Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Mr. President: All amendments have been moved and the clause and the amendments are open for discussion.

Shri T. T. Krishnamachari: I have only one word to say in regard to the last amendment moved by Professor Saksena. He wants to cut out the initiative of the executive which has been preserved right through in these articles dealing with the financial provisions so far as expenditure and taxation are concerned. Actually it is a tradition which we have been following in this country which we have also incorporated in this Draft Constitution from the British model which has all through the centuries made it a matter of pure executive responsibility to initiate motions which involve taxation or expenditure. If it happens that a private member of Parliament can initiate Bills which will involve taxation and expenditure then the responsibility of the executive will be blurred for one thing and then it will be difficult for them to devise the ways and means to cover the expenditure. It is a principle well accepted in all constitutions that this initiative must rest with the executive. Of course I see that Professor Shibban Lal Saksena has not moved his other amendments wherein he wanted to give power to the Legislature to move amendments which would have had the effect of permitting Parliament to raise the rates of taxes in Bills seeking to impose fresh taxation or alter the existing tax structure. Apparently he has seen the unreasonableness of an amendment of that nature and he has given it up. But I do feel that if he follows the same line of thought he will find that a provision of this nature which he seeks to amend is already in the Government of India Act today and is to be other Legislature following this method of parliamentary system of Government, that the initiative must be kept absolutely without any dilution in hands of the executive. Therefore there has been no attempt in any of the Dominion Legislatures to take away this particular power that has been given to the executive. I think the amendment of Professor Shibban Lal Saksena cannot therefore be accepted and the clause must remain as it is.

Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad: Sir, I have to move my amendment No. 1727 not because I want to move it but because on this hangs the amendment of another honourable Member. I move it to accommodate the honourable Members. I beg to move:

"That clause (4) of article 98 be omitted."

Shri Jaspat Roy Kapoor (United Provinces: General): Before moving my amendment, I would like to thank my Honourable Friend, Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad, for having moved his amendment No. 1727, for that enables me to move my amendment to this amendment.

Sir, I am not moving amendment No. 14. I am moving amendment No. 15 only.

I move:

"That with reference to amendment No. 1727 of the List of Amendments, in clause (4) of article 98, after the words 'absence' the words 'the Chairman of the Council of State, or in the absence of both' be inserted."

Thereafter clause (4) would read:

"At a sitting of two House the Speaker of the People, or in his absence the Chairman of the Council of States or in the absence of both such person as may be determined by rules of procedure made under clause (3) of this article, shall preside."

Sir, I beg to move.

(Amendment nos. 1728 and 1729 were not moved.) Mr. President: So all the amendments have been moved of which we have received notice. does any one now like to speak?

Shri T.T. Krishnamachari: Sir, while I quite admit the logic of the amendment moved by Mr. Kapoor-I do not know what Dr. Ambedkar will do in the matter, but my own feeling is that the clause as it is had better stand rather than be amended by the suggestion of Mr. Jaspat Roy Kapoor for this reasons: The proper arrangement will be that either the Chairman of the Council of State should preside, and in his absence the Speaker should preside; or the arrangement should stand as it is, because the Chairman of the Council of States happens to be the Vice-President of India, and has a unique position, second only to that of the President, and perhaps the Premier or somebody like that. To put him in a position below the Speaker would mean a very invidious distinction-making a person who is likely to succeed the President or take over his duties under certain circumstances to be put below the Speaker of the House of the People.