may be made by the House. Is it possible for
the Governor-General to make further adaptations?
The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: It is a question of law. This
House has power to change the adaptation.
Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad: I do not deny that. That question is whether
in the opinion of the honourable member, the Governor-General can make
further adaptation.
330 CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY OF INDIA [29TH AUGUST 1947

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: He can not, because he will

have to act on the advice of his Ministers.
Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad: Whether he can do so on the advice of his
ministers?
An Honourable Member: Is this a law court, or a cross examination?
The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: I am not sure and I do not
like to give an offhand answer.
Mr. President: I think we have to put the motion clause by clause as
was suggested. Clause 1.
“(i) The functions of the Assembly shall be
(a) to continue and complete the work of Constitution-making which commenced
on the 9th December, 1946, and
(b) to function as the Dominion legislature until a legislature under the new
Constitution comes into being.”
The motion was adopted.
Mr. President:
“(ii) The business of the Assembly as a Constitution-making body should be clearly
distinguished from its normal business as the Dominion Legislature, and different days or
separate sittings on the same day should be set apart for the two kinds of business.”
The motion was adopted.
Mr. President:
“(iii) The recommendations contained in para. 6 of the Report regarding the position
of representatives of Indian States in the Assembly be accepted.”
The motion was adopted.
Mr. President:
“(iv) Suitable provision should be made in the Rules of the Constituent Assembly for
the election of an officer to be designated the Speaker to preside over the deliberations of
the Assembly when functioning as the Dominion Legislature.”
The motion was adopted.
Mr. President:
“(v) The power of summoning the Assembly for functioning as the Dominion Legislature
and proroguing it should vest in the President.”
The motion was adopted.
Mr. President:
“(vi) Ministers of the Dominion Government, who are not members of the Constituent
Assembly should have the right to attend and participate In its, work of Constitution
making, though until they become members of the Constituent Assembly they should not
have any right to vote.”
The motion was adopted.
Mr. President:
“(vii) Necessary modifications, adaptions and additions should be made—
(a) by the President of the Constituent Assembly to the Rules and Standing
Orders of the Indian legislative Assembly to bring them into
 REPORT OF THE CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY FUNCTIONS COMMITTEE 331

accord with the relevant provisions of the Government of India Act as adapted
under the Indian Independence Act, 1947.”
The motion was adopted.
Mr. President:
“(b) by the Constituent Assembly or the President, as the case may be to the Rules
and Standing Orders to carry out the provisions of para. 9 of the Report and where
necessary to secure an appropriate adaptation of the relevant section of the Government of
India Act to bring it into conformity with the new Rule.”
The motion was adopted.
Mr. President: The question is:
That the Resolution as a whole be adopted, namely:
“1. That with reference to the Motion by the Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar regarding
the consideration of the Report on the functions of the Constituent Assembly under the
Indian Independence Act, it is hereby resolved that—
(i) The functions of the Assembly shall be—
(a) to continue and complete the work of Constitution making which commenced
on the 9th December, 1946, and
(b) to function as the Dominion Legislature until a Legislature under the new
Constitution comes into being.
(ii) The business of the Assembly as a Constitution-making body should be clearly
distinguished from its normal business as the Dominion Legislature, and different
days or separate sittings on the same day should be set apart for the two kinds
of business.
(iii) The recommendations contained in para. 6 of the Report regarding the position of
representatives of Indian States in the Assembly be accepted.
(iv) Suitable provision should be made in the Rules of the Constituent Assembly for
the election of an officer to be designated the Speaker to preside over the
deliberations of the Assembly when functioning as the dominion Legislature.
(v) The power of summoning the Assembly for functioning as the Dominion Legislature
and proroguing it should vest in the President.
(vi) Ministers of the Dominion Government, who are not members of the Constituent
Assembly, should have the right to attend and participate in its work, of
Constitution-making. Though until they become members of the Constituent
Assembly they should not have any right to vote.
(vii) Necessary modifications, adaptations and additions should be made,
(a) by the President of the Constituent Assembly to the Rules and Standing
Orders of the Indian Legislative Assembly to bring them Into accord with the
relevant provisions of the Government of India Act as adapted under the
Indian Independence Act, 1947.
(b) by the Constituent Assembly or the President, as the case may be to the
Rules and Standing Orders to carry out the provisions of para. 9 of the
Report and where necessary to secure an appropriate adaptation of the relevant
section of the Government of India Act to bring it into conformity with the
new Rule.”
The motion was adopted.
Mr. President: Now that this resolution has been carried, I purpose to
take up the adaptation of the rules and the Standing Orders and also such
sections of the adapted Government of India Act as are necessary.
With regard to the question which has been raised in the course of
the discussion about the staff. I propose to appoint a committee consisting
of the officials on the staff of the Constituent Assembly and on the staff
of the Legislative Assembly to prepare a scheme for re-organizing the two
Departments so as to make the work as efficient and as economical as
possible.
332 CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY OF INDIA [29TH AUGUST 1947

Mr. K. M. Munshi: May I point out that the day after tomorrow is
a holiday and Members are anxious that the Assembly should close
tomorrow ? The day after tomorrow is a Hindu holiday and most Members
want to return to their homes.
Mr. President: The matter is in the hands of the Members. I propose
to close the session tomorrow.
The Assembly then adjourned till Ten of the Clock on Saturday the
30th August 1947.